Bombay High Court
Adarsh Nagar C S.R.A.Sahakari ... vs Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. ... on 10 January, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
919-OSWPL-606-2024.DOC
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 606 OF 2024
Adarsh Nagar CSRA Sahakari Grihanirman ...Petitioner
Sansthan Maryadit
Versus
Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt Ltd & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Sagar Ghagre, i/b Suraj S Ghogare, for the Petitioner.
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondents Nos 4, 5 & 6.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 10th January 2024
PC:-
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV
1. This matter is mentioned out of turn citing grave urgency
because at 12:30 pm today, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
("SRA") proposes to conduct a lottery for the allotment of the
rehab tenants. The prayers in the Petition at page 32 read thus:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside Notice
dated 3rd January 2024 (Exhibit "D") passed by
Respondent No. 4/SRA.
(b) In alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to
direct and issue writ of mandamus to Respondent No.
4/SRA to Respondent No. 6 to first complete allotment in
10th January 2024
919-OSWPL-606-2024.DOC
Building Nos. D, E and F in accordance with Circular No.
162 as directed by Hon'ble High Court in its dated 22nd
October 2021 (Exhibit "A") hereto and by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its order demolition date i.e. 29th April
2005, as per the proposal submitted by Respondent No.
1/Developer;
(c) In alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
appropriate writs, orders and directions to complete
allotment of tenements/flats under supervision of the
Hon'ble Court;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to not entertain any representation
or any form of interference from minority Organization
(Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti) for all purposes with regards
to implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme;"
2. The dispute was the subject matter of a Writ Petition that was
disposed of by the learned Single Judge by detailed order and
judgment of 22nd October 2021. A copy of that order is at page 51.
The operative portion of that order of GS Kulkarni J in paragraph 15
dealt with six buildings. Three were completed, viz., buildings D, E,
and F. Three other buildings were yet under construction, namely,
Buildings G, H and I. Paragraph 15 reads as follows:
"15. As the three buildings are now completed, the
developer shall, within three weeks from today, take steps to
make a proposal to the SRA to enable the SRA to undertake
allotment. Once such proposal is received, the SRA to
take immediate steps to proceed in accordance with the
circular no. 162 and make allotment of the tenements in
accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed (for
the completed buildings D, E and F) within a period of
10th January 2024
919-OSWPL-606-2024.DOC
one month from the receipt of such proposal. In respect
of the buildings G, H and I, let such exercise be
undertaken within a period of one month from the
developer informing the SRA about the completion of
these buildings."
(Emphasis added)
3. That order was carried to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No. 1359 of 2023. The resultant order of the Supreme Court of 15th
December 2023 is at Exhibit "B" from page 61. Paragraph 26 of the
Supreme Court order reads thus:
"26. Consequently, we dismiss this Appeal and uphold
the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the High Court of
Bombay. The order of status quo on allotment of flats
given by this Court on 24.01.2022 is also vacated. The
Slum Rehabilitation Authority is directed to carry out
the allotment of flats in accordance with law. All pending
interim applications are disposed of in terms of the
directions contained in the present judgment.
Considering the conduct of the Developer who has
evidently taken a surreptitious route bypassing the statutory
procedure, the SRA would be failing in its duty if it does not
seek explanation from the Developer in this regard and
takes suitable action in accordance with law."
(Emphasis added)
4. The present Petition claims that in an attempt to bypass the
order of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the SRA is
attempting to give effect to some private Memorandum of
Understanding with the 7th Respondent vide the notice at Exhibit D
to the Petition. The notice at Exhibit D by the SRA is of 3rd January
10th January 2024
919-OSWPL-606-2024.DOC
2024. A copy is at page 89. The notice says that the lottery will be
conducted for all six buildings since the balance three buildings are
also now complete.
5. This is apparently what aggrieves the Petitioner society, a
constituent member of the federation. Prayer clause (b) of the
Petition makes this clear. It seeks that the allotment for buildings D,
E and F be first completed before the allotment for buildings G,
and I is taken up.
6. There is absolutely no warrant for any apprehension nor for
the submission that it is only after the allotment for buildings D, E
and F is completed that the allotment for buildings G, H and I
allotment can be taken up. The only reason GS Kulkarni J could not
make an order for allotment for buildings G, H and I was that they
were not complete at the date of his order of 22nd October 2021.
The Supreme Court order also does not bear out what is submitted
before us. It is true that there was a status quo on allotment granted
on 24th January 2022, but that status quo stay was ultimately
vacated, and the SRA was directed to carry out the allotment of the
flats in accordance with law. The claim that the SRA is trying to
bypass orders of this Court and of the Supreme Court has no merit
whatsoever. The submission is based on a complete misreading of
the High Court and Supreme Court orders and seeks to inject into
those orders directions that are simply not to be found. There is no
logical reason why the allotment for buildings G, H and I should be
deferred or taken later. Had they been complete at the time of GS
Kulkarni J's order, allotment would undoubtedly have been ordered
10th January 2024
919-OSWPL-606-2024.DOC
for them as well. The only reason that allotment was not directed of
those three buildings was that their construction was then not
complete. Now that all six buildings are complete, there can be no
impediment to the entire allotment being taken up. Surely this is far
more efficient.
7. In any event, there is absolutely no prejudice that is likely to
be caused to the members of the Petitioner society if the allotment is
done for all six buildings. None is demonstrated. The members of
one society cannot dictate in which building they are to be given an
allotment. All members of the Petitioner are included in the lottery
process. Mr Reddy for the SRA specifically confirms so in response
to a question from us. He points out that at the instance of this one
Petitioner, the entire allotment process which covers 1308 eligible
persons is likely to be held up, delayed and will result in enormous
prejudice to other eligible allottees.
8. There is no merit in the Petition. It is rejected. There will be
no order as to costs.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
10th January 2024
