N. D. Bhuta Charities vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-AS:22913
WP11550-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11550 OF 2025
N. D. Bhuta Charities,
through its Trustees including
Kamlesh J. Bhuta
being a Charitable Trust registered under
the Public Trust Act, 1950
having its registered office at
Nagardas Dharsi Bhuta High School,
Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East)
Mumbai – 400069.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
Government of Maharashtra,
having office at Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA
rd
3 Floor, Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.
3. The Dy. Chief Executive Officer, SRA
(H/E Ward)
nd
2 Floor, Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.
SAINATH, PA
1/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
4. The Executive Engineer, SRA (H/E Ward)
nd
2 Floor, Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.
5. Yashwant SRA CHS (Prop)
6. Vijay Jadhav
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
Chief Promoter of Respondent No.5
Both having their address at
CTS No. 611(pt), 611/4, 612,
612/1 to 2, 613(pt), 613/1 to 5
Yashwant Kadam Chawl,
Aliyavar Jung Marg,
Near Teachers Colony
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051.
7. Jaishree Mehta
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Residing at 3, Uday Park Society
In the lane of Club Mall,
Jetalpur Road, Vadodara, Gujarat – 07
8. Shaila H. Gandhi
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
Residing at 11, Amar Kunj Building
nd
2 Floor, 377, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Shivaji Park, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 28
9. Bhavna N. Bhuta
Adult, Indian Inhabitant
SAINATH, PA
2/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Residing at 501, Vasant Villa
V. L. Mehta Marg, JVPD Scheme,
Juhu Vile Parle, Mumbai 400049
…Respondents
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Vishal Kanade,
Jimish Shah, Nitesh Menon and Nirvi Shah, for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Aarushi Yadav, i/b Ravleen Sabharwal, for Respondent
No.1/SRA and Respondent Nos.2 to 4/AGRC.
Mr. Cherag Balsara, a/w Devansh Shah, Santosh Pathak,
Nimish Lotlikar and Deepesh Kadam i/b Law Origin, for
Respondent Nos.5 and 7.
Mr. Abhishek Sawant, a/w Ameet Mehta, Jill Rathod, Hardik
Gaglani, i/b Solicis Lex, for Respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
th
RESERVED ON: 12 JANUARY, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 08 JUNE, 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated
th
7 February, 2025 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee (“AGRC”) (R1) whereby an application preferred by
SAINATH, PA
3/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Respondent Nos.7 to 9 for intervention came to be allowed and
th
another final order dated 27 May, 2025, whereby the AGRC
was persuaded to allow Application No. 82 of 2024 filed by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 purportedly under Section 35 of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slum Act, 1971”) and thereby set
th
aside the order dated 27 July, 2021 passed by the Executive
Engineer, SRA (R4) accepting the proposal submitted by the
Petitioner – R4 therein for implementation of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme on the plot of land bearing CTS Nos.612,
612/1 and 612/2 of Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, situated at
Yashwant Kadam Chowk, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra, Mumbai,
having a total area of 2381.50 sq. mtrs. (“the subject property”).
3. The background facts necessary for the determination of
this petition can be stated in brief as under:
3.1 The Petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered
under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. Under a Deed
th
of Trust dated 26 April, 1958 executed between Nagardas
Dharsibhai Bhuta, the settlor, and Ramaniklal N. Bhuta,
Jaysukhlal N. Bhuta, Vasantben Ramaniklal and Bhanumati
Jaysukhlal Bhuta, the trustees, the Charitable Trust under the
name and style of “Nagardas Dharsey Bhuta Charities” was set
SAINATH, PA
4/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
up.
th
3.2 Under a Deed of Conveyance dated 14 March 1961, the
subject property was conveyed by Jal Khariwala and Khurshedji
Khariwala to Ramaniklal Nagardas and Jaysukhlal Nagardas
Bhuta. During the period 1971 to 1972, Ramaniklal donated
the subject property to the Petitioner Trust. Thus, the Petitioner
Trust became the owner of the subject property.
th
3.3 On 13 October 1977, an area admeasuring 5918.9 sq.
mtrs. of CTS No. 611, an area admeasuring 615.2 sq. mtrs. out
of the subject property and an area admeasuring 247.2 sq. mtrs.
of CTS No. 613/1 to 5 were declared as a slum area under
Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971.
3.4 Yaswant SRA CHS (Proposed) (R5) is a proposed Co-
operative Housing Society of alleged slum dwellers. Respondent
No. 6 claims to be the Chief Promoter of R5 Society.
3.5 Ramaniklal Bhuta, one of the trustees of the Petitioner
st
Trust passed away on 1 November 2005. In the wake of
disputes inter se members of Bhuta family, Jaysukhlal and
Bhanumati instituted a suit being Suit No. 3148 of 2009 in the
High Court against Vasantben Bhuta and Respondent Nos. 7 to
9, primarily for declaration that the plaint properties described
in Exhibit “B” were joint properties in which Ramaniklal and
SAINATH, PA
5/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Jaysukhlal have equal shares and for partition of those
properties. The subject property, however, did not form part of
the suit properties in Suit No. 3148 of 2009.
3.6 By way of a counterblast, Vasantben Bhuta and
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed Suit No. 389 of 2010 in the High
Court against Jaysukhlal and Bhanumati seeking a declaration
that the properties described in Exhibit “D” thereto are the
exclusive properties of Ramaniklal and the properties described
in Exhibit “C” jointly belong to Ramaniklal and Jaysukhlal,
alongwith consequential reliefs. The subject property does not
form part of the suit properties in Suit No. 389 of 2010, as well.
3.7 The Petitioner claims that in the month of November,
2009, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 arbitrarily, unilaterally and
illegally appointed Prarthana Developers to carry out slum
rehabilitation redevelopment over the subject property, on their
behalf. In the month of August 2010, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
unilaterally and illegally substituted Prarthana Developers and
appointed Siddharth Developers to carry out slum rehabilitation
redevelopment on their behalf.
3.8 An application under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act, 1971
was also preferred by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 seeking
acquisition of the said subject property. The said application
SAINATH, PA
6/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
th th
was rejected on 30 May, 2012. Yet, on 13 October, 2016
Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed another proposal under Section
14(1) of the Slum Act, 1971. The second application was also
th
rejected vide communication dated 14 March, 2017.
