The Bombay High Court has upheld the termination of Atlantic Construction Co. as the developer for the Versova village redevelopment project, emphasizing the necessity of securing at least 51% consent from eligible slum-dwellers as mandated by the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034. The court ruled that Atlantic failed to meet this threshold, with only 37 out of 97 eligible slum-dwellers providing consent. This decision follows a lengthy history of developer failures, with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) initially terminating earlier developers due to inaction.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the termination of a developer's appointment, facilitating redevelopment in Versova village, Andheri (W), after more than 26 years. The court determined that Atlantic Construction Co. failed to secure the minimum 51% consent from eligible slum-dwellers, a requirement outlined in the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034. Justice Madhav Jamdar emphasized in the September 4 ruling that not adhering to this requirement could result in significant complications, allowing a developer with only a few approvals from eligible slum-dwellers to claim redevelopment rights. Hence, the 51% threshold is both specific and mandatory.
In November 1998, Sahyog Kalpana CHS appointed developer Atul Projects. However, due to its failure to initiate redevelopment, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) terminated the appointment in December 2015. Subsequently, in April 2015, Dynamic Civil Developers was appointed, but it also took no action. In March 2022, the society requested the SRA CEO to terminate Dynamic Civil Developers as the developer.
In April 2022, the CEO issued a public notice rejecting 517 schemes classified as dormant projects. By July 2022, the CEO informed the society that their scheme was also considered dormant. During an August 2022 general body meeting called by the SRA, 44 residents voted in favor of Atlantic Construction, which the SRA subsequently appointed as the new developer. Atlantic then secured the necessary permissions.
In January 2023, the High Court annulled the CEO's public notice regarding dormant schemes, citing that affected parties had not been heard. Following this, the CEO initiated suo motu proceedings. On February 5, the CEO terminated Dynamic's appointment and allowed the society to appoint a new developer. On July 1, the apex grievance redress committee upheld the SRA's order. Atlantic subsequently challenged this decision in the High Court.
Senior advocate Girish Godbole, representing Atlantic, argued that out of 97 eligible slum-dwellers, 14 who were affected by the coastal road project had been relocated by the BMC. Thus, among the remaining 83 eligible slum-dwellers, 44 provided their consent to Atlantic, satisfying the 51% consent requirement.
Justice Jamdar observed that out of a total of 144 slum-dwellers, 14 had been rehabilitated by the BMC as project-affected persons (PAP). From the remaining 130, only 97 were deemed eligible. He noted that Atlantic's architect had "incorrectly represented" that the 14 PAP allottees were included among the 97 eligible slum-dwellers, and they needed to be excluded from the count.
Justice Jamdar, supporting the arguments presented by the society's advocate, Amogh Singh, noted that it was recognized that of the 44 residents who had provided consent, 7 had been allocated project-affected person (PAP) tenements and were thus not considered part of the slum rehabilitation scheme. He concluded that the petitioner had only secured consent from 37 eligible slum-dwellers out of a total of 97, which was significantly below the minimum requirement of 49 slum-dwellers (51%). Consequently, he dismissed the petition.
In summary, the court's ruling highlighted the significance of community consent in redevelopment projects, ensuring that developers comply with regulations designed to protect the rights of slum-dwellers.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
