On December 2, 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by M/s Atlantic Construction Co. challenging a Bombay High Court ruling that required at least 51% consent from eligible slum dwellers for slum redevelopment projects. The Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, reinforcing the mandatory nature of Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034.
The dispute arose when Atlantic Construction Co., seeking to redevelop a slum, claimed that 44 out of 97 eligible slum dwellers had consented to their appointment as the developer. However, this fell short of the minimum 51% threshold mandated by Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR, 2034. The Bombay High Court had earlier ruled against the petitioner, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the consent requirement.
Mandatory Nature of Clause 1.15
The High Court clarified that Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR, 2034, is a mandatory provision. According to the clause, a developer can only secure redevelopment rights if at least 51% of eligible slum dwellers provide irrevocable consent. The regulation aims to prevent disputes and ensure transparency in slum redevelopment projects.
The Court noted that failure to adhere to this requirement could lead to multiple developers claiming redevelopment rights with insufficient support from slum dwellers, thereby causing operational challenges and disputes.
Judicial Interpretation of DCPR, 2034
The Court highlighted that the DCPR, 2034, has the same legal force as a statute since it is sanctioned under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. Judicial precedence affirmed this interpretation, emphasizing strict compliance with mandatory provisions.
Outcome
The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the SLP validates the Bombay High Court’s stance that the petitioner failed to meet the 51% consent requirement. This ruling reiterates the importance of compliance with regulatory frameworks in redevelopment projects.
Conclusion
The dismissal of the petition underscores the legal necessity of securing majority consent for slum redevelopment. This judgment sets a precedent to safeguard the interests of slum dwellers and maintain transparency in redevelopment initiatives.