1. Land acquisition dispute under the Slums Act — Declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area — Challenge to acquisition proceedings for failure to recognize landowner's preferential redevelopment rights. (Para 2 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1240
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.................of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15454 of 2024]
WITH
Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd. (Proposed) - Appellant
Versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.................of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15711 of 2024]
WITH
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Another - Appellants
Versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.................of 2025 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16209 of 2024]
Decided On : 22-08-2025
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
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
Private owners of a Slum Rehabilitation Area possess a preferential right to redevelop it. The SRA must issue a specific notice-cum-invitation to the owner before this right is extinguished. Land acquisition under Section 14 is invalid if this mandatory procedural requirement is not fulfilled.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - 2018 Amendment - Acquisition of land - High Court held acquisition void, granting preferential right to landowner for redevelopment - SRA failed to notify landowner about redevelopment proposal - Acquisition process marred by lack of transparency. (Paras 3, 11, 31, 50)
(B) Right of Redevelopment - Landowners of Slum Rehabilitation Areas have a preferential right to develop their land - SRA must invite proposals from landowners prior to initiating land acquisition - This preferential right cannot be extinguished without due process. (Paras 24, 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose over land acquisition in a slum rehabilitation area under the Slums Act. The Church Trust challenged the acquisition initiated by the SRA, alleging non-compliance with statutory requirements. The High Court ruled in favor of the Church Trust, emphasizing its preferential redevelopment rights.
Findings of Court:
High Court’s decision upheld - SRA’s actions undermined landowner rights and failed to follow appropriate procedure.
Issues: (I) Legality of High Court’s decision to entertain the Writ Petition; (II) Impact of the 2018 Amendment on landowners' rights; (III) Validity of SRA’s acquisition process.
Ratio Decidendi: The acquisition was deemed illegal due to the absence of necessary notices to the landowner, reinforcing that landowners must be invited to submit redevelopment proposals.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether 2018 Amendment removes the requirement for separate notice under Section 13 — Whether the 120-day limit for submitting redevelopment schemes starts from the Section 3C(1) declaration. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
3. SRA failed to issue mandatory notice-cum-invitation under Section 13 — Acquisition proceedings were marred by mala fides, collusion between the developer and SRA, and arbitrary rejection of owner's proposal. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 )
4. Landowners possess a preferential right to develop SR Areas, extinguishable only if they fail to submit a scheme within 120 days following a specific notice-cum-invitation from the SRA. (Para 26 , 27 )
5. Appeals dismissed — High Court judgment upheld — Landowner granted 120 days to submit redevelopment scheme — SRA directed to provide support and process the proposal expeditiously. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 )
6. Does the 2018 Amendment remove the requirement for a separate notice under Section 13 of the Slums Act?
No. The notice under Section 3C is for declaring an area as an SR Area, whereas the notice under Section 13 is a specific invitation to the owner to initiate redevelopment. The 2018 Amendment does not dilute the owner's preferential right or remove this mandatory requirement. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. When does the 120-day time limit for submitting a redevelopment scheme begin?
The 120-day limit does not start from the Section 3C(1) declaration. Instead, it comes into effect only after the landowner has been specifically notified and invited by the SRA to redevelop the SR Area. (Para 21 , 24 , 27 )
8. Can a landowner's preferential right to develop an SR Area be automatically waived?
No. There is no automatic waiver of the preferential right. Waiver requires a clear and overt communication from the owner stating they do not wish to exercise the right. Consistent expressions of intent to redevelop preclude a finding of waiver. (Para 33 , 34 )
9. What are the prerequisites for the SRA to acquire land under Section 14 of the Slums Act?
The SRA must first invite the landowner to submit a redevelopment proposal and provide reasonable time. Acquisition is only permissible after the landowner's preferential right is extinguished due to failure to submit a scheme within the prescribed period following such invitation. (Para 26 , 27 , 32 )
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 legislative policy behind Chapter I-A of the Slums Act, specifically regarding the rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) and the corresponding duties of the SRA. At the outset, we note that by a Judgment of even date, titled Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19774 of 2018, Judgment dated 22.08.2025 a 2-Judge Bench of this Court, including one of us (Surya Kant, J.), has dealt with a substantial part of the arguments raised in these appeals. The Bench, therein, upheld the decision of another Division Bench of the High Court in Indian Cork Mills (P) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC Online Bom 1214 laying down that: (i) the private owner of a Slum Rehabilitation Area has a preferential right to develop it; (ii) as part of this right, the owner must be notified and invited to undertake such redevelopment and (iii) without such notice being issued and such right being extinguished, it would be untenable for the State or the SRA to acquire the land under Section 14 .
4. The legislative interpretation we are tasked with undertaking in these appeals has largely been addressed by the Bench in Tarabai (supra). Having previously examined the law regarding the questions answered therein, this Court does not need to revisit the analysis of the Slums Act. The only remaining issue for us to consider through this Judgment is the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 (2018 Amendment).
(A) LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
5. The legislative scheme of the Slums Act prior to the 2018 Amendment has already been detailed extensively in Tarabai (supra).3 [See Paragraphs 5 to 38 of Tarabai (supra)] However, before delving into the facts of this case, it would be apposite to first explore the impact of the said Amendment on the slum rehabilitation framework envisaged in Chapter I-A of the Slums Act.
6. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017, which came into force on 26.04.2018, was enacted to improve the practical implementation of the Slums Act and to expand the scope of slum rehabilitation. It introduced various improvements, both significant and minor, into the legislative framework for slum rehabilitation.
7. Section 3B is one of the key areas where such a change was implemented.4 [For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra)]
7.1. In sub-section (1), the Legislature introduced the ability for the SRA to amend an already operative General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (General SR Scheme).
7.2. Further, the provisions which, prior to the Amendment, were included in sub-section (4)5 [See Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra)] namely, the matters which shall be provided for in the General SR Scheme, have now been relocated to sub-section (5). While the scheme itself and its tenor remain unchanged, the scope of these matters has been broadened. For example, provisions for compensation in lieu of
