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) 1241

SURYA KANT, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, AOR Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amar Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Raj Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Jasmine Seth, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Parthasarathy Bose, Adv. Ms. Panchi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Ms. Sonali Jaitley Bakhshi, Adv. Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Manmilan Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Sudiksha Saina, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Misra, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv. Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv. Mr. Aviral Kashyap, AOR

Table of Content
1. arguments on the legislative interpretation of the slums act. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
2. court's observations on preferential rights and necessity of notice. (Para 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87)
3. ratio decidendi regarding the validity of the acquisition. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106)
4. final conclusion and directions by the court. (Para 107 , 108 , 109)

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

Leave granted.

2. The dispute which falls for consideration in these Civil Appeals pertains to the validity of the acquisition of land bearing CTS Nos. 119 I and 119 I/1-83 in Village Tungwa, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai, admeasuring 9,054 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 Judgments dated 13.06.2018 and 09.07.2018, has: (i) allowed the writ petition filed by the landowner; (ii) held the acquisition to be void; and (iii) directed the State of Maharashtra and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to invite the landowner and consider its proposal for redevelopment. The instant app

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