Panel's order opens up Pandora's box for SRA

MUMBAI: Following an order that has serious implications for SRA projects across the metropolis, a High Power Committee (HPC) appointed by the state government has reopened the proposal of a developer. It was earlier rejected by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on the grounds that it did not have the support of 70% of slumdwellers. The city civil court had effectively endorsed this decision of the authority by refusing ad-interim relief sought by the developer.
"The HPC has unwittingly opened 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 the SRA to redevelop Ekta Nagar slum at Mankhurd. The builder stated in an Annexure I submission form that there were 1,235 huts and that he had the consent of owners of 911 huts, making it a 70% majority. The SRA accepted the scheme and allowed the developer to pay scrutiny fees. However, the slum plan and architect's certificate submitted to the authority along with the Annexure I form showed there were 1,403 huts. After rescrutinising the proposal, SRA found that only 864 persons had signed the consent form, thus making it 62% of the 1,403 huts and hence rejected the proposal. The consent of 70% slum residents before 1995 - the cut-off year - is necessary to process any SRA scheme.
In the mean time, another builder, KKB Developers, submitted a proposal via the Nityanand residents' federation comprising 5,183 slum dwellers, including those who were part of Lakdawala's scheme. KKB claimed the support of over 70%, which was accepted by the SRA.
Aggrieved by the rejection of its proposal by the authority, Lakdawala moved the city civil court. Justice C A Jadhav passed a detailed order, rejecting the ad-interim prayer sought by the petitioners saying that as 70% consent was not annexed, one could not find fault with SRA's rejection of Lakdawala's scheme. The ad-interim prayer was to stay the proposal of KKB Developers.
Lakdawala then filed an appeal before the HPC, which rejected the appeal saying the city civil court had already adjudicated this matter and the appeal was not maintainable. Lakdawala then moved the Bombay high court, which directed the HPC to consider the matter again on merit and pass an appropriate order.
Rehearing the appeal, the HPC, this time around 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 a majority subsequently. Thus, builders with minority support will rule the roost and not those having a majority,'' a top former SRA official said.