3.9 The Petitioner claims that despite being aware of the fact
that the Petitioner is the owner of the subject property,
nd
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, by letter dated 22 January, 2018,
called upon the Petitioner to submit a proposal for
redevelopment of CTS Nos. 611 and 613 and further called upon
the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.9 crores towards corpus.
th
In the meanwhile, on 9 January, 2020, the area of CTS No. 612
forming part of the subject property was corrected from 533.7
sq. mtrs. to 2299.7 sq. mtrs. Thereupon, the Petitioner
withdrew WP/1128/2014 as the Petitioner intended to develop
the subject property as per the provisions of the Slum Act, 1971
th
and Circular No. 144A dated 9 March, 2015. Accordingly, the
Petitioner submitted a proposal for the redevelopment of the
th
subject property on 7 February, 2020.
th
3.10 On 20 February, 2020, the Petitioner submitted an
application under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971 to declare
the balance area i.e. 1766 sq. mtrs. as a slum. After due
compliance, as directed by the CEO, SRA (R2) to the Executive
SAINATH, PA
7/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Engineer, SRA, (R4), to submit a complete proposal to declare an
area admeasuring 2381.50 sq. mtrs. of the subject property as
slum under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, the Petitioner
filed an application under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971
th th
on 10 December, 2020. Thereupon on 27 July, 2021, the SRA
issued a report thereby conveying in-principle acceptance of the
proposal of the Petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
th
3.11 On 25 August, 2023, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an
application under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, 1971 seeking
change of the Petitioner as the developer. An abortive effort was
made by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to challenge the in-principle
acceptance of the proposal of the Petitioner by the SRA. Upon
being informed that the SRA has no authority to review its own
order, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred the instant application
before the AGRC seeking rejection of the in-principle acceptance
th
dated 27 July, 2021.
th
3.12 In the said application, on 29 September, 2024,
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 filed an application for intervention.
Though the said application for intervention was finally heard
th
on 7 February, 2025 and reserved for orders, the Petitioner
claims, it subsequently transpired that the said intervention
th
application was allowed by a non-speaking order dated 7
SAINATH, PA
8/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
February, 2025. Eventually, the application preferred by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also came to be allowed, and the order
of acceptance of the proposal of the Petitioner for
th
implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme dated 27
July, 2021 came to be set aside, purportedly on the ground that
the Petitioner had submitted the said proposal without
obtaining the consent and General Body Resolution of the
society in accordance with Circular No. 144 and that in the
affidavit in support of the application false assertions as regards
the pendency of the proceedings were made.
4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ
jurisdiction.
5. The Petitioner, inter alia , asserts that the AGRC (R1)
committed an error in not appreciating that the proposal of the
Petitioner was under Circular No. 144A and not under Circular
No. 144 and, therefore, it was not mandatory to obtain consent
and General Body Resolution of the society. Secondly, the
AGRC (R1) has transgressed the jurisdictional limits in
venturing into the issue of title over the subject property.
Thirdly, the AGRC (R1) has committed a manifest error in not
properly appreciating that the Petitioner, being the landowner,
has a preferential right to develop the subject property and that
SAINATH, PA
9/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
the title of the Petitioner to the subject property was clear.
Fourthly, the AGRC (R1) failed to appreciate that the objections
raised on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were premature as
an in-principle approval cannot be equated with final sanction.
Lastly, the AGRC (R1) missed to note that the application was
grossly barred by limitation and was actuated by a design to
usurp the Petitioner’s land. The Petitioner has thus prayed for
th
quashing and setting aside the orders dated 7 February, 2025
th
and 27 May, 2025.
6. The Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have resisted the petition by
filing an affidavit in reply. The substance of the resistance put-
forth by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is that post submission and
acceptance of the proposal of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
the Petitioner Trust made an application for declaration of a
nd
slum rehabilitation area and on 2 May, 2024, an order was
passed by the CEO, SRA. Thus, on the date of submission and
acceptance of the proposal for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
a major portion of the subject property was non-slum area.
Consequently, on the date of submission and acceptance of the
proposal for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the Petitioner,
the proposal was incomplete. The said proposal could not have
been improved by the Petitioner post acceptance thereof.
SAINATH, PA
10/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Consequently, the AGRC (R1) was fully justified in rejecting the
acceptance of the Petitioner’s proposal.
7. Secondly, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 contend that there are
disputes inter se family members and trustees of the Petitioner
Trust. Therefore, the Respondent No. 5 Society has a reasonable
apprehension that on account of the disputes in which the trust
is embroiled, the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be
smoothly implemented and resultantly the interest of the
members of Respondent No. 5 Society would be jeopardised.
8. Thirdly, refuting the contention of the Petitioner that the
Respondent No. 5 society had appointed Siddharth Developers
arbitrarily, Respondent No. 5 contends that on account of the
inordinate delay in implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme, Respondent No. 5 has terminated the appointment of
Prarthana Developers and Siddharth Developers. It was further
contended that Respondent No. 5 had called upon the Petitioner
nd
by letter dated 22 January, 2018 to spell out the steps
proposed to be taken for redevelopment of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme to address the concerns of the slum
dwellers.
9. Fourthly, Respondent No. 5 Society contended that the
Petitioner Trust submitted the proposal of the Slum
SAINATH, PA
11/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Rehabilitation Scheme on a major portion of a non-slum plot by
setting up a bogus and fake Society namely “Shri N. D. Bhuta
Bandra SRA CHS (Proposed)” behind the back of Respondent
No. 5 Society. The Petitioner Trust has conducted an AGM dated
st
1 May, 2022 only in respect of slum dwellers situated upon
CTS No. 612 and obtained the signatures of slum dwellers
situated upon CTS Nos. 611 and 613 by misleading them that
the scheme was for redevelopment of CTS No. 612. Such
conduct of the Petitioner was stated to be mala fide and illegal.
10. Lastly, the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have also referred to
purported false assertions in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Petitioner, thereby suppressing the fact that there were litigation
among the members of the Bhuta family and the trustees inter
se. In such a situation, the interests of the members of
Respondent No. 5 Society, who have been waiting for more than
40 years for the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme would be completely jeopardised if the incomplete,
illegal and mala fide proposal of Petitioner is accepted.
11. The Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 have also resisted the
petition by filing an affidavit in reply. Respondent Nos. 7 to 9
claim that they have a direct and abiding interest in the affairs
of the Trust and the preservation of its assets. Mrs. Bhanumati
SAINATH, PA
12/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Bhuta allegedly appointed four of her immediate family
members as trustees of the Petitioner Trust surreptitiously and
in a fraudulent manner and behind the back of Respondent
Nos. 7 to 9, who are the legal heirs of Ramaniklal Bhuta, the
original trustee.
12. The Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 have, thus, raised a dispute
about the appointment of the trustees and the fraudulent
takeover of the Trust. Therefore, the AGRC was justified in
allowing the intervention application filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9. The presence of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9
is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the
controversy in a fair and just manner and to obviate the
multiplicity of proceedings.
