Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. __________ / 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15454 / 2024)
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited ….Appellant(s)
versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and others ….Respondent(s)
with
Civil Appeal No. __________ / 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15711 / 2024)
Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd (proposed) ….Appellant(s)
versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and others ….Respondent(s)
with
Civil Appeal No. __________ / 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16209 / 2024)
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority and another ….Appellant(s)
versus
Bishop John Rodrigues and others ….Respondent(s)
JUDGEMENT
SURYA KANT, J.
Leave granted.
2. The dispute under consideration in these Civil Appeals concerns the
validity of the acquisition of a portion of land located at CTS No. B-960
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.08.22
12:23:03 IST
Reason:
in Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, measuring 1,596.40 sq. m.
( Subject Land ) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Page 1 of 39
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ( Slums Act ). The High Court of
Judicature at Bombay ( High Court ), vide the Impugned Judgement
dated 11.06.2024, has: ( i ) allowed the writ petition filed by the
landowner, declaring the acquisition void; and ( ii ) directed the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ( SRA ) to consider the proposal of the landowner
for redevelopment. The instant appeals have thus been preferred by the
proposed housing society of slum dwellers, the developer selected by the
said society, and the SRA.
3. The instant appeals involve an in-depth analysis of the text as well as the
legislative policy behind Chapter I-A of the Slums Act, specifically
regarding the rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation
Area ( SR Area ) and the corresponding duties of the SRA. At the outset,
we note that by a judgement of even date, titled Tarabai Nagar Co-Op.
1
Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra and others , a
2-Judge Bench of this Court, including one of us (Surya Kant, J.), has
dealt with a substantial part of the arguments raised in these appeals.
The Bench, therein, upheld the decision of another Division Bench of the
2
High Court in Indian Cork Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra ,
laying down that: ( i ) the private owner of a Slum Rehabilitation Area has
a preferential right to develop it; ( ii ) as part of this right, the owner must
be notified and invited to undertake such redevelopment; and ( iii )
without such notice being issued and such right being extinguished, it
1
Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19774 of
2018, judgement dated 22.08.2025.
2
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1214.
Page 2 of 39
would be untenable for the State or the SRA to acquire the land under
Section 14.
4. The legislative interpretation we are tasked with undertaking in these
appeals has largely been addressed by the Bench in Tarabai (supra) .
Having previously examined the law regarding the questions answered
therein, this Court does not need to revisit the analysis of the Slums Act.
The only remaining issue for us to consider through this judgement is
the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 ( 2018 Amendment ).
A. L EGISLATIVE S CHEME
5. The legislative scheme of the Slums Act prior to the 2018 Amendment
3
has already been detailed extensively in Tarabai (supra) . However,
before delving into the facts of this case, it would be apposite to first
explore the impact of the said Amendment on the slum rehabilitation
framework envisaged in Chapter I-A of the Slums Act.
6. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017, which came into force on
26.04.2018, was enacted to improve the practical implementation of the
Slums Act and to expand the scope of slum rehabilitation. It introduced
various improvements, both significant and minor, into the legislative
framework for slum rehabilitation.
3
See Paragraphs 5 to 38 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 3 of 39
7. Section 3B is one of the key areas where such a change was
4
implemented.
7.1. In sub-section (1), the Legislature introduced the ability for the SRA to
amend an already operative General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
( General SR Scheme ).
7.2. Further, the provisions which, prior to the Amendment, were included in
5
sub-section (4), namely, the matters which shall be provided for in the
General SR Scheme, have now been relocated to sub-section (5). While
the scheme itself and its tenor remain unchanged, the scope of these
matters has been broadened. For example, provisions for compensation
in lieu of transit accommodation, as