UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (PROPOSED) & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
[2020] 2 S.C.R. 576, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT
BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
SOCIETY (PROPOSED) & ANR.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 887-888 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act:
s. 37(1) – Demand of premium @ 25% in respect of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme in terms of Notification dated 16.4.2008 –
Propriety of – Letter of Intent (LOI) issued for Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme on 5.1.2005, subject to clearance by Coastal Zone
Management Authority (CRZ) – During pendency of proceedings
before CRZ, Directives issued by Government on 16.4.2008
requiring to pay premium @ 25 % in respect of Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme – Demand of premium pursuant to the Directives – challenged
before High Court – High Court dismissed the petitions – Review
petition also dismissed – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: LOI was
valid for a period of three months only and the same was not kept
alive by the appellants, the premium is to be paid as per Government
Resolution dated 16.4.2008 – Demand is in confirmity with law.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The Letter of Intent was valid for a period of three
months only. If, for any reason, delay 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, the premium is to be paid as per the Government Resolution
dated 16.4.2008. 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
   [2020] 2 S.C.R. 576
576
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
577
proposed to be undertaken on the lands owned by the
Government, Semi-Government Undertakings and local bodies.
In that view of the matter the demand made by the respondents
is in conformity with the law and there is no illegality in the
impugned orders passed by the High Court. [Paras 11 & 12][580-
C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 887-
888 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2012 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1902 of 2010 and Order
dated 01.07.2015 in Review Petition No. 13 of 2015 in Writ Petition No.
1902 of 2010.
Shekhar Naphde, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sneha Ravi Iyer, Ms. Neha
Sangwan, Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Advs. for the Appellants.
Satyajit A. Desai, Sachin Patil, Sanjay Kharde, Samrat Shinde,
Ranjit Kumar Rathod, Sunil Kumar Verma, M.A. Arunesh, Nishant K.
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
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.
UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ
CO-OP. HSG. SOC. (PROPOSED) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
579
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.
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.”
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
UTTAR BHARTIYA RAJAK SAMAJ PANCHAYAT BANGANGA RAJAK SAMAJ
CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) v. STATE OF MAH. [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 2 S.C.R.
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 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.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Appeals dismissed.