Panel reopens SRA plan of builder

MUMBAI: The high-powered committee (HPC), appointed by the state government, has reopened a developer's proposal that was earlier rejected by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on the grounds that it did not have the support of 70% of the slumdwellers. The order is likely to have serious implications for SRA projects across the city.
Incidentally, the city civil court had effectively endorsed the SRA's decision by refusing ad-interim relief sought by the developer.
"The HPC has unwittingly opened up a Pandora's box, thereby making it difficult to implement SRA schemes," said Z A Jariwala, an advocate.
On June 13, 2006, Lakdawala Developers submitted a proposal to SRA to redevelop the Ekta Nagar slum in Mankurd. The builder stated in the Annexure-I submission form that there were 1,235 huts and that he had the consent of 911 hut owners, making it a 70% majority. The SRA accepted the scheme and allowed payment of scrutiny fees by the developer. However, the slum plan and architect's certificate submitted to SRA along with the Annexure-I form showed that there were 1,403 huts. After re-scrutinising the proposal, SRA found that only 864 persons had signed the consent, thus making it 62% of the 1,403 huts and hence rejected the proposal. The consent of 70% slum-residents before the 1995 cut-off year is necessary to process any SRA scheme.
Meanwhile, another builder, KKB Developers, submitted a proposal through the Nityanand Residents' Federation, comprising 5,183 slumdwellers, including those included in Lakdawala's scheme. KKB claimed the support of over 70%, which was accepted by the SRA.
Aggrieved by the rejection of its proposal by SRA, Lakdawala moved the city civil court. Justice C A Jadav passed a detailed order, rejecting the ad-interim prayer sought by the petitioners, saying that since 70% consent was not annexed, SRA's rejection of Lakdawala's scheme cannot be faulted. The ad-interim prayer sought a stay on the proposal of KKB Developers.
Lakdawala then filed an appeal before the HPC, which rejected it on the grounds that the city civil court has already adjudicated the matter and the appeal was not maintainable. Lakdawala then moved the Bombay high court, which directed the HPC to reconsider the matter on merit and pass an appropriate order.
The HPC, this time round, said the SRA had passed its order rejecting Lakdawala's proposal without following the process of natural justice and without waiting for the report of the competent authority. Now, Lakdawala Developers has an opportunity to generate 70% consent. "If this becomes a precedent, then all developers with less than 70% consent initially will submit a proposal and obtain the majority subsequently. Thus, builders with minority support will rule the roost and not those with majority support," a top former SRA official observed.