Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Dream of more than 800 slum inhabitants for a permanent roof over head has shattered because of large numbers of case amongst builders and the authorities. The Supreme Court, by invoking its innate powers, has issued orders to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to guarantee improvement of the slums and restore and rehabilitate the slum-dwellers in proper accommodation.
Slum occupants who are the additional owners of the land formed a society, and it went into an agreement with M/s Susme Builders Private Limited to develop the property. Meanwhile, dispute arose amongst Susme and JG Developers, another builder whom the society had moved toward later, and when the matter reached the Apex Court, the court appointed Justice BN Srikrishna to see if Susme or JG Developers had the assent of 70% slums occupants. It was accounted for that both the builders failed to show that they had such a consent.
Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta observed that the Slum Redevelopment Authority had the jurisdictions to invoke the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act to revoke and set aside the right to develop and cancel the letter of intent granted in favour of Susme. The Bench has agreed with the Bombay High Court view that there ought to be no inter se bidding between the builders, and that the correct course is that the scheme of the developer is the priority, ought to be put before the slum dwellers and on the off chance that it gets 70% votes, at that point the scheme can be considered, however in the event that it doesn't get 70% assent, at that point clearly, the second developer can be considered.
"Competitive offering ought not be done on the grounds that can prompt an unholy routine with regards to developers endeavouring to purchase out the slum dwellers, which is additionally not in the interest of rehabilitation scheme," the Bench said.
The court likewise held that JG Developers had acquired the consent of members from the Society by holding out a false promise of a larger flat and accordingly, the agreements entered into by JG Developers with the slum inhabitants are lawfully unconscionable and not enforceable and, thusly, JG Developers is additionally not qualified for proceed with the scheme. The court observed that both the contesting developers are not qualified for any relief.
86540
103860
630
114
59824