No Separate Notification U/S.4 Of Maharashtra Slum Act Required For Censused Slum: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By Transit Camp Tenants Occupying Slum Area

The Apex Court held that the appellants had only been using dilatory tactics to delay the project as they were found to be ineligible slum dwellers since they were transit camp tenants who were given transit accommodation during the widening of the Western Express Highway.

The Appeals before the Apex Court challenged the order of the Bombay High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against a notice issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), directing the appellants to vacate their respective premises located in the plot of land in question as the same was to be redeveloped.

Referring to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran explained, “Reading of the above regulations also makes it clear that if a slum is a ‘censused slum’ then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and no separate notification is required under the Slum Act.In other words, a censused slum is also a slum as per Regulation 33(10) DCR and a separate notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is not required.”

Factual Background

The SRA had issued a notice under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) and directed the appellants to vacate their respective premises within 15 days for the reason that the appellants were occupying a slum area which was to be redeveloped. The challenge to the notice before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) under section 35(1A) of the Slum Act was dismissed.

Despite the affirmation of notice by the AGRC, the appellants did not hand over their premises to the developer for the redevelopment of the area, and thus, SRA issued another notice directing the appellants to vacate their premises within 48 hours. This notice was challenged before the High Court by filing a Writ Petition, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Referring to the provisions of the Slum Act, which govern the redevelopment of slum areas, the Bench observed that the Slum Act is a welfare legislation enacted in 1971 with the object of rehabilitating slum dwellers to improve their living conditions. The subsequent amendment to the Slum Act in the year 1996 inserted an entirely new Chapter, i.e. Chapter I­A, for Slum Rehabilitation. Under Section 3A of this new Chapter of the Slum Act, the State has appointed a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), which prepares and implements Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as per section 3B of the Slum Act.

The Bench affirmed the observations of the AGRC, stating that the MHADA had been consistent in its stand that the plot was never an MHADA layout, the appellants were never the tenants of MHADA, and they were just staying there as transit camp tenants. There was no landlord­-tenant relationship between the appellants and MHADA, and what the appellants were paying to MHADA was not rent but transit fees and other service charges. AGRC had also observed that the appellants were ineligible slum dwellers, and some of them along with others had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court way back in the year 2010, raising identical issues, and that petition was dismissed. This order of the AGRC was never challenged before any forum.

It was further observed by the Bench that there was no satisfactory explanation on behalf of the appellants as to why they never challenged the AGRC order, except for making a bald statement that they were not aware of that order. As per the Bench, the High Court rightly disbelieved this and further noted that the AGRC order had attained finality. The Bench further added, “Only four of the present appellants were there before the High Court and rest of the appellants are fence sitters who have directly approached this Court claiming that they are also affected by the order of the High Court, even though they were never a party before the High Court. In any case, we find no merit in their case.”

The Court explained that the project related to a ‘censused slum’ and no notification declaring it to be a slum area was required to be issued. MHADA has also never declared this slum as a part of its layout. It may technically be an MHADA property, but over the years, it has grown as a slum, and therefore, for purely practical reasons, it needed to be developed by SRA under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and not as an MHADA layout under Regulation 33(5) of DCR. A No Objection Certificate to SRA for the development of the said property has already been granted by the MHADA. “In our view, this redevelopment, which is being carried out under the Slum Act and Regulation 33(10) of DCR, does not suffer from any legal infirmity”, it said.

For the present slum area, SRA had pointed out before the High Court that there were as many as 2965 slum structures which were surveyed, and out of these, 2625 were found to be eligible for rehabilitation. As per the records, the Bharat Ekta Society is a bona fide society consisting of 261 slum dwellers and more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a considered decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great deal of progress has already been made in this regard so far. “The project has not only been sanctioned but has reached an advanced stage and at this stage, the appellants cannot be allowed to disturb this ongoing project as it would defeat the whole purpose of the redevelopment which is going to benefit a large number of eligible slum dwellers”, the Bench held.

Thus, finding that no relief could be granted to the appellants as prayed, the Bench dismissed the Appeals.

Cause Title: Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v. The Tahsildar­i, Special Cell & Others (Neutral Citation :2025 INSC 276)

Click here to read/download Judgment