SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1359 Of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 – Section 11 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Sections 4 and 4A – Slum rehabilitation – Allotment of flats – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against statutory mandate of SRA – Allotment by draw of lots is not an arbitrary order of SRA but this is settled procedure, long continuing and in terms of law – It is also provided under Circular No. 162 dated 23.10.2015, that allotment will be done by draw of lots for all hutment dwellers – SRA is final authority for implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme – SRA has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy especially a policy which is welfare based – Order of status quo on allotment of flats given by this Court vacated – Slum Rehabilitation Authority directed to carry out allotment of flats in accordance with law. (Paras 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellants before this Court have challenged order dated 22.10.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature, Bombay, which has dismissed Writ Petition of appellants. Petition was for quashing of order dated 26.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Maharashtra (‘SRA’).
Findings of Court:
Considering conduct of Developer who has evidently taken a surreptitious route bypassing statutory procedure, SRA would be failing in its duty if it does not seek explanation from Developer in this regard and takes suitable action in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
1. The appellants before this Court have challenged the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, which has dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellants. The petition was for quashing of the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as ‘SRA’).
2. SRA had proposed a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the slum at CS No. 1(pt) of Lower Parel Division at J.R. Boricha Marg. The project was for construction of a total built up area of 75854.716 sq. m., where 1765 slum dwellers were to be rehabilitated. Nine towers i.e. tower nos. A to I, 69 commercial tenements, 24 recreational tenements, 6 existing amenities, 19 balwadis, 19 welfare centres and 19 society offices, were in the construction plan. The construction of all the above towers has been completed as of now, and 473 slum dwellers have already been given possession of their tenements in Towers A, B and C. All the same, the allotment for the remaining towers has been stalled due to the present dispute and the ongoing litigation between various stake holders of the project. Hopefully it should end now.
3. Slums of Mumbai are symbolic of the existing inequalities in our society. The growth of industries and urban centres invariably result in migration of rural population to urban industrial areas areas, in search of employment. The migrants, displaced poor and the marginalised are forced by circumstances to form a living space for themselves, which are called slums. Slums have also been described as a crowded settlement of temporary household with inadequate facilities and very poor hygienic conditions. Although, many of the slums in Mumbai such as ‘Dharavi’, ‘Byculla’ and ‘Khar’ were initially villages, but they too have mushroomed into slums in the lopsided urban development.
4. The city of Mumbai has a maximum number of recorded slums in the country and as per the 2011 census, 42 percent of its population stays in slums. Very little attention was paid to the slum dwellers in their initial period during the late 19th century and early 20th century, during colonial Rule. After the 1896 bubonic plague the Government recognised the need for improvement in the housing and sanitary conditions, in the city. This resulted in the formation of Bombay Improvement Trust (for short ‘BIT’) in 1898, and later Bombay Development Department (for short ‘BDD’) in the year 1920. BDD in particular, inter alia, had a mandate to construct low-cost houses for the workers who were manning the factories and the mills in the city; and for the workers in ports and railway station as well. All the same, not much was done by these bodies as far as improvement of living conditions of the workers in these areas or for providing them with a decent housing or sanitary conditions.
5. With independence, initially the approach of the authorities towards slums was also largely focused on clearing the slum areas, rather than improving their conditions. The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament for declaring the areas as slum area, and clearing it. The competent authority could declare an area as a slum area and would thereafter pass demolition or clearance orders. There was no purposeful welfare, socially sensitive, provision in the Act for redevelopment of the area after its clearance and this was left to the satisfaction of the competent authority, which may redevelop an area, subject to his or her satisfaction (see Section 11 of the Act).
6. This approach of the executive and the legislature subsequently changed with the concept of welfare state taking hold and the growth of awareness of the inhabitants towards their rights under the Constitution. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1971 Act’) was enacted which had provisions for redevelopment of area and other benef
Mahadev Jagpat and Ors. vs Chief Executive Officer and Others
Pramila Singh Suman vs State of Maharashtra and Others
Balasaheb Arjun Torbole and Others vs Administrator and Divisional Commissioner and Others
Susme Builders Private Limited v. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Slum rehabilitation – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against statutory mandate of SRA.
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority can terminate a developer's appointment for inordinate delays in scheme implementation, emphasizing the developer's obligation to act proactively.
Landowners possess a primary preferential right to undertake redevelopment under rehabilitation schemes; however, this right is subordinate to statutory procedural compliance, including the mandatory....
The court reaffirmed that the preferential right of a landowner over slum redevelopment schemes must be respected before any acquisition is initiated under relevant legislation.
The court found that claims of tenants do not exempt individuals from slum rehabilitation provisions, affirming the slum dwellers' census data as valid for entitlements under the law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.