The court established that the absence of a Section 3C declaration does not prevent the execution of slum rehabilitation schemes, and the delegation of eviction authority to the Tahsildar was valid.

ORDER :

1. This petition arises out of proceedings initiated against the petitioners under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Slum Areas Act') for eviction of the petitioners from the structures in their possession, in the backdrop of slum rehabilitation scheme being implemented. The impugned order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) dismisses appeals filed by the petitioners, thereby confirming order dated 22.08.2024 passed by Tahsildar (Special Cell) / Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The said order of the Tahsildar directs the petitioners to handover possession to the respondent No.3 - developer, who is undertaking the project of slum rehabilitation, concerning respondent No.4 - society.

2. In the present case, during implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme under the provisions of the Slum Areas Act, there were total 689 slum-dwellers of whom 645 have been declared eligible and 641 persons have already vacated the premises. The construction of building No.1 under the slum rehabilitation scheme/project is ongoing and respondent No.3 has received Intimation of Approval (IoA) dated 06.06.2022 for composite building No.2 and it is for the purpose of completing construction and implementing the said scheme that the respondent No.3 is pursuing the proceedings for eviction of the petitioners.

3. Since the jurisdiction of the authorities while considering such an application under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Areas Act is limited, the petitioners have raised a specific ground of jurisdiction of the Tahsildar in entertaining such an application under the provisions of the Slum Areas Act, to claim that the proceeding itself is without jurisdiction. It is on this limited ground that the present petition has been argued and the learned counsel for the rival parties have been heard in that context. No other issue going into the merits of the matter, was even pressed on behalf of the petitioners.

4. Mr. Godbole, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Tahsildar, SRA i.e. the original authority, which passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2024, was lacking inherent jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Areas Act. It was submitted that, therefore, the entire proceedings stood vitiated and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

5. In this context, the learned senior counsel referred to various provisions of the Slum Areas Act, as also the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (hereinafter referred to as 'DCPR 2034') framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). It was submitted that although in the present case, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum Areas Act was issued, declaring the area in question as a ‘slum area’, for the SRA and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SRA to assume jurisdiction, a specific declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Areas Act was a sin