C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  887-888  OF 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015]

Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat  Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-operative  Housing Society (Proposed) & Anr.    …..Appellants

Versus

State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors.          …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These  civil  appeals  are  filed  by  the  original  petitioners  in  Writ

Petition No.1902 of  2010 filed before the High Court  of Judicature at

Bombay, aggrieved by the order dated 03rd May 2012 dismissing the writ

petition and further order dated 01st of July 2015 dismissing the review

petition.

3. In  the  aforesaid  writ  petition  filed  before  the  High  Court,  the

appellants  have  challenged  an  order  of  the  High  Power  Committee

(HPC) dated 19th December 2009 by which, the demand made by the 2nd

respondent Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) demanding premium of

1

C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

an  amount  of  Rs.8,47,69,029.69  (Rupees  Eight  Crores  Forty  Seven

Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine Paise only), is

confirmed in respect of Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 05th January 2005,

issued in their favour for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.  The appellants

also  sought  directions  to  direct  the  SRA  to  issue  Commencement

Certificate as per the existing guidelines.   

4. The appellant no.1 is the registered society of slum dwellers, who

are stated to be residing on plot  bearing no.CS No.51,  2/51,  3/51 of

Malabar Hill and Cumballa Hill Div. at Bhagwan Indrajit Road, Mumbai.

The appellant  no.2  is  a  rehabilitator  who was approached by the  1st

appellant-society to develop the said plot and rehabilitate its members

under  Slum  Rehabilitation  Scheme,  under  Maharashtra  Slum

Rehabilitation Act, 1976.  On the proposal for the aforesaid scheme, a

LOI  bearing  no.SRA/Eng/875/D/GL/LOI  dated  05.01.2005  has  been

issued by the 2nd respondent-authority in favour of the 2nd appellant to

carry out the said rehabilitation.  Since the said plot was within the area

of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), the said LOI was issued subject to

clearance by CRZ authorities as provided under Clause 46, by the 1st

respondent  and  Maharashtra  Coastal  Zone  Management  Authority

(MCZMA).

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Coastal Zone

Management  Authority,  1st respondent-Government  issued  notification

dated  16.04.2008.   The  Government  of  Maharashtra  has  issued

directives  under  Section  37(1)  and  Section  154  of  the  Maharashtra 2

C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

Regional & Town Planning Act.  As per the above said directives issued

by the Government,  developer/co-operative society  is required to pay

premium @ 25% in terms of the Ready Reckoner in respect of Slum

Rehabilitation Scheme proposed to be undertaken on the lands owned

by the Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies.

In view of the said notification issued by the Government, the appellants

were demanded an amount of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 (Rupees Eight Crores

Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Twenty Nine and Sixty Nine

Paise only) towards the premium.   

6. Questioning the letter of demand issued by the 2nd respondent for

the aforesaid sum, the appellants have approached the HPC.  Even the

HPC has considered the issue and rejected the claim of the appellants

that they are not required to pay the premium amount as much as they

were already issued LOI dated 05.01.2005.  Questioning the demand of

Rs.8,47,69,029.69 and further order issued by the HPC, the appellants

have approached the High Court by filing writ petition in W.P.No.1902 of

2010.  The above writ  petition was dismissed by the impugned order

dated 03.05.2012 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the

review petition filed by the appellants has also ended in dismissal  by

order dated 01.07.2015.

7. We have  heard  Sri  Shekhar  Naphade,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the 1st

respondent-Government and 2nd respondent-authority.

3

C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

8. The Letter of Intent dated 05.01.2005 was issued in favour of the

appellants  in  respect  of  the  scheme,  under  Development  Control

Regulation 33(10).  Clauses 40 and 46 of the LOI read as under :

“40. That this LOI is valid for the period of 3 (three) months from the date hereof.  However, if IOA/CC is obtained for any one bldg.. of the project then this LOI will remain valid till completion of estimated project period.

… … … …

46.  That  the  confirmation  from  Govt.  regarding  the imaginary line from CRZ point  of view shall  be obtained before asking approval of plans & if required the scheme shall be revised accordingly.”

9. As  the  area  covered  by  the  scheme was  within  the  CRZ,  the

appellants have approached the Coastal  Zone Management  Authority

for clearance.  During the pendency of the application, the Government

of  Maharashtra  has  issued  directives  in  exercise  of  power  under

Sections 37(1) and 154 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning

Act.  Clause 3 of the schedule thereto reads as under :

“3. Premium in respect of lands of public ownership:

The title of regulation No.1.11 of Appendix IV of Regulation 33(10) shall be changed as “Premium for ownership and terms of lease”.

Also following provision shall be added after the existing provisions of Regulation 1.11 of Regulation 33(10).

“In  addition  to  above,  the  Developer/Co-op.  Housing Society  shall  pay  premium  at  the  rate  of  Twenty  Five percent  in terms of  Ready Reckoner  in respect  of  Slum Rehabilitation  Scheme  proposed  to  be  undertaken  on lands  owned  by  Government,  Semi-Government Undertakings and Local Bodies.”

4

C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

10. It is contended by learned senior counsel Sri Shekhar Naphade

that in view of the delay in clearance by the Coastal Zone Management

Authority, the appellants cannot be prejudiced, for payment of premium

pursuant  to directions issued on 16th April  2008.   It  is  submitted that

appellants were issued Letter of Intent on 05.01.2005.  The delay which

is to be attributed to Coastal Zone Management Authority cannot come

in  the  way  of  the  appellants  so  as  to  recover  huge  amount  of

Rs.8,47,69,029.69  towards  premium.  On  the  other  hand,  learned

counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that the validity

of the Letter  of Intent was only for a period of  three months and the

same was not extended and no representation to that effect was filed so

as to keep it alive. In view of the same, the conditions notified in the GR

dated 16.04.2008 will apply for the scheme.

11. In this case it is to be noted that the Letter of Intent was valid for a

period of  three months only.   If,  for any reason,  delay is occurred in

obtaining  clearance  from  the  Coastal  Zone  Management  Authority,

nothing prevented the appellants to make appropriate representation so

as to keep the Letter of Intent alive.  When the validity of Letter of Intent

itself is for three months and if the same is not kept alive, we are of the

view that the premium is to be paid as per the Government Resolution

dated 16.04.2008.  By virtue of the aforesaid notification, developer/co-

operative society is required to pay premium @ 25% in terms of  the

Ready Reckoner, in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes proposed

5

C.A.@SLP(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015

to  be  undertaken  on  the  lands  owned  by  the  Government,  Semi-

Government Undertakings and local bodies.

12. In that view of the matter the demand made by the respondents is

in  conformity  with  the  law  and  we  do  not  find  any  illegality  in  the

impugned orders passed by the High Court in either dismissing the writ

petition or the review petition.  

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil  appeals are devoid of merit

and are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

………….…………………………………J. [MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR]

….…………………………………………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi. January 31, 2020.

6