Slum Dwellers:Rehabilitation of slum dwellers – 800 slum dwellers in Mumbai – Relief of rehabilitation – Slum dwellers, who are also owners of the land, formed a society – Agreement between the society and appellant-developer to develop the slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers in proper accommodation in the year 1986 – Thereafter, various agreements between the Society and developer – Developer to obtain consent of 70% slum dwellers in terms of amended DCR – However, the developer not developing project as per the agreement – Society entered into an agreement with respondent no. 4, which was subsequently terminated and appellant again appointed as the developer – Dispute between the appellant and respondent no. 4 – Matter before Supreme Court, wherein former judge of Supreme Court appointed to verify the factum of consentum of the eligible slum dwellers – Report to the effect that both the developers failed to show that they had obtained 70% consent – Held: It is our duty to ensure that these owners who also happen to be slum dwellers do not live in sub-human conditions for eternity – Appellant delayed the project, and respondent no. 4 obtained the consent of society members by holding out a false promise of a larger flat – Thus, both the contesting developers not entitled to any relief – 800 slum dwellers, in addition to the flats, to be given compensation for the land owned by them – In exercise of power u/Art. 142, directions issued to Slum Redevelopment Authority-SRA to invite letters from renowned builders/developers, for rehabilitation of all eligible occupiers/slum dwellers within the stipulated period – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Development Control Regulations, 1997 – Constitution of India – Art. 142.Rehabilitation of 800 slum dwellers – Various agreement between the slum dwellers and appellant-developer to develop the slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers – In terms of amended DCR, the developer to obtain consent of 70% slum dwellers – However, project not developed as per the agreement – Dispute between the appellant and respondent no. 4-new developer – Matter before Supreme Court, wherein former judge of Supreme Court appointed to verify the consent of the slum dwellers in praesenti – Scope, ambit and effect of the said order– Held: Intention of the Court, will have to be deduced from the entire order – Phrase “there should be appropriate verification of the consent of the eligible slum dwellers in praesenti” cannot be read in isolation – It has to be read in the context of the contention of the contesting parties that each one of them had the consent of more than 70% of the slum dwellers – This Court was not oblivious of the requirements of the Slum Act though may not have explicitly mentioned 70% in its order – It is clear that the judge had understood that he was to ascertain whether 70% of the eligible slum dwellers are in favour of the redevelopment scheme signed with the appellant or with respondent no. 4 – Holistic reading of the order admits of no other meaning – Admittedly, neither the appellant nor respondent no. 4 received 70% support of slum dwellers, as such, the said order cannot be taken to its logical conclusion.Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: s.13(2) – Power of Competent Authority to redevelop clearance area – Held: Under s.13(2), the Slum Redevelopment Authority- SRA has the authority to take action and hand over the development of land to some other recognized agency under three circumstances- when there is contravention of the plans duly approved; when there is contravention of any restriction or condition imposed under sub- section 10 of s. 12; and when the development has not taken place within time, if any, specified – On facts, slum dwellers are virtually the owners of the land as members of the owner Society, the SRA had the power u/s. 13(2) to issue the order of setting aside the appointment of the appellant as developer. s.3A(3)(c) and (d) – Slum Redevelopment Authority-SRA – Power to remove the developer – Held: Since SRA issued the letter of intent, it necessarily has the power to cancel the same – In terms of clause (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of s.3A, SRA not only has the power, but it is duty bound to get the slum rehabilitation scheme implemented and to do all such other acts and things necessary for achieving the object of rehabilitation of slums – On facts, SRA was faced with a situation where the slum dwellers were suffering for more than 25 years, thus, action by SRA to remove the developer for the unjustified delay totally justified – Developer could not have carried out the development work on the basis of its agreement with the Society – It needed permission of SRA – Thus, SRA can revoke such permission. s.13(2) – Notice u/s.13(2) – Issue of 70% consent, if raised – Held: When a notice is issued to a party, it must be clear and unambiguous as to what are the allegations it must meet – No allegation in the notice that right to develop granted in favour of the developer was liable to be revoked because it had not obtained consent of 70% of the slum dwellers but was confined to the issue of delay – Reference to Regulation 33(10) also did not specifically raise the issue of 70% consent.Development