2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 172097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe, JJ
Suresh Narayan Kakade – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.942 OF 2024 | INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2702 OF 2024 | WRIT PETITION NO.1923 OF 2019

Landowners hold a mandatory preferential right to redevelop private property included in a rehabilitation scheme. Administrative authorities must issue a formal invitation to the landowner to undertake such development before initiating compulsory acquisition. Failure to provide this notice renders the entire acquisition process legally unsustainable and arbitrary.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300A - Right to property - Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act - Section 13(1) and (2) - Section 14(1) - Compulsory acquisition of private land for redevelopment - Preferential right of the landowner to redevelop.

(B) The statutory scheme under the relevant Act mandates that the landowner possesses a preferential right to undertake the redevelopment of an area declared as a rehabilitation site. The failure of the authorities to issue a mandatory notice-cum-invitation to the owner to submit a redevelopment proposal within the statutory time frame is a violation of the prescribed due process, rendering the acquisition unsustainable. (Paras 16, 17, 20).

(C) Powers of acquisition operate on the premise that efforts by the landholder to redevelop must be exhausted or absent. The authority cannot bypass the owner’s primary right to participate in the redevelopment project, as the law does not intend for private land to be taken without affording the owner an opportunity to comply with its obligations. (Paras 18, 20).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated against their private land for the purpose of a redevelopment project. The authorities declared the land as a rehabilitation zone and subsequently moved to acquire the interest of the owners without issuing a prior notification or invitation calling upon the owners to perform the redevelopment work themselves.

Findings of Court:
The action of the state authorities in proceeding with the acquisition without fulfilling the requirements of issuing a notice to the landowners to exercise their preferential right to redevelop is procedurally invalid. The right to property is a constitutional mandate that cannot be infringed by non-compliance with the statutory framework governing rehabilitation schemes.

Issues: Whether the acquisition of private land for a rehabilitation scheme is valid without issuing a statutory notice of invitation for redevelopment to the landowner, and whether the owners’ preferential right to develop their own land was respected.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the issuance of a specific notice under the relevant provision is a mandatory requirement that serves as a condition precedent to the exercise of acquisition powers. Omitting this notice extinguishes the owner’s preferential right, which is an illegal and arbitrary exercise of administrative power.

Result: Petitions allowed. The impugned acquisition notifications and awards are quashed and set aside, with liberty granted to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with legal procedures.