top of page

Letter of Intent was not extended and no representation to that effect was filed so as to keep it al

Uttar Bhartiya Rajak Samaj Panchayat, Banganga Rajak Samaj Co-operative ,Housing Society (Proposed) & Anr.Versus State of Maharashtra Through Secretary & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 887-888 OF 2020 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.33078-33079 of 2015] – January 31, 2020

The bench comprised of Justice Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar and Justice R.Subash Reddy. The appellants aggrieved by dismissal of writ petition and a subsequent dismissal of review petition by Bombay HC, a civil appeal was filed and leave granted.

The order of the High power Committee is challenged. Where a demand by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority , a premium of Rs.8,47,69,029.69 was confirmed in respect of LOI [ Letter of intent]. Appellant 1 is the registered society of Slum dwellers and Appellant 2 is a Rehabilitator approached to rehabilitate the plot under Slum Rehabilitation scheme under, Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Act,1976. Since the said plot was within CRZ, LOI issued was subject to clearance by CRZ Authorities. As per directives issued by the government Developer/ Co-operative society was required to pay premium @25%.

Questioning the Letter of Demand made by HPC the appellants approached the Court. Both writ petition and review petition were dismissed. It was contented by the Appellant counsel that in the view of delay in clearance by CRZ, the appellants cannot be prejudiced. Further argued that the delay which has to be attributed to CRZM cannot come in the way of appellants so as to recover such huge amount. On the other hand the counsel for Respondents submitted that the LOI was only valid for a period for three months and the same was not extended and no representation was made to keep it alive.

“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.”

Therefore it was held by the court that 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 in either dismissing the writ petition or the review petition. The civil appeals were held devoid of merit and were dismissed.

– Saral.M



bottom of page