1. Land acquisition under the Slums Act — Declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area — Dispute over landowner's right to redevelop versus state's power of acquisition. (Para 2 , 39 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1241
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11014 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19774 of 2018)
with
The State of Maharashtra and another – Appellants
versus
Indian Cork Mills Private Limited and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11015 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25494 of 2018)
with
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority – Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27497 of 2018)
Decided on : 22-08-2025
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
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
Landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Areas under the Slums Act. The SRA must specifically notify and invite owners to submit redevelopment schemes before exercising its own redevelopment powers or initiating land acquisition under Section 14, which is subject to this preferential right.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 3B(4), 12(10), 13, and 14 - Dispute regarding the validity of land acquisition in relation to Slum Rehabilitation Areas - High Court found acquisition void, favoring landowner's preferential right to develop - The lack of proper notice to landowner invalidates acquisition process (Paras 11-13, 39-40).
(B) Legal Principles - Landowners have a preferential right to develop land declared as Slum Rehabilitation Areas, subject to timely submission of redevelopment scheme - The Slum Rehabilitation Authority must invite landowners to submit such schemes under §13 (Paras 44-52).
Facts of the case:
The land was acquired without proper invitation to the owner to submit a Slum Rehabilitation scheme despite its repeated expression of intent to redevelop.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the High Court decision and emphasized the process’s flaws requiring a specific invitation to landowners.
Issues: The court addressed if landowners have a preferential right and if this requires specific notice before acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a valid redevelopment scheme must be invited from landowners before any acquisition occurs, nullifying the State's acquisition due to procedural shortcomings.
Result: Appeals dismissed, allowing landowner to propose a redevelopment scheme.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop Slum Rehabilitation Areas and whether such right necessitates specific notice before land acquisition under the Slums Act. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 )
3. Landowners hold primacy in redevelopment; SRA must issue specific invitations to submit schemes; acquisition powers are subject to the exhaustion of the owner's preferential right. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 )
4. Landowners have a preferential right to redevelop Slum Rehabilitation Areas, requiring specific notice from the SRA before the state can exercise acquisition powers under Section 14. (Para 53 , 75 , 83 , 87 )
5. Appeals dismissed — High Court judgment upheld — Landowner granted liberty to submit a fresh redevelopment scheme within a specified timeframe. (Para 107 , 108 , 109 )
6. Does a landowner have a preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Slums Act?
Yes. Sections 3B(4)(e) and 13(1) indicate that the SRA can only undertake redevelopment if landholders or occupants do not come forward within a reasonable time. Landowners possess primacy over the SRA and other stakeholders to implement the redevelopment scheme. (Para 47 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 63 )
7. Is the SRA required to issue a specific notice to the landowner to invite a redevelopment proposal?
Yes. A Gazette notification declaring an area as an SR Area is not an invitation to redevelop. Because preparing a scheme requires SRA support for surveys and mapping, a specific notice-cum-invitation is mandatory to enable the owner to exercise their preferential right. (Para 66 , 69 , 71 , 75 )
8. Is the state's power to acquire land under Section 14 independent of the owner's right under Section 13 in SR Areas?
No. In the Chapter I-A framework, acquisition under Section 14 is intended to enable the SRA to carry out development. It cannot be used to pre-empt the owner's preferential right and can only proceed once that right is extinguished. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 86 , 87 )
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 appeals have, thus, been preferred by the proposed housing society of slum dwellers, the State of Maharashtra, and the SRA.
A. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
3. Before delving into the facts of this case, it may be prudent to first consider the legislative scheme of the Slums Act.
4. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was originally enacted by the Maharashtra State Legislature as “[an] Act to make better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and their redevelopment.”
A.1 Original Framework for Slum Redevelopment (1971)
5. In its original form, the Slums Act provided a procedure for appointment of a Competent Authority (Section 3); declaration by the Competent Authority of certain slums as ‘Slum Areas’ (Chapter II); improvements to be conducted in such Slum Areas by the landowner or the Competent Authority (Chapter III); clearing and redevelopment of the Slum Areas (Chapter IV); and the acquisition of land for such redevelopment (Chapter V).
6. Given the background of the instant appeals, it seems to us that, besides the definitions contained in Section 2 of the Slums Act, Chapters IV and V thereof also merit a more detailed consideration.
7. Section 2 contains the definitions of various terms and phrases used in the Slums Act:
“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires ––
[xxxx]
(d) “land” includes building and also benefits to arise out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth;
(e) “occupier” includes,—
(i) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(ii) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his land or building;
(iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and
(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;
(f) “owner”, when used with reference to any building or land, means the person who receives or is entitled to receive the rent of the building or land, if the building or land were let, and includes,—
(i) an agent or trustee who receives such rent on account of the owner;
(ii) an agent or trustee who receives the rent of, or is entrusted with, or concerned for, any building or land devoted to religious or charitable purpose;
(iii) a receiver, sequestrator or manager appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction to have the charge of or to exercise the rights of owner of the said building or land; and
(iv) a mortgagee-in-possession; but does not include, a slumlord;
[xxxx]
(h) “slum clearance” means the clearance of any slum area by the demolition and removal of buildings therefrom;
[xxxx] ”
8. It may be noted that although the term ‘landholder’ is not expressly defined within the legislation, it is taken to mean all the persons who hold any interest in the land in question. This would, of course, include the owner(s) of the land, but it also covers other interest holders, such as mortgagees or assignees.
9. Chapter IV lays down the process whereby the Competent Authority can decid