13. An affidavit-in-rejoinder came to be filed on behalf of the
Petitioner controverting the contentions in the affidavit-in-reply
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It was categorically
denied that a major portion of the subject property was non-
slum when the proposal submitted by the Petitioner for the
development of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was accepted
th
by the SRA. The order dated 29 April 2024 passed by the
CEO, SRA declaring the entire area admeasuring 2381.50 sq.
mtrs. as a slum area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971
SAINATH, PA
13/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
has attained finality as it has not been challenged by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. After scrutiny of the said proposal at
various levels by the concerned competent authorities in-
principle acceptance has been accorded. At any rate, whether
the proposal was complete in all respects would be decided by
the SRA before the issuance of LOI and, thus, the application
preferred by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 before the AGRC
challenging the acceptance of the proposal was premature.
14. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9, the Petitioner asserts that
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are not the trustees of the Petitioner
Trust and have, thus, no locus standi to claim any right, title
and interest in respect of the Petitioner Trust and the subject
property. It was asserted that Mrs. Vasantben Bhuta, the sole
surviving trustee, had lawfully appointed four trustees of the
Petitioner Trust and the change was accepted by the Assistant
th
Charity Commissioner by an order dated 20 January, 2023.
Thus, the contention of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 that the trustees
have been appointed in a surreptitious and fraudulent manner
cannot be countenanced. To put it in other words, Respondent
Nos. 7 to 9 are neither the trustees of the Petitioner Trust nor
have any concern with the subject property and, resultantly,
SAINATH, PA
14/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
ought not to have been permitted to intervene in the
proceedings before the AGRC (R1).
15. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and pleadings, I have
heard Mr. Ashish Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner; Ms. Aarushi Yadav, the learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Chirag Balsara, the learned
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Mr. Abhishek Sawant,
the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to 9, at some length.
The learned Counsel for the parties took the Court through the
pleadings and the material placed on record.
16. Mr. Kamat, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, the AGRC has interfered with the in-principle
acceptance of the proposal for implementation of the SR Scheme
by ascribing patently incorrect reasons. The two principal
reasons which appear to have weighed with the AGRC, namely
the want of consent and General Body Resolution of the
Respondent No. 5 – Society and the alleged false assertion in the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner regarding non-pendency
of any litigation in regard to the subject property, are both
demonstrably unsustainable.
17. Amplifying the submission, Mr. Kamat would urge that,
the AGRC approached the issue from an incorrect perspective.
SAINATH, PA
15/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
The fact that, the SR Scheme was proposed to be developed by
the Petitioner – Trust which is the indisputable owner of the
subject property was completely lost sight of by the AGRC. The
fact that, the proposal submitted and processed by the SRA was
in terms of Circular No. 144A was plainly missed by the AGRC.
In view of the modifications brought about by the said Circular
No. 144A where the SR Scheme was to be implemented by the
owner of the premises, the condition to obtain the consent of
70% of the occupants has been relaxed. Since the AGRC did not
appreciate the distinction between the proposal which is
governed by Circular No. 144A and the one under Circular No.
144, a patent error was committed by the AGRC in applying the
parameters under Circular No. 144, and that led to a wholly
erroneous finding, urged Mr. Kamat.
18. The second ground of alleged false statements in the
affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner regarding the absence of
litigation in regard to the subject property is equally untenable.
Attention of the Court was invited to the pleadings in the two
suits i.e. Suit Nos. 3148/2009 and 389/2010, Mr. Kamat
submitted that, on the ownshowing of Respondent Nos. 7 to 9,
the subject property of the Petitioner – Trust was not the subject
matter of those suits. Yet, without examining the factual aspect
SAINATH, PA
16/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
in the light of the material on record, by a stroke of a pen, the
AGRC interfered with the order of acceptance of the proposal to
implement the SR Scheme by observing that, there was a false
assertion in the affidavit. Therefore, both the counts on which
the AGRC was persuaded to interfere with the order of
acceptance, are ex facie incorrect, and do not sustain the
impugned order.
19. Mr. Kamat also submitted that, the objections sought to
be raised on behalf of the private respondents in this petition do
not deserve any countenance. On the contrary, the conduct of
Respondent No. 5 – Society which has twice made an effort to
move the government to acquire the subject property under
Section 14 of the Slum Act, 1971, unsuccessfully, and has
subsequently engaged with the Petitioner to implement the SR
Scheme by putting an unreasonable condition of a deposit of an
amount of Rs. 9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores) leaves much
to be desired. The entire action of Respondent No. 5 was
actuated by a design to defeat the preferential right of the owner
to implement the SR Scheme. To buttress the aforesaid
submissions, Mr. Kamat placed reliance on the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the cases of Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Housing
SAINATH, PA
17/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
1
Society (Prop.) Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. and Saldanha
2
Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bishop John Rodrigues & ors. ; which
decisions have upheld the two-Judge Bench judgments of this
Court in the cases of Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of
3
Maharashtra & ors. and Bishop John Rodrigues Vs. State of
4
Mahrashtra & ors. , respectively.
20. Mr. Balsara, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5
and 6, countered the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner.
On the factual score, Mr. Balsara laid emphasis on the fact that
as of the date of the acceptance of the proposal to implement
the SR Scheme over the subject premises, incontrovertibly, there
was no slum declaration either under Section 3C or Section 4 of
the Slum Act, 1971. Secondly, the purported order under
Section 3C(1) declaring the CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 as a
Slum Rehabilitation Area has been antedated. Mr. Balsara made
an earnest endeavor to build his submissions on the aforesaid
factual edifice.
21. First and foremost, Mr. Balsara would urge, in view of the
Slum (Amendment) Act, 2017, a declaration under Section 3C(1),
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1795
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794
3
(2018) 4 Bom CR 618
4
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632
SAINATH, PA
18/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
is mandatory. In the absence of such a declaration under
Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, the SRA could not have
entertained the application much less processed and accepted
the same. The SRA has flouted its own policy of not entertaining
an incomplete application. Therefore, being a statutory
authority, Mr. Balsara would urge, it was not open for the SRA
to deviate from the standard, the SRA had set for itself. Thus,
the improper acceptance of the proposal to implement the SR
Scheme at the subject property when the major portion of the
same (1766 sq. mtrs.) was not declared a slum rehabilitation
area subject to the condition of obtaining such declaration was
completely beyond the remit of the power conferred on the SRA.
22. Mr. Balsara further submitted that, it is well neigh settled
that, the SRA cannot process an incomplete application, nor is it
legally impermissible to simultaneously consider multiple
applications for implementation of the SR Scheme. Initially, the
th
Petitioner – Trust had filed an application on 07 February,
2020 for the implementation of SR Scheme in respect of area
admeasuring 615.2 sq. mtrs. out of CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2.
th
Subsequently, another application was filed on 28 February,
2020 seeking a declaration that the balance area of 1766 sq.
mtrs. be also declared a slum rehabilitation area under Section
SAINATH, PA
19/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971. The second application could not
have been entertained by the SRA. Since a substantial portion
of Survey No. 612, 612/1 to 2 was a non-slum area, the
proposal for the implementation of the SR Scheme over the
entire area was inherently incompetent and could not have been
processed further.
