UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED) & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. on 31 January 2020

1. Leave granted.

2. These civil appeals are filed by the original petitioners in WritPetition No.1902 of 2010 filed before the High Court of Judicature atBombay, aggrieved by the order dated 03[rd] May 2012 dismissing thewrit petition and further order dated 01[st] of July 2015 dismissing thereview petition.

3. In the aforesaid writ petition filed before the High Court, theappellants have challenged an order of the High Power Committee (HPC)dated 19[th] December 2009 by which, the demand made by the 2[nd]respondent Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) demanding premium ofan amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores Forty Seven LakhsSixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only), isconfirmed in respect of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 05[th] January 2005,issued in their favour for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The appellantsalso sought directions to direct the SRA to issue CommencementCertificate as per the existing guidelines.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A4. The appellant no.1 is the registered society of slum dwellers,who are stated to be residing on plot bearing no.CS No.51, 2/51, 3/51 ofMalabar Hill and Cumballa Hill Div. at Bhagwan Indrajit Road, Mumbai.The appellant no.2 is a rehabilitator who was approached by the 1[st]appellant-society to develop the said plot and rehabilitate its membersunder Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under Maharashtra SlumBRehabilitation Act, 1976. On the proposal for the aforesaid scheme, aLOI bearing no.SRA/Eng/875/D/GL/LOI dated 05.01.2005 has beenissued by the 2[nd] respondent-authority in favour of the 2[nd] appellant tocarry out the said rehabilitation. Since the said plot was within the areaof Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), the said LOI was issued subject toCclearance by CRZ authorities as provided under Clause 46, by the 1[st]respondent and Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority(MCZMA).

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the CoastalZone Management Authority, 1[st] respondent-Government issuedDnotification dated 16.04.2008. The Government of Maharashtra hasissued directives under Section 37(1) and Section 154 of the MaharashtraRegional & Town Planning Act. As per the above said directives issuedby the Government, developer/co-operative society is required to paypremium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner in respect of SlumRehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on the lands ownedEby the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies.In view of the said notification issued by the Government, the appellantswere demanded an amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight CroresForty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty NinePaise only) towards the premium.F[[nd]]

6. Questioning the letter of demand issued by the 2[[nd]] respondentfor the aforesaid sum, the appellants have approached the HPC. Eventhe HPC has considered the issue and rejected the claim of the appellantsthat they are not required to pay the premium amount as much as theywere already issued LOI dated 05.01.2005. Questioning the demand ofGRs.8,47,69,029.69 and further order issued by the HPC, the appellantshave approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.1902of 2010. The above writ petition was dismissed by the impugned orderdated 03.05.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and thereview petition filed by the appellants has also ended in dismissal byorder dated 01.07.2015.H

UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJCO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) v. STATE OF MAH. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

7. We have heard Sri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counselappearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the 1[st]respondent-Government and 2[nd] respondent-authority.

8. The Letter of Intent dated 05.01.2005 was issued in favour ofthe appellants in respect of the scheme, under Development ControlRegulation 33(10). Clauses 40 and 46 of the LOI read as under :

“40. That this LOI is valid for the period of 3 (three) months fromthe date hereof. However, if IOA/CC is obtained for any onebldg.. of the project then this LOI will remain valid till completionof estimated project period.

… … … …

46. That the confirmation from Govt. regarding the imaginary linefrom CRZ point of view shall be obtained before asking approvalof plans & if required the scheme shall be revised accordingly.”

9. As the area covered by the scheme was within the CRZ, theappellants have approached the Coastal Zone Management Authorityfor clearance. During the pendency of the application, the Governmentof Maharashtra has issued directives in exercise of power under Sections37(1) and 154 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act. Clause3 of the schedule thereto reads as under :

“3. Premium in respect of lands of public ownership:

The title of regulation No.1.11 of Appendix IV of Regulation 33(10)shall be changed as “Premium for ownership and terms of lease”.

Also following provision shall be added after the existing provisionsof Regulation 1.11 of Regulation 33(10).

“In addition to above, the Developer/Co-op. Housing Society shallpay premium at the rate of Twenty Five percent in terms of ReadyReckoner in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme proposed tobe undertaken on lands owned by Government, Semi-GovernmentUndertakings and Local Bodies.”

10. It is contended by learned senior counsel Sri Shekhar Naphadethat in view of the delay in clearance by the Coastal Zone ManagementAuthority, the appellants cannot be prejudiced, for payment of premiumpursuant to directions issued on 16[th] April 2008. It is submitted thatappellants were issued Letter of Intent on 05.01.2005. The delay which

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ais to be attributed to Coastal Zone Management Authority cannot comein the way of the appellants so as to recover huge amount ofRs.8,47,69,029.69 towards premium. On the other hand, learned counselappearing for the respondents have submitted that the validity of theLetter of Intent was only for a period of three months and the same wasnot extended and no representation to that effect was filed so as to keepBit alive. In view of the same, the conditions notified in the GR dated16.04.2008 will apply for the scheme.

11. In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was validfor a period of three months only. If, for any reason, delay is occurred inobtaining clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority,Cnothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation soas to keep the Letter of Intent alive. When the validity of Letter ofIntent itself is for three months and if the same is not kept alive, we areof the view that the premium is to be paid as per the GovernmentResolution dated 16.04.2008. By virtue of the aforesaid notification,Ddeveloper/co-operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% interms of the Ready Reckoner, in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Schemesproposed to be undertaken on the lands owned by the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies.

12. In that view of the matter the demand made by the respondentsEis in conformity with the law and we do not find any illegality in theimpugned orders passed by the High Court in either dismissing the writpetition or the review petition.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil appeals are devoid of meritand are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

F

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals dismissed.

G

H