The court upheld the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue eviction notices under the Slum Act, affirming that redevelopment of censused slums does not require separate notification.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Delay condoned. I.A(s) seeking permissions to file Special Leave

Petitions are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. These appeals challenge the order dated 04.01.2023 where the High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed impugning a notice dated 06.12.2022, issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter ‘SRA’), directing appellants to vacate their respective premises located in the plot of land in question as the same is to be redeveloped.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) The SRA issued a notice dated 28.01.2019 under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter ‘Slum Act’) and directed appellants to vacate their respective premises within 15 days for the reason that appellants were occupying a slum area which was to be redeveloped.

b) The challenge to the notice dated 28.01.2019 before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (hereinafter ‘AGRC’) under section 35(1A) of the Slum Act was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2019.

c) Despite the affirmation of notice dated 28.01.2019 by the AGRC, appellants did not handover their premises to the developer for the redevelopment of the area and thus, SRA issued another notice on 06.12.2022 under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, directing appellants to vacate their premises within 48 hours. This notice of 06.12.2022 was challenged before the High Court by filing a Writ Petition which has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us.

5. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. Before we deal with the facts of the present case, we would like to discuss some of the provisions of the Slum Act which govern the redevelopment of slum areas. The term ‘slum area’ is defined under section 2(ga) of the Act, which reads as follows:

“slum area” means any area declared as such by the Competent Authority under sub­section (1) of section 4; and includes any area deemed to be a slum area under section 4A.”

7. The Competent Authority, appointed under section 3 of the Slum Act, is empowered to declare any area as a slum area under section 4 of the Slum Act. The Slum Act is a welfare legislation enacted in 1971 with the object of rehabilitating slum dwellers in order to improve their living conditions. The subsequent amendment to the Slum Act in the year 1996 inserted an entirely new Chapter i.e. Chapter I­A for the purpose of Slum Rehabilitation. Under Section 3A of this new Chapter of the Slum Act, the State has appointed a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) which prepares and implements Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as per section 3B of the Slum Act.

8. There is another State statute relevant here which is Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (‘MHAD Act’). The Act focuses on providing affordable housing across the State of Maharashtra and like SRA which is created under the Slum Act, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (‘MHADA’) was formed under MHAD Act. There are well­defined areas in which the MHAD Act and Slum Act operate. However, there are some overlapping areas as well. Be that as it may, we are not required to get into the details of this aspect.

9. Coming back to the facts of the case, SRA sanctions a rehabilitation scheme in 2010 and appoints Respondent No.3 (‘developer’) to redevelop the area for Respondent No.9 i.e. the proposed society named Bharat Ekta Co­Operative Society (‘Bharat Ekta Society’) in terms of the Slum Act and Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (‘hereinafter DCR’). Under the scheme, the plot in question was joined with two other adjoining plots and an amalgamated scheme for slum rehabilitation was to be implemented. The developer initiated the redevelopment project in two phases. After completing Phase­I, when the developer sought to vacate the present plot in Phase­II during construction, the present appellants did not c