Control Regulations of 1991:70% consent of the slum dwellers, if mandatory – Held: Development Control Regulations of 1991 makes it absolutely clear that at least 70% of the slum dwellers/occupiers were to form a Society for the purpose of slum re-development scheme – Under the amended DCR of 1997, the developer/owner was required to enter into agreements with 70% of the slum dwellers to take up the slum rehabilitation scheme for consideration – Figure remains at 70% – Even if the remaining minority slum dwellers do not agree to be part of the scheme, the owner/developer is duty bound to make adequate arrangements for their rehabilitation and they can join the scheme, and can take benefit even at any later stage – Thus, 70% consent of the occupiers is mandatory – On facts, developer having applied for migration to new Scheme, had to obtain consent of 70% of the slum dwellers – Stand of the developer that it was not required to submit agreements with 70% slum dwellers, not legally tenable – Agreements with 70% slum dwellers should have been provided within a reasonable time and, though almost 20 years have elapsed since the second letter of intent was granted in favour of developer, it has till date failed to submit agreements – Development Control Regulations of 1997.Rehabilitation of slum dwellers – Whether developer delayed the construction of the scheme – Entitlement to relief – Held: Developer never earnestly pursued the authorities for approval of the plans because it did not have consent/agreements of 70% slum dwellers – It sought waiver of the requirement of obtaining 70% consent from the slum dwellers – Furthermore, only a portion of plot was covered by the CRZ Notification and the developer not prevented from raising construction on that portion of the land which was not affected by the CRZ Notification – Finding given by SRA that developer was responsible for the delay, based on appreciation of material on record and cannot said to be perverse – Though there may have been a few stop orders and a few occasions when the developer may not have been able to raise the construction but, by and large, developer was itself guilty of delaying the construction for no reason – Thus, developer rightly held responsible for the delay in implementation of the rehabilitation scheme.Rehabilitation of slum dwellers – Developer entered into rehabilitation scheme for slum dwellers – Inordinate delay in completion of the project – Developer, if entitled to continue with the Scheme – Held: Developer not entitled to continue with the rehabilitation Scheme – Developer cannot take the benefit of technical points to defeat the rights of the slum dwellers – On facts, both equity and law against the developer – Slum dwellers dealt in a highly inequitable manner – Law and the conditions of the letter of intent and various letters issued by SRA clearly required the developer to produce agreements with at least 70% of the slum dwellers – However, developer failed to do so – Developers as a legal entity was treating the slum dwellers only as a means of making money, thus, not entitled to any relief.Rehabilitation Scheme – Cancellation of slum rehabilitation agreement in favour of appellant-developers – Entitlement of respondent no.4(new developer) to continue with the rehabilitation Scheme – Held: Respondent no. 4 had misled the members of the Society in entering into an agreement with it by holding out a false promise that they would be given much larger flats – Respondent no.4 legally not entitled to make this offer – Also respondent no. 4 failed to get the consent of 70% slum dwellers and Society had terminated its agreement with the respondent no. 4 – Thus, consent having been obtained by misrepresentation of facts being no consent, respondent no. 4 not entitled to continue with the project and not entitled to any relief.Constitution of India – Arts. 142 and 136 – Order of this Court requesting former judge of this Court to verify the consent of the slum dwellers in praesenti – Held: Court was aware that the slum dwellers were suffering due to the long protracted litigation and was moved by the pathetic condition in which most of the slum dwellers continued to reside – Court felt the need to find an innovative solution – Thus, the order fell within the ambit of Art. 142 to do complete justice between the parties.Judicial propriety – Requirement – Judicial propriety and discipline requires that a Coordinate Bench must respect the order of an earlier Bench – Even a larger Bench should not brush aside the order passed by an earlier Bench even if it be a smaller Bench unless the order is in issue before the larger Bench.Judgment/Order – Interpretation – Held: Judicial order or judgment has to be read as a whole and a single line or phrase cannot be read out of context – Judgment is not to be interpreted like a statute.Tender – Bid – Competitive bidding – Rehabilitation scheme of slum dwellers by developers – Inter se bidding between the builders – Held: High Court rightly held that consent once given by the slum dwellers should not be permitted to be withdrawn and there should be no inter se bidding between the builders – Competitive bidding can lead to a very unholy practice of developers trying to buy out the slum dwellers, which is also not in the interest of the rehabilitation scheme.