Power Of State Govt Under Maharashtra Slum Areas Act Is Subject To Preferential Right Of Owner: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was hearing an Appeal against the Bombay High Court's Judgment in a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the CEO, Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner.
The Court reiterated thus in a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which a Writ Petition challenging the Order of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) was dismissed.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan elucidated, “The power of the State Government under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner. This being the position of law, no case is made out by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act.”
The Bench said that it is too late in the day, or to put it in other words, it will be too much if the Court at this point of time direct the authority concerned to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Slum Act on the basis of the CEO-SRA’s Order.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, K. Parameshwar, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Pallavi Sharma appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The dispute in this case was related to a parcel of land of Village Malad in Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District. The subject property was originally owned by F.E. Dinshaw Trust and since there were hutments on the property and the same had no proper hygiene and sanitation, it was declared as a slum in 1987 under Section 4 of Slum Act. In 1991, the Development Plan of 1991 for Mumbai was published wherein the subject property was reserved for Recreational Ground (RG). Thereafter Respondent No. 5 namely Phuldai R. Yadav claimed to have purchased the property under a distressed sale for an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- Within a period of 6 months from the date of purchase, Phuldai entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for sale of the property with the Appellant’s predecessor in interest viz. Harishree Enterprises. Later, disputes led to the litigation between the parties and the MOU was terminated in 1995.
In 1997, SRA issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to Harishree Enterprises for implementation of the Slum Scheme on a larger property, including the subject property. In the meantime, there was an agreement between Harishree Enterprises and one M/s. Vikas Housing Ltd. for joint development. This led to a dispute, which, in turn, was ultimately resolved. The Appellant-Jyoti Builders claimed to have acquired its rights from Vikas Housing. In 2005, a revised LOI was issued to the Appellant, including the disputed land and its 34 slum dwellers. Thereafter, four Rehabilitation Buildings were constructed between the year 2005 and 2011 and the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the fifth Rehabilitation building was issued by the SRA in 2022. In 2015, a detailed Order was passed by the CEO-SRA, holding that the Slum Scheme of the Appellant had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering the project property. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “… we decline to grant any relief to the appellant insofar as the prayer for acquisition of the subject property is concerned. … It is well settled that the power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner.”
The Court directed the Respondents to issue the Occupation Certificate for the final Sale Building in the slum scheme within a period of four weeks subject to the Appellant handing over the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved for Recreational Ground (RG).
“We make it abundantly clear that no construction shall be made on the subject property of any nature and the same shall be utilized only as a Recreational Ground (RG). In this regard, a clear statement was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively that no construction of any nature would be permitted on the subject property”, it clarified.
The Court noted that the Appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the Final Sale Building in the slum scheme on the Appellant handing over the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved for RG.
“The appellant has been fully compensated by granting adequate area/FSI for sale. … We direct the Respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) their successors and assigns that they shall not put up any type of construction on the subject property and the same shall be utilized only as a recreational Ground (RG)”, it ordered and concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Appeal.
Cause Title- Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1372)
