In Gopal Dinkar Vanave & Another v/s Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai & Others, a Writ Petition was filed challenging a series of orders related to the allotment of a rehabilitation tenement under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) in Mumbai. The dispute involved Petitioners who were allotted Tenement No. D-1508 by the Developer, Respondent No. 6, despite the process not following the prescribed procedure. The case centered around the validity of this unilateral allotment, as well as the subsequent decisions by the Assistant Registrar, Tehsildar, and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC).
Background of the Case:
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Mumbai, through a rehabilitation scheme, aimed to provide permanent alternate accommodation to eligible slum dwellers from specific plots. Respondent No. 6 was appointed as the Developer and issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) on September 9, 2009, to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Petitioners were among the eligible slum dwellers whose names were included in the original list of residents, but a procedural hiccup occurred in the allotment process.
According to the rules outlined in the LoI, the allotment of rehab tenements was supposed to be done through a lottery system in the presence of the Assistant Registrar. However, a critical issue arose when, in the process of rehabilitating eligible residents, the developer, Respondent No. 6, took the step of directly allotting tenement D-1508 to the Petitioners without conducting the mandatory lottery. This unilateral action led to a series of legal challenges, with Respondent No. 4—who had been awaiting her allotment—filing a complaint that her rights had been infringed upon.
Key Legal Findings:
The Court analyzed the dispute through the lens of the legal framework governing the allotment of rehab tenements. It was found that while the Petitioners were indeed eligible for rehabilitation, the Developer had no authority to make direct allotments. The LoI clearly outlined that the process must be conducted by the Assistant Registrar, and allotments must be made through a lottery system in the presence of a representative from the Assistant Registrar's office.
Despite the Petitioners' claim of being in need of accommodation for several years, the Court emphasized that the developer’s unilateral action was illegal and invalid. The Assistant Registrar had rightly declared the allotment as void, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Developer’s actions in sending a letter on March 1, 2022, that reserved the tenement for Respondent No. 4, but then allotting the same tenement to the Petitioners just weeks later, constituted a glaring error.
The Court also acknowledged that, despite the Developer’s errors, the Petitioners’ occupation of the tenement could not be used as a valid defense. The legal framework and the rights of other eligible residents, particularly Respondent No. 4, took precedence.
Court's Directive:
Given the circumstances, the Court upheld the orders of the Assistant Registrar, Tehsildar, and AGRC, which declared the Petitioners' allotment of Tenement No. D-1508 invalid. The Court further directed the Petitioners to vacate the tenement and hand over possession to the Estate Officer of the SRA within four weeks.
In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the Petitioners, the Court ordered the Developer, Respondent No. 6, to pay a sum of ?1,00,000 as costs to the Petitioners, citing the wrongful allotment as a basis for exemplary damages. Additionally, the Court instructed that the Petitioners be allocated an alternative Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAP) tenement within two weeks of their application to the SRA.
Conclusion:
The judgment reaffirms the importance of adhering to established procedures in the allotment of rehabilitation tenements, particularly in large-scale slum rehabilitation projects. It underscores the necessity of transparency and fairness in ensuring that the rights of eligible residents are protected and that the developer's actions are in line with legal and regulatory frameworks.
In this case, despite the Petitioners' prolonged wait for rehabilitation, the Court’s decision prioritized the rule of law and fairness in allotment, ensuring that the proper process is followed and that no party is unfairly deprived of their entitled accommodation.
