08 May 2024 Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

Two shop owners in Mumbai challenged their rehabilitation allotments after a redevelopment project caused a revision in the sanctioned plan. Dhanraj Tejmal Lukad and Pawan Kumar Jagdamba Prasad Verma were occupants of commercial slum structures slated for redevelopment under the Slum Rehabilitation Act. The dispute arose from the location of permanent alternate accommodation offered to them.

Background:

According to the writ petitions filed by Lukad and Verma, both were assured shops facing the main road in a meeting held in June 2022. This assurance was based on the sanctioned plan dated September 6, 2021 (plan 06.09.2021). However, the developer revised the plan on November 11, 2022 (plan 11.11.2022), without informing the petitioners. Lukad's petition (Writ Petition (L.) No. 14111 of 2023) was dismissed. The court found that though the shop number changed from his original allotment under plan 06.09.2021, the location remained the same in the revised plan 11.11.2022. Since there was no prejudice, the court upheld the revised allotment (Shop No. 10). Verma's petition (Writ Petition (L.) No. 14107 of 2023) was partially allowed. The court pointed out that the developer had not informed the authorities about the unchanged location of Verma's original shop under the revised plan. Verma was originally promised a shop facing the East on a wider road in plan 06.09.2021. However, under plan 11.11.2022, he was allotted Shop No. 3, which was on the backside of the building with a narrow entrance. This caused significant drawbacks for his business.

Conclusion:

Considering the suppression of facts by the developer and the prejudice caused to Verma's business, the court directed the developer to allot Shop No. 12 (which was at the same location as his original shop under plan 06.09.2021) to Verma within 4 weeks. The allotment of Shop No. 3 under the revised plan was cancelled. This case highlights the importance of transparency in redevelopment projects. The court emphasized that the petitioner's right to proper rehabilitation is paramount. It also underscored that developers cannot arbitrarily change allotments without informing the authorities. Additionally, suppressing crucial information can lead to the reallocation of shops to ensure fairness for the displaced occupants.

  MAHARASHTRA SLUM IMPROVEMENT BOARD ACT, 1973