23. To lend support to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Balsara
placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in
the case of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari & ors. Vs. Chief Executive
5
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & ors. , and a judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramila Suman Singh Vs.
6
State of Maharashtra & ors. .
24. A very strong reliance was also placed by Mr. Balsara on a
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajan
Garg, Resolution Professional of Truly Creative Developers Pvt.
Ltd., Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
7
& ors. , wherein the Division Bench explained the nature of the
preferential right which the owner can exercise. Drawing heavily
from the observations in the said judgment, especially
Paragraph No.23 thereof, Mr. Balsara would submit that, the
5
(2006) 4 Mah LJ 282
6
(2009) 2 SCC 729
7
(2024) 3 AIR Bom R 746
SAINATH, PA
20/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
owner could not have been permitted to progressively develop its
case after initially having sought the permission to implement
the SR Scheme with regard to an area of 615.2 sq. mtrs., only.
Mr. Balsara also banked upon the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Atesham Ahmed Khan & ors.
8
Vs. Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. & ors. , wherein this Court
enunciated that, it is the bounden duty of the applicant to
ensure that the application is complete in all respects and does
not suffer from any deficiency and it is impermissible to
progressively improve upon a deficient and incomplete
application over a period of time.
25. Lastly, Mr. Balsara submitted that, the SRA was bound to
follow the procedure which it has delineated for itself. Since an
incomplete application was not to be entertained in accordance
with the Circular No. 196, the SRA was bound by the said non-
statutory directive as well. To buttress these submissions, Mr.
Balsara placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Persis Kothawalla Vs. Life Insurance
9
Corporation of India & anr. , wherein it was enunciated that,
even non-statutory guidelines are enforceable whenever they are
deviated from, or when deviation is against public interest or
8
2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 604
9
(2004) 4 Bom CR 610
SAINATH, PA
21/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
undermines a public purpose. Such non-statutory guidelines
can be enforced on the basis of promissory estoppel and
legitimate expectation.
26. Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 7 to
9 also supported the impugned order. It was urged that, the
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 are the heirs of the founder trustee. A
revision application has been preferred against the order passed
by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the change in
regard to the trustees of the Trust. Moreover, in the pleadings in
Suit No. 389/2010, there is a reference to the dispute between
the parties over the Trust and the Trust property and the
plaintiff therein reserved their rights to deal with the allegations
of breach of Trust by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 therein, and
that implies there are disputes between the parties in regard to
the subject property as well. Consequently, the AGRC was
justified in recording a categorical finding that, there was a false
assertion in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner
regarding the absence of any litigation. Since the purported
trustees were trying to usurp the Trust property by resorting to
devious means, the AGRC has legitimately set aside the order of
acceptance of the proposal to implement the SR Scheme on the
subject property.
SAINATH, PA
22/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
27. Mr. Kamat joined the issue by canvassing a submission
that, there is no controversy over the fact that, the slums are
situated over the subject property and, in fact, the Respondent
No. 5 had called upon the Petitioner to implement the SR
Scheme over the subject property. Thus, the existence of the
slum and the necessity of implementation of the SR Scheme,
can hardly be contested. Mr. Kamat would urge that, Circular
No. 144A contemplates an in-principle approval for the
implementation of the SR Scheme. The rights of the lawful
occupants of the subject premises would be adequately
protected when the proposal is finally accepted and the LOI is
issued. Therefore, none of the grounds sought to be urged on
behalf of the private respondents merit any consideration,
submitted Mr. Kamat.
28. The aforesaid submissions now fall for consideration.
29. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify that, since a final
order was passed by the AGRC, after providing an opportunity
of hearing to Respondent Nos.7 to 9 as well, there is no
propriety in examining the legality of the order of impleadment
of Respondent Nos.7 to 9. thus, this Court considers it
appropriate to delve into the legality and correctness of the final
order dated 27th May, 2025.
SAINATH, PA
23/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
30. A brief resume of the facts, especially the relevant orders
passed by the SRA, would be advantageous for appreciating the
rival contentions in a correct perspective.
31. To begin with, the existence and registration of the
Petitioner – Trust is incontrovertible. It would be unwarranted to
delve into the factors which bear upon the creation of the trust,
the trustees thereof and the property of the trust, which
legitimately fall within the province of the authorities under the
Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. Suffice to note that, the
Change Report No.1349/2023 to report the subject property i.e.
CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 admeasuring 2381.50 sq. mtrs., as
the property of the Trust and its inclusion in Schedule – III
maintained by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, came to be
th
accepted by an order dated 17 October, 2023. Indisputably, the
Petitioner – Trust is shown as the owner of the subject property
in the property card and the subject property is shown as the
Trust property in the record maintained by the Charity
Commissioner.
32. The endeavor on the part of the Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to
controvert the said position including, the appointment of the
trustees of the Petitioner – Trust, cannot be countenanced in
this proceeding. The Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 would be required
SAINATH, PA
24/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
to work out their remedies as available in law before the
competent forums.
33. With this clarity, as regards the ownership of the Trust
over the subject property, the developments in the matter of
implementation of the SR Scheme, relevant for the purpose of
determination of this petition, deserve to be noted.
th
34. Initially, vide notification dated 13 October, 1977, an area
admeasuring 5918.9 sq. mtrs., out of CTS No. 611, and area
admeasuring 615.2 sq. mtrs. only, out of the subject property
(Survey No. 612, 612/1 to 2), an area admeasuring 247.2 sq.
mtrs., of CTS No. 613/1 to 5 were declared as a slum under
Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971. Although, there was a
challenge to the said declaration, yet the fact remains that
eventually the challenge was given up and the Petitioner filed
the proposal for developing the subject property in accordance
with Regulation 33(10) of the DCR and Circular No. 144A issued
by the SRA.
th
35. The communication dated 07 February, 2020 (Exh. S)
clearly records that, the said proposal was submitted under
Regulation 33(10) of the DCR and in accordance with Circular
No. 144A, and the comments of the concerned
officers/stakeholders were invited. Further, the communication
SAINATH, PA
25/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
th
dated 13 October, 2020 records that, a proposal for declaration
of the balance area out of CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2
admeasuring 1766 sq. mtrs. as a slum rehabilitation area under
th
Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971 was received on 20
February, 2020 and in view of the Slum (Amendment) Act, 2017,
the action was required to be taken to declare the area which
had been previously declared as a slum rehabilitation area
under Section 3C(1) and, thus, the applicant/Petitioner herein
had been informed to submit such a complete proposal.
th
36. The Deputy Collector, SRA, vide communication dated 07
July, 2021 conveyed his no objection for acceptance of the
proposal subject to the condition of declaration of the area as
slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act,
1971. Then comes the acceptance of the proposal noting dated
th
27 July, 2021. After adverting to the steps taken by, and
comments received from, the various stakeholders, the SRA was
persuaded to accept the proposal to implement the SR Scheme
on CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 subject to the following
conditions :-
1) That you shall submit proposal for grant of LOI
within 3 month from date of receipt of this letter.
SAINATH, PA
26/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
2) All the required documents in from of Annexure I
to IV & VI will be submitted by you along with self-
certification.
3) All the condition mention in DDTP (SRA)
ow/2020/10665 dtd 06/03/2020 remarks shall complied
with.
4) All the condition mention in DSLR (SRA)
ow/2020/11457 dtd 12/03/2020 remarks shall complied
with.
5) All the condition mention in Deputy Collector
(SRA) ow/2020/24775 dtd 07/07/2021 remarks shall
complied with.
37. At this juncture, it would be apposite to note that, by an
th
order dated 29 April 2024, the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, was persuaded to declare the land
bearing CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 admeasuring 2381.50 sq.
mtrs., as slum rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the
Slum Act, 1971. In effect, the conditions subject to which the
proposal was accepted were substantially fulfilled.
38. It would be necessary to immediately deal with the
submissions of Mr. Balsara that, the said order is antedated.
Mr. Balsara would urge that, the concerned officer, who passed
th
the impugned order, was due to retire on 30 April, 2021. Thus,
th
an order was shown to have been passed on 29 April, 2024.
nd
The fact that, the order bears the date 02 May, 2024 and in
SAINATH, PA
27/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
the opening part of the order, the date is left blank, clearly
indicates that, the order is antedated, submitted Mr. Balsara.
39. I am afraid to accede to these submissions. The Chief
Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority has signed the
th
said order with the date i.e. 29 April, 2024. Indeed, a stamped
nd
date 02 May, 2024 appears below the outward number under
which the said order was issued. However, that, by itself, is not
sufficient to draw an inference that the said order is antedated.
The subsequent notifications also bear the signature and date
put by the then Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
nd
Authority, though, the stamped date of 02 may, 2024 find
mentioned thereon. It is not inconceivable that, after the
declaration is made by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, under Section 3C(1), the formal
notifications are issued and the said order is also released on
nd
the succeeding days. Therefore, the stamped date of 02 May,
2024 does not inexorably imply that, the order of declaration of
the slum rehabilitation area by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority was antedated.
40. With the aforesaid clarity on facts, I deem it appropriate to
deal with the reasons which weighed with the AGRC in
interfering with the acceptance of the proposal to implement the
SAINATH, PA
28/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
SR Scheme, and then move to the legal submissions canvassed
on behalf of the parties, in regard to the justifiability of the
order of acceptance of the proposal.
41. As noted above, the first reason that impressed the AGRC
was the absence of the consent and General Body Resolution of
the Respondent No. 5 – Society for implementation of the SR
Scheme by the Petitioner. The AGRC, seems to have conflated
the requirements under Circular Nos.144 and 144A. Indeed,
under Circular No.144 issued by the SRA, it was necessary to
examine whether 70% of the occupants had given their consent
to participate in the redevelopment scheme and supported the
resolution to appoint a developer.
42. However, by Circular No. 144A, which was issued by the
SRA in recognition of the preferential rights of the land owner to
implement the SR Scheme under Section 13(1) of the Slum Act,
1971, modifications were made to the said Circular No. 144.
Inter alia , the condition of the necessity of submitting of
Annexure – 5 spelling out the consent of 70% of the occupants
stood relaxed. It has been further provided under Circular No.
144A that, after determination of the eligibility of the slum
dwellers in the scheme, according to the rules of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, the consent of the slum dwellers,
SAINATH, PA
29/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
required by the developer would be re-examined. Circular No.
144A thus dispenses with, the requirement of the consent of the
occupants for the implementation of the SR Scheme where the
scheme is implemented by the owner, in exercise of its
preferential right to develop the property over which the slum
stands.
43. The contours of the preferential right of the owner of the
property and the primacy thereof, in the matter of the
development of the land could be adverted to a little later. At
this juncture, it would be suffice to note that, the AGRC though
noted the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner that the
proposal was under Circular 144A and, thus, the consent of the
Society was not peremptory, yet, failed to apply the governing
provisions and thus erred in interfering with the order of
acceptance by importing the parameters contained in Circular
No.144, which stood relaxed by Circular No. 144A.
44. The second ground of a false statement in the affidavit
th
filed on behalf of the Petitioner, on 18 February, 2020, that no
litigation in respect of the subject property was pending in any
Court of law or before any competent authority, appears to be
equally infirm. Pertinently, the AGRC has not explicitly referred
to the proceedings on account of which, it could draw an
SAINATH, PA
30/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
inference that a false statement was made in the affidavit
regarding absence of any proceeding in respect of the subject
property. From a perusal of the observations in the impugned
order, especially Paragraph No. 93, one could discern that, in
the contemplation of AGRC, the pendency of suit No. 389/2010
filed on behalf of the legal heirs of Ramniklal Bhuta and Suit
No. 3148/2009 filed by Jaysukhlal Bhuta amounted to the
pendency of the proceedings in respect of the subject property.
Incontrovertibly, the subject property does not form the subject
matter of either of the suits. In none of these suits, the subject
property is designated as the suit property. This becomes
abundantly clear from the averments in the Suit No. 389/2010
instituted by Vasantben Bhuta and others, wherein in
Paragraph No. 20, it has been categorically asserted that, the
subject matter of the public Trust (consequently the subject
Trust property) is not the matter pertaining to the said suit and
the plaintiffs reserved their rights to deal with the same for
breaches of Trust before the appropriate forum.
45. A feeble attempt was made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7
to 9 to urge that, the said assertions in the plaint implied that,
there are disputes between the parties in respect of the subject
property as well. This submission is required to be stated to be
SAINATH, PA
31/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
repelled. Any challenge to the appointment of the trustees or in
the matter of the management of the affairs of the Trust is
beyond the realm of, and is completely alien to the inquiry, by
the authorities under the Slum Act, 1971.
46. The material on record thus justifies an inference that, the
AGRC committed a grave error in interdicting the acceptance of
the proposal for the implementation of the SR Scheme on the
premise that, a false statement was made on an affidavit,
without examining the facts at all. Therefore, the impugned
order cannot be sustained on either of the grounds.
47. This propels me to the submissions sought to be
canvassed before this Court on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5
and 6 to demonstrate that acceptance of the proposal of the
Petitioner was otherwise legally unsustainable.
