Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has emphasised that the irrevocable consent of at least 51% of eligible slum dwellers is required to appoint a developer for a slum redevelopment project. The court said that if this requirement is not deemed mandatory, developers with less than the required consent could claim redevelopment rights, leading to “significant complications”.
The court made this observation while hearing a petition filed by Atlantic Construction Company, which challenged orders from the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). These orders, dated July 1 and February 5 respectively, had rejected Atlantic Construction’s application to redevelop the Sahyog Kalpana CHS in Versova, Andheri (West), comprising 130 structures, of which 97 were found eligible for rehabilitation.
Justice Madhav Jamdar noted that the petitioner had obtained consent from only 37 out of 97 eligible slum dwellers, which fell short of the minimum 51% requirement (equivalent to 49 eligible slum dwellers). The petitioner, therefore, failed to meet the mandatory threshold, the judge added.
Under Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034, a developer gains the right to redevelop a slum only with the consent of not less than 51% of eligible slum dwellers. The court stressed that if this provision were deemed non-mandatory, developers with consent from less than 51% could still claim redevelopment rights, potentially leading to multiple disputes.
Counsel for Atlantic, Girish Godbole, submitted that the developer was appointed in a General Body Meeting (GBM) on August 18, 2022, held in the presence of an SRA officer. Out of the 97 eligible slum dwellers, 44 had attended the meeting and given their consent, with an additional nine providing consent agreements later.
However, Advocate Amogh Singh, appearing for the society, argued that there were 130 structures of which only 97 slum dwellers were declared eligible. Hence, the minimum required consent was from 49 members, and Atlantic had only secured the support of 37 eligible residents.
Agreeing with the society, the court held that the 51% consent requirement is mandatory and that the petitioner failed to meet this crucial condition.
