LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

YASH DEVELOPERS versus HARIHAR KRUPA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1443 · Decided: 30-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1443 : 2024 INSC 559
Yash Developers 
v. 
Harihar Krupa Co-Operative Housing Society 
Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 8127 of 2024)
30 July 2024
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Aravind Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Development agreement in favour of the appellant was terminated 
by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) exercising 
its power under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas 
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Order 
of termination upheld by the High Court. Issue as regards scope 
of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution against 
an order passed under Section 13; accountability of officers 
exercising power coupled with duty under Section 13; Performance 
audit of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and 
Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and 
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – s.13 – Constitution of India – Article 
226 – Rehabilitation of slum dwellers – Appellant was appointed 
as a developer by respondent no. 1 – However, development 
was prolonged for over two decades – Development agreement 
terminated by the statutory authority – Apex Grievance 
Redressal Committee (AGRC) – Validity of the said power 
exercised by the AGRC – Order of termination upheld by 
the High Court – Plea of the appellant that the delay in 
implementation of the project was in various phases between 
2003 to 2011, 2011 to 2014 and 2014 to 2019 due to various 
reasons inter alia long-drawn litigation with a competing 
builder, delay in obtaining the environmental clearances or the 
delay due to non-cooperation of certain slum dwellers, in which 
the appellant had no role and was not at all responsible for:
Held: Under s.13(2), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has the 
power to redevelop the project if it is satisfied that the development 
is not proceeding within the time specified – This power of SRA 
* Author
1444
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
is coupled with a duty to ensure that the project is completed 
within time – The provision is a statutory incorporation of time 
integrity in the performance of the duty – SRA is accountable 
for the performance of this duty – The primary responsibility to 
implement s.13 and allied provisions and to monitor compliances 
of schemes and agreements vests with the CEO – If the actions 
of CEO are based on the directions of the SRA, then the SRA 
must equally bear the responsibility – A writ of mandamus would 
lie against the concerned authorities if they do not perform the 
statutory duty of ensuring that the project is completed within 
the time prescribed – Delay of 8 years in resolving disputes 
with a competing builder cannot be a justification under any 
circumstance – Appellant being a developer fully understands 
the process of obtaining environmental clearances while other 
sanctions and permissions are pending, and it was for him to 
make all the necessary arrangements – Non-cooperation of some 
of the members cannot be a ground for delaying the project from 
2014 to 2019 – AGRC and High Court correctly held that the delay 
caused due to the sanction of the draft development plan for the 
construction of the road cannot be a justification for delaying the 
project from 2015 to 2019 – Justifications given by the appellant 
for delaying the project, rejected – No merit in the present appeal, 
costs imposed – Though the justifications for delay are rejected, but 
there was dereliction of the statutory duty of the SRA in ensuring 
that the project is completed within time – There was negligence 
on the part of CEO and the SRA and they are accountable for 
their actions. [Paras 13, 14.1, 24, 26, 27]
Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to life – Slum 
Rehabilitation Scheme – Rehabilitation of slum dwellers:
Held: Execution of the project under the Slum Rehabilitation 
Scheme cannot be viewed as a real estate development project – 
There is a public purpose involved inextricably connected to the 
right to life of some of our brother and sister citizens living in 
pathetic conditions. [Para 27]
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and 
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Performance audit of – Litigation 
under the Act, worrisome – Directions for comprehensive 
statutory audit issued – Problem with the statutory scheme 
w.r.t issues such as identification and declaration of land as a 
slum; identification of slum dwellers; selection of a dev

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.