Upholding the termination of a developer’s appointment, Bombay high court has paved the way for redevelopment in Versova village, Andheri (W), after over 26 years. It held that Atlantic Construction Co. did not have the minimum 51% consent of eligible slum-dwellers mandatory under Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034.
“If it is held that it is not mandatory, it will lead to several difficulties, and a developer having the consent of a few eligible slum-dwellers will claim a right to redevelopment. Therefore, the requirement of 51% or more is specific and… mandatory,” said Justice Madhav Jamdar in the Sept 4 order.In Nov 1998, developer Atul Projects was appointed by Sahyog Kalpana CHS. As it failed to take steps for redevelopment, the appointment was terminated by SRA in Dec 2015. In Apr 2015, Dynamic Civil Developers was appointed which took no steps either. In Mar 2022, the society wrote to Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) CEO to terminate it as the developer.
In Apr 2022, through a public notice, the CEO rejected 517 schemes as dormant projects. In Jul 2022, the CEO informed the society that their scheme is dormant. In the Aug 2022 general body meeting called by SRA, 44 residents voted for Atlantic, and SRA appointed it as the developer. Atlantic obtained the requisite permission.
In Jan 2023, the HC set aside the CEO’s public notice on dormant schemes as affected persons were not heard. The CEO then initiated suo motu proceedings. On Feb 5, it terminated Dynamic’s appointment and granted the society liberty to appoint a new developer. On Jul 1, the apex grievance redress committee upheld SRA’s order. Atlantic challenged it in HC.
Senior advocate Girish Godbole, for Atlantic, said out of 97 eligible slum-dwellers, 14 affected by the coastal road project were shifted by BMC. Therefore, out of 83 eligible slum-dwellers, 44 gave Atlantic consent, and therefore the 51% required consent is fulfilled.Justice Jamdar noted that of the total 144 slum-dwellers, 14 were rehabilitated as project-affected persons (PAP) by BMC. Out of the remaining 130 slum-dwellers, 97 were held eligible. Atlantic’s architect “incorrectly represented” that 14 PAP allottees were within 97 eligible slum-dwellers and had to be excluded.
Agreeing with the society’s advocate, Amogh Singh, Justice Jamdar said it is an admitted position that even out of 44 residents who gave consent, 7 were allotted PAP tenements and not part of the slum rehabilitation scheme. “Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has got consent of only 37 eligible slum-dwellers out of 97… which is considerably lower than the minimum requirement of 49 slum-dwellers (51%),” Justice Jamdar said, dismissing the petition.
