Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Bishop John Rodrigues - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1212 of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is the landowner challenging the slum acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details of land ownership and historical encroachment. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. negotiations between petitioner and slum dwellers regarding redevelopment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. discussion of legal rights under the slum act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. court emphasizes ownership rights and redevelopment responsibilities. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. findings on compulsory acquisition and implications. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 7. court's rationale behind ruling against the acquisition. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 8. court's critique of the sra's failure to recognize rights. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 9. procedural safeguards in land acquisition under slum act. (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 10. legal principles and implications of the director's decision. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 11. importance of following statutory procedures in acquisition. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 12. constitutional rights of property owners and balance of interests. (Para 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 13. court's projection of equitable rights in future policy-making. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96) |
| 14. ceo sra failed to recognize preferential rights of landowner. (Para 110) |
JUDGMENT
Paragraph Nos. | ||
Prelude | 1 - 5 | |
A | Facts | 6 - 36 |
B | Reply-Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.5-Developer | 37 |
C | Reply-Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.4-Proposed Society of the Slum Dwellers | 38 |
D | Reply-Affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 & 3-SRA | 39 |
E | Rejoinder of the Petitioner | 40 |
F | Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner | 41 - 43 |
G | Submission on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3-SRA | 44 |
H | Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.5-Developer | 45 - 46 |
I | Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.4-Society | 47 - 48 |
J | Submissions in rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner | 49 - 56 |
K | Reasons and Conclusions | 57 - 131 |
G. S. Kulkarni, J. -
Prelude
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by a Public Trust known as Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount, Bandra (West) Mumbai, (for short 'the trust') through the petitioner its trustee. The trust manages a Church popularly known as the 'Mount Mary's Church' which is a well known shrine in the city of Mumbai.
2. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing CTS No. B-960 admeasuring about 9371.30 sq. meters, situated at Bandra Mumbai, out of which a small portion of the land admeasuring 1596.40 sq. meters (for short 'the land'), stated to be a slum area, is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
3. The challenge as mounted in the petition is to an action as initiated by respondent No.2/Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'SRA') through its Chief Executive Officer ('CEO')/respondent No.3, to acquire such land for the purpose of redevelopment of 35 slum tenements situated thereon. It is in the course of acquisition of the said land, the impugned notice dated 29 October 2021 was issued to the petitioner by the CEO -SRA under Section 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Slum Act'). Such notice was replied by the petitioner.
4. It is the petitioner's contention that the impugned notice and the order dated 29 March, 2022 passed on it by the CEO-SRA are patently illegal, on several counts. The primary contention being that the petitioner's preferential right, as owner of the land, to redevelop such land occupied by 35 hutments inter alia to rehabilitate them is sought to be taken away or is not recognized by the CEO - SRA in attempting to compulsory acquire the land, purportedly at the behest of Respondent No.4-Shri Kadeshwari Co-operative Housing Society, a proposed Cooperative Society of the Slum Dwellers (for short 'the Proposed Society') and Respondent No.5-the Developer appointed by the society (for short 'the Developer'). It is the petitioner's case that the said Slum Society giving the petitioner's land to a private developer,
The court established that a notice under Section 13 is mandatory for the 120-day period to commence, affirming the landowner's preferential right to develop slum rehabilitation areas.
State cannot acquire private land for slum rehabilitation without recognizing and allowing landowners' preferential rights to develop the land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the property under the Slum Act, the starting point for commencement of 'reasonable time' for rede....
The court reaffirmed that the preferential right of a landowner over slum redevelopment schemes must be respected before any acquisition is initiated under relevant legislation.
Landowners possess a primary preferential right to undertake redevelopment under rehabilitation schemes; however, this right is subordinate to statutory procedural compliance, including the mandatory....
Public landowner has preferential redevelopment rights on reserved slum land; conditional NOC cancellation valid for developer's failure to provide compliant plans for public amenities, subordinating....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