48. A two-pronged submission was advanced by Mr. Balsara.
The initial proposal for implementation of the SR Scheme in
regard to the land bearing CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 dated
th
07 February, 2020, could not have been processed, as it
pertained to a large non-slum area. The subsequent proposal to
declare the balance area of 1766 sq. mtrs., as a slum
rehabilitation area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971
could not have advanced the case of the Petitioner, as it was
SAINATH, PA
32/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
legally impermissible to progressively improve upon the
proposal.
49. In the case of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari (supra), on which a
strong reliance was placed by Mr. Balsara, a Division Bench of
this Court delved into the question as to the manner in which
the scheme under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR should be
implemented. After an analysis of the scheme under Regulation
33(10), the Division Bench held that, if 70% of the slum dwellers
on a particular area come together and apply after formation of
proposed co-operative housing society, the said application has
to be independently considered in accordance with law. The
scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of
such an application made by a proposed society with an
application subsequently made by another proposed Society
relating to same land. The Applicant Society has to have 70%
support which obviously two societies cannot have. The
application received first is to be processed first independently.
If it fails to get 70% support, Second Application can be
examined. The obvious intention is to avoid unhealthy
competition between the different builders who are interested in
supporting such societies. If such a course of simultaneous
consideration is permitted to be adopted, unscrupulous persons
SAINATH, PA
33/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
and builders will try to win over the hutment dwellers who have
supported the application made earlier by another society.
50. In the case of Pramila Suman Singh (supra) ,the Supreme
court, exhaustively examined the procedure for submission,
processing and approval of the slum rehabilitation scheme. It
was, inter alia, noted that, the scheme envisages allotment of
computerized file number to the scheme on payment of scrutiny
fees and, upon an acceptance, the scrutiny of Annexures I, II
and III starts simultaneously in the Building Permission Wing,
Eligibility Certification Wing and Accounts & Finance Wing,
respectively.
51. In the case of Atesham Ahmed Khan (supra), another
Division Bench of this court, enunciated that, an application
which on its face does not fulfill the requirement of DCR 33(10),
must be rejected. The applicant cannot be allowed to
progressively make up a deficiency in an application which does
not ex facie fulfill the conditions on the date when it was
submitted.
52. Adverting to the decision of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari
(supra), the Division Bench observed that, since the effect of the
acceptance of the first application is to exclude from scrutiny all
other applications until the scrutiny of the first application is
SAINATH, PA
34/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
complete, it is the bounden duty of the applicant to ensure that
the application is complete in all respects and does not suffer
from any deficiency. Any other construction would lead to the
undesirable result that an application which is otherwise
deficient and incomplete can progressively be improved upon
over a prolonged period of time leading to a delay in the
implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
53. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid propositions in
law. The processing of the first proposal and arriving at a logical
conclusion regarding its acceptance or otherwise is necessary to
avoid the mischief that may occur if the proposals are
simultaneously processed as the developers may adopt
unscrupulous methods to win over the support of the occupants
who had already given their support to the first developer.
However, if a proposal howsoever incomplete and shoddy is given
the status of a proposal, there is clear and present danger of
proposals being submitted without any commitment so as to
gain the benefit of first come first serve policy and simply
reserve the right and claim primacy in the processing of the
proposal. Therefore, an incomplete proposal cannot be permitted
to be processed by progressively removing the deficiencies.
SAINATH, PA
35/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
54. The aforesaid pronouncement, which primarily arose out
of situations where two rival developers submit the proposals
backed by a set of the occupants, strictly do not govern the facts
of the case at hand. In the instant case, the Petitioner professes
to develop the subject property of which it is the owner.
Moreover, it could not be shown that, any rival proposal awaited
consideration by the SRA. Therefore, the case of the Petitioner
would be governed by an altogether different legal regime. That
brings to the fore the concept of the preferential right of the
owner to develop the property over which the slum stands.
55. The legislative framework before it suffered the
amendment by Slum (Amendment) Act, 2017, deserves to be
noted. In the year, 1995, Chapter I-A which subsumes a
fasciculus of the provisions, came to be inserted in the Slum
Act, 1971 to introduce a new framework for slum rehabilitation.
Section 3A provides for appointment of the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority to facilitate and regulate the re-development process.
Section 3B incorporates the power and duty of the SRA to
prepare the general slum rehabilitation scheme for the area
covered by the SRA.
56. Section 3B(4)(e) of the Slum Act, 1971 provides that, there
can be a slum rehabilitation scheme propounded by the
SAINATH, PA
36/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
landholders and occupants themselves or through a developer
with an option to SRA for taking up such development in the
event of the failure on the part of the land owners or occupants.
57. Section 3C provides for the declaration of an area as a
slum rehabilitation area. Section 3C(1) inter alia provided that,
as soon as may be, after the publication of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on being
satisfied about the circumstances in respect of any area,
justifying its declaration as Slum Rehabilitation Area under the
said scheme may by an order published in the Official Gazette ,
declare such are to be a “Slum Rehabilitation Area”. Such order
is required to be given wide publicity. Sub-Section (2) of Section
3C(1) provided for an appeal against such a declaration to the
special tribunal.
58. Section 3D contains the provisions for the application of
the other chapters of Slum Act, 1971 to an area declared as
slum rehabilitation area. Sub-Section (10) of Section 12 of the
Slum Act, 1971 stood modified to provide that where a clearance
order has become operative, the owner may redevelop the land
in accordance with the plans approved by SRA.
59. Likewise , Section 13 came to be substituted for the
original Section 13 in the Slum Act, 1971. Section 13(1) as
SAINATH, PA
37/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
modified under Chapter I-A of the Slum Act, 1971, inter alia
provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-
Section (10) of Section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
may after any area is declared as slum rehabilitation area, if the
landholders or occupants of such area do not come forward
within a reasonable time with a scheme for re-development of
such land, by order determine to re-develop such land by
entrusting it to any agency for the said purpose.
60. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would
indicate that under the scheme of the Slum Act, 1971, once the
land is declared as slum rehabilitation area, ordinarily it has to
be redeveloped under a slum rehabilitation scheme. However, if
a clearance order is passed in respect of such land, before a
slum rehabilitation scheme is envisaged or implemented then
the owner of the land may develop such land in terms of the
right conferred under Section 12(10).
61. Section 13(1) makes it abundantly clear that,
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12(10), the SRA
can launch a scheme for re-development of slum rehabilitation
area in the event the landlord or occupants of such area do not
come forward within a reasonable time with a scheme for re-
development. The re-development under the Slum Act, 1971,
SAINATH, PA
38/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
thus provides for a definite role and opportunity to the land
owner to implement the SR Scheme.
62. In the case of Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Housing Society
(supra), the Supreme Court after an elaborate analysis of the
provisions of the Slum Act, 1971 and the scheme of
redevelopment enunciated in clear and explicit terms that, a
logical reading of Sections 3B(4)(e) and 13(1) makes it clear that,
the SRA's power to undertake redevelopment can only be
invoked, if the owner extinguishes its right to redevelop. The
owner's right to redevelop an SR area thus holds preference over
that of SRA within Chapter I-A of the Slum Act, 1971.
