SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1240

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bishop John Rodrigues – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Tushima, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soura Subha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Tavish Bhushan Prasad, AOR Ms. Sanaya Patel, Adv. Mr. Shesh Raj Bharti, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Neha Mehta, Adv. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Miskita, Adv. Ms. Harsh Lata, Adv. Mr. Umair Merchant, Adv. Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Adv. Ms. Harsh Lata, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Parthasarathy Bose, Adv. Ms. Panchi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Manmilan Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sudiksha Saina, Adv. Ms. Saksha Jha, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Misra, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Ria Chanda, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Ms. Tushima, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR

Table of Content
1. validity of land acquisition under slums act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. historical context and development proposals. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. interpretation of legal amendments and implications. (Para 16 , 20 , 26)
4. determined preferential rights of landowners. (Para 37 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute under consideration in these Civil Appeals concerns the validity of the acquisition of a portion of land located at CTS No. B-960 in Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, measuring 1,596.40 sq. m. (Subject Land) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums Act). The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (High Court), vide the Impugned Judgment dated 11.06.2024, has: (i) allowed the writ petition filed by the landowner, declaring the acquisition void and (ii) directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to consider the proposal of the landowner for redevelopment. The instant appeals have thus been preferred by the proposed housing society of slum dwellers, the developer selected by the said society, and the SRA.

3. The instant appeals involve an in-depth analysis of the text as well as the legisla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top