1. Challenge to eviction notices issued under the Slum Act for redevelopment of a censused slum area. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 409
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, KRISHNAN VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others – Appellants
Versus
The TahsildarI, Special Cell & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3270 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 1665 of 2023), Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No(S). of 2025), Diary No. 40035 of 2024 And Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). of 2025), Diary No. 49187 of 2024
Decided on : 27-02-2025
Important Points
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.
Subject
Property Law - Slum Rehabilitation
Act Referred
Development Control Regulations: Reg.33(10), Reg.33(10)(ii)(i), Reg.33(10)(ii)(viii), Reg.33(5)
MAHARASHTRA SLUM AREAS IMPROVEMENT, CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT ACT: S.2(g)(a), S.3, S.33, S.35(1)(a), S.38, S.4
MAHARASHTRA SLUM AREAS IMPROVEMENT, CLEARANCE AND REDEVELOPMENT ACT: S.2(g)(a), S.3, S.33, S.35(1)(a), S.38, S.4
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 33 and 38 - Writ petition challenging eviction notice - Appellants failed to vacate premises despite prior notice and AGRC dismissal - High Court upheld SRA's authority to issue eviction notice under the Slum Act - Appellants' claims of being tenants of MHADA dismissed as they were found to be ineligible slum dwellers. (Paras 4, 10, 16, 19)
(B) Slum Rehabilitation - The Slum Act aims to improve living conditions of slum dwellers through redevelopment - The definition of 'slum area' includes 'censused slums' which do not require separate notification for redevelopment. (Paras 6, 16)
(C) Legal Standing - Appellants did not approach the court with clean hands, failing to disclose prior proceedings and notices, undermining their credibility. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged a notice from SRA to vacate their premises for redevelopment, claiming it was a MHADA layout, which was dismissed by AGRC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found no merit in the appellants' claims and upheld the eviction notice, emphasizing the need for redevelopment for eligible slum dwellers.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the eviction notice and the appellants' claims regarding their tenancy status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the redevelopment under the Slum Act was valid, and the appellants' arguments lacked substance, as they were not legitimate tenants but ineligible slum dwellers.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Slum Rehabilitation - The Slum Act aims to improve living conditions of slum dwellers through redevelopment - The definition of 'slum area' includes 'censused slums' which do not require separate notification for redevelopment. (Paras 6, 16)
(C) Legal Standing - Appellants did not approach the court with clean hands, failing to disclose prior proceedings and notices, undermining their credibility. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged a notice from SRA to vacate their premises for redevelopment, claiming it was a MHADA layout, which was dismissed by AGRC.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found no merit in the appellants' claims and upheld the eviction notice, emphasizing the need for redevelopment for eligible slum dwellers.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the eviction notice and the appellants' claims regarding their tenancy status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the redevelopment under the Slum Act was valid, and the appellants' arguments lacked substance, as they were not legitimate tenants but ineligible slum dwellers.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shreshta Ragasandesh, AOR Mr. Yousuf Khan, Adv. Mr. Khan And Khan Law Firm, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Ms. Sushma Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Manohar Shetty, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Shetty, Adv. Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mrs. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shahzeb Hussain, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaokar, Adv. Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR Mr. Sauryapratapsinh Barhat, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Madhav Chitale, Adv. Ms. Jayati Chitale, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Raman Jaybhaye, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Panwar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shreshta Ragasandesh, AOR Mr. Yousuf Khan, Adv. Mr. Khan And Khan Law Firm, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Ms. Sushma Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Manohar Shetty, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Shetty, Adv. Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mrs. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shahzeb Hussain, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaokar, Adv. Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR Mr. Sauryapratapsinh Barhat, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Madhav Chitale, Adv. Ms. Jayati Chitale, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Raman Jaybhaye, Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Panwar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the area is a MHADA layout under Regulation 33(5) DCR or an SRA project under Regulation 33(10) DCR, and lack of mandatory consent. (Para 10 )
3. The area is a censused slum, not a MHADA layout; appellants were transit camp tenants using dilatory tactics to seek larger accommodation. (Para 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Censused slums under Regulation 33(10) DCR are deemed slums for redevelopment and do not require separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act. (Para 16 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 19 )
6. Does a censused slum require a separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act for redevelopment?
No. Under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR, slums include those censused in the past. A censused slum is already included in the definition of slums for redevelopment purposes, making a separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act unnecessary. (Para 16 )
7. What is the distinction between a MHADA layout and a censused slum for redevelopment purposes?
A MHADA layout is redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR, whereas a censused slum—even if located on MHADA property—is redeveloped by the SRA under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR if it is recognized as a censused slum. (Para 16 )
8. Does the status of a transit camp tenant establish a landlord-tenant relationship with MHADA?
No. Payments made by transit camp tenants to MHADA are considered transit fees and service charges, not rent, and do not establish a landlord-tenant relationship. (Para 11 )
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