63. The Supreme Court further postulated the primacy of the
owner's right over the other stakeholders observing inter alia as
under :-
"59. The peremptory right of redevelopment vested in the
landowner does not militate against the rights of the slum
dwellers. As explained earlier, if the landowner does not
come up with a redevelopment proposal within a reasonable
time, the occupants of the SR Area are entitled to submit
their own proposal for redevelopment, empowering this
marginalised section of our urban society. It enables them to
forward an SR Scheme through a willing developer when the
owner is not ready to support their endeavour to rehabilitate
themselves.
60.
Therefore, there is no tenable reason, in law or in equity,
to allow the occupants to exercise primacy over and
steamroll the landowner’s proposal, especially when the
SAINATH, PA
39/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
latter is willing to implement the SR Scheme by itself, within
the confines of the Slums Act. If the interpretation suggested
by the Appellants is accepted, we would inevitably
incentivise third-party developers and anti-social elements
to prop up the poor slum dwellers so as to grab the land
from the true owners. It would ultimately encourage mala-
fide proposals to be filed, manipulating the inhabitants of
these slums and stripping the owners of the fruits of their
land.
61
. We are also not inclined to accept the proposed
equivalence of the rights, given the fact that the SRA has
recognised the legislative preference granted to the owner or
landlord in Circular No. 144-A dated 09.11.2015, which
stipulates that “the first right to file the Slum Rehabilitation
scheme is of the owner of the land.” By relaxing the
requirement of consent of seventy percent of the slum
occupants, it depicts a clear intention on behalf of the SRA
that the occupants cannot override the owner’s proposal for
an SR Scheme.
62
. The learned Senior Counsel for ICM have also placed on
record various notices issued by the SRA to owners of
different SR Areas, expressly inviting them to exercise their
“first preferential right for implementation of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme.” They have further relied upon
internal communications between the SRA and the State,
where both sides have seemingly acknowledged that the
owner has the first right to develop the land.
63.
In light of the overwhelming material on record, which is
in conformity with legislative intent, there can be no other
conclusion but to deduce that a landowner has the first
right among stakeholders to undertake redevelopment under
an SR Scheme.
(emphasis supplied)
64. The Supreme Court has enunciated in clear and explicit
terms that, the Circular No. 144A issued by the Slum
SAINATH, PA
40/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Rehabilitation Authority recognizes the legislative preference
granted to the owner or the landlord by recording that, the first
right to file Slum Rehabilitation scheme is that of the owner of
the land. By relaxing the requirement of consent of 70% of the
slum occupants, Circular No. 144-A depicts a clear intention on
behalf of Slum Rehabilitation Authority that the occupants
cannot override the owner's proposal for implementation of a SR
Scheme. Resultantly, it cannot be gainsaid that, a land owner
has the first right among the stakeholders to undertake
redevelopment under a Slum Rehabilitation scheme.
65. In the case of Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , the
Supreme Court considered the import of Slum (Amendment)
Act, 2017, on the preferential right of the landlord. Repelling the
submissions that, as a consequence of 2017 Amendment, there
is no statutory requirement to issue a separate notice for
initiation of proceedings under Section 13 of the Slum Act, 1971,
to the landlord, the Supreme Court enunciated that, no attempt
has been made to remove or dilute the preferential right given to
the owner to redevelop an SR area. The Supreme Court
observed that, all those provisions which have been analyzed in
Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (supra) , lead to only
one conclusion, i.e. that the owner has a primary right to
SAINATH, PA
41/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
undertake development, and none of the provisions have been
amended. Rather the owner's right is now further entrenched
into the legislative scheme, with the addition of the term "owner"
into the text of Section 3B(5) and 13 of the Slum Act, 1971. The
legislature has, thus, expressly acknowledged the distinct rights
enjoyed by the owner or a landlord within Chapter I-A.
66. It was further enunciated that, keeping in mind the fact
that, Section 3C and 13 operate in different directions and for
different purposes, what is deemed to be mandated under
Section 13 cannot be rendered moot by the stipulations in
Section 3C. Therefore, the plea of the appellants therein that,
the new mechanism within Section 3C no longer necessitated a
separate notice-cum-invitation on the land owner, cannot be
accepted. The Supreme Court thus rejected the contentions on
behalf of the appellants therein that post 2017th Amendment,
the owner is expected to present a SR Scheme within 120 days
of Section 3C(1) declaration without any notice-cum-invitation.
67. In view of the aforesaid nature of the preferential right of
the owner to develop the SR Scheme, even after the 2017
Amendment, the submission that the application preferred by
the Petitioner - Trust to implement the SR Scheme over the
subject land which it owns, could not have been processed and
SAINATH, PA
42/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
accepted, does not hold any ground. As noted above, no other
rival proposal was under consideration. Even otherwise, the
owner has a preferential right to develop the SR Scheme
amongst the stakeholders who are entitled to develop the SR
Scheme including the occupants of the land.
68. It is also imperative to note that, it is nobody's case that,
the subject land did not deserve to be declared as a slum
rehabilitation area. Even in the proceedings under Section 3C(1)
before the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, the Respondent No. 5 Society did not claim that, the
declaration as a slum rehabilitation area was not warranted.
The application of the Petitioner was opposed on other grounds.
Thus, the declaration of the subject land as the slum
rehabilitation area can hardly be faulted at. Even otherwise, in
view of the provisions contained in Section 3, any person
aggrieved by such declaration has the remedy of appeal. The
issue of declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area cannot be,
thus, legitimately agitated in this petition.
69. The only issue that bothers the Court is the acceptance of
the proposal for redevelopment of the SR Scheme, awaiting a
declaration under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971. At this
juncture, it is necessary to note that, indubitably the entire area
SAINATH, PA
43/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
of 2381.50 sq. mtrs. was not declared as the slum area under
Section 4 of the Slum Act, 1971 or slum rehabilitation area
under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, as of 07th February,
2020, the day the application for implementation of the SR
Scheme over CTS No. 612 and 612/1 to 2 was filed.
Indisputably, only an area of admeasuring 615.2 sq. mtrs., was
declared a slum under Section 4 of the Slum Act, 1971, vide
notification dated 13th October, 1977. Could the authorities
have accepted the proposal for implementation of the SR
Scheme under Regulation 33(10) alongwith Circular 144A
subject to the condition of obtaining such declaration under
Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, is the moot question.
Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971, post the 2017 Amendment,
reads as under :-
“3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area
[(1) As soon as may be, after the publication of any
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer
on being satisfied about the circumstances in respect of
any land, whether or not previously declared as slum
area, justifying its declaration as the Slum
Rehabilitation Area which may include community
economic activity area, for implementing the Slum
SAINATH, PA
44/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Rehabilitation Scheme, shall after giving the land
owners, including any public authorities or local bodies
under the State Government constituted under any law
enacted by the State Legislature, thirty days notice and
after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by
an order published in the Official Gazette, and thereafter
within forty-five days, declare such land to be a “Slum
Rehabilitation Area”. The order declaring the Slum
Rehabilitation Area (hereinafter referred to as “the slum
rehabilitation order”), shall also be given wide publicity
in such manner as may be specified by the Chief
Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
Thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, in such Slum
Rehabilitation Area, the permission or the No Objection
Certificate of the land owning authority or agency shall
not be required:
Provided that, only in respect of any land which is
required for Vital Public Project purpose, as per orders of
the State Government and where the State Government
either directly or through any public authority has
undertaken the responsibility of relocation and
SAINATH, PA
45/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
rehabilitation of the protected and other occupiers of the
building, then the Chief Executive Officer shall, exclude
the land required for Vital Public Project from the Slum
Rehabilitation Area and issue an order to omit such land
from the Slum Rehabilitation Area. Where the State
Government either directly or through any public
authority has undertaken the responsibility of relocation
and rehabilitation of the protected and other occupiers
of the building, such public authority shall prepare the
Scheme of such rehabilitation or relocation and get it
approved by the Chief Executive Officer within the period
specified in the Scheme which shall not be more than
ninety days.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Chief
Executive Officer may, within thirty days of the
publication of such slum rehabilitation order, prefer an
appeal to the [Apex Grievance Redressal Committee].
The decision of the [Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee] in such appeal shall be final.]
[(3) On the completion of the slum Rehabilitation
Scheme, the Slum Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be
such area.]”
SAINATH, PA
46/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
70. A bare perusal of the amended Section 3C(1) makes it
abundantly clear that, the declaration under the said Section
can only be made after publication of slum rehabilitation
scheme. Secondly, such declaration can be made if the chief
executive officer is satisfied about the circumstances in respect
of any land justifying its declaration of the slum rehabilitation
area for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme. Thirdly,
previous declaration as a slum area, or otherwise does not bear
upon the necessity of such a declaration. Irrespective of
previous declaration as slum area, the Chief Executive officer if
satisfied about the necessity of a declaration shall make such a
declaration that the said land (even if previously declared as
slum) shall be considered as slum rehabilitation area. Fourthly,
the Chief Executive Officer is enjoined to give the land owners,
30 days notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before
making such declaration.
71. A declaration under sub-Section (1) of Section 3C is a pre-
condition for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme
in respect of such area. The modification introduced in Section
13 of the Slum Act, 1971, post the 2017 Amendment, makes the
position abundantly clear. Section 13(1), inter alia provides that,
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12(10), the Chief
SAINATH, PA
47/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
Executive officer shall after any land has been declared as Slum
Rehabilitation Area, if the owners, landlords, landholders or
occupants of such land do not come forward within a
reasonable time, which shall not be more than 120 days,
required for relocation or rehabilitation of protected and other
occupiers justifying with the slum rehabilitation scheme for
redevelopment of such land, by order, determine to redevelop
such land by entrusting to any agency or other developer for the
purpose. By virtue of 2017 Amendment, the reasonable time
within which the owner was to evince interest to develop the
slum rehabilitation area has been qualified by employing the
expression, "which shall not be more than 120 days".
72. The aforesaid being the import of the amendment
introduced by Slum Act, 1971, in the peculiar facts of the case,
in the considered view of this court, the authorities could not
have proceeded with the proposal for implementation of the SR
Scheme over the subject property in the absence of the
declaration under Section 3C(1). The fact that, a smaller portion
of subject property i.e. an area admeasuring 615.2 sq. mtrs.,
was already declared a slum under Section 4 of the Slum Act,
1971 was of no consequence. In view of the mandate contained
in amended Section 3C(1) irrespective of the previous
SAINATH, PA
48/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
declaration as a slum area, it was necessary for the Chief
Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority to make a
declaration as slum rehabilitation area for the purpose of
implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme in relation
thereto.
73. The preferential right of the landlord to implement the SR
Scheme under Section 13(1) of the Slum Act, 1971 would trigger
after the land is declared as a slum rehabilitation area. The
corresponding obligation of the landlord to evince interest (upon
being put to notice) to develop the slum rehabilitation area
arises only after a declaration is made under Section 3C(1) of
the Slum Act, 1971. Therefore, the fact that, on 29th April,
2024, a declaration was made under Section 3C(1) of the Slum
Act, 1971 would not enure to infuse life and validity into the
order of acceptance of proposal to implement the SR Scheme
dated 27th July, 2021, when a major portion of the subject
property i.e. 1766 sq. mtrs., of the land was neither declared a
slum nor slum rehabilitation area.
74. The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, for
reasons, other than those which weighed with the Apex
Grievance Redressal Committee, the order of acceptance of the
th
proposal to implement the SR Scheme dated 27 July, 2021,
SAINATH, PA
49/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
cannot be sustained. Nonetheless, having regard to the
preferential right of the Petitioner and the primacy accorded to
the Petitioner-owner of the subject land in the implementation of
SR Scheme, this Court considers it appropriate to grant liberty
to the Petitioner to submit a fresh SR Scheme to develop the
slum rehabilitation area declared under Section 3C(1) of the
Slum Act, 1971 by order dated 29th April, 2024 and direct the
authorities to process the same, in accordance with law, within
a stipulated period. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be
partly allowed.
75. Hence, the following order :-
: : O R D E R : :
i] The Writ Petition stands partly allowed in the
following terms :-
a) The impugned order setting aside the
acceptance of the proposal to implement the
SR Scheme dated 27th July, 2021, stands
affirmed, albeit for different reasons.
b) The Petitioner is granted liberty to submit a
fresh proposal for implementation of the slum
SAINATH, PA
50/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
rehabilitation scheme on the basis of
declaration under Section 3C(1) of the Slum
Act, 1971 dated 29th April, 2024 within a
period of four weeks from today.
c) The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the
Competent Authorities shall process such
proposal as expeditiously as possible in
accordance with governing rules and procedure
within a period of two months of the receipt of
such proposal.
d) The proposal to be submitted by the
Petitioner shall be processed first and in
priority over any other proposal that might
have been submitted in the intervening period
or may be submitted hereinafter.
e) It will not be open for the authorities to
reject the proposal, which may be submitted by
the Petitioner, on the grounds on which the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee had set
aside the acceptance by the impugned order
and the said proposal shall be processed
SAINATH, PA
51/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::
WP11550-2025.DOC
without being influenced by any of the
observations in the impugned order.
ii] Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
iii) No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA
52/52
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 23:00:06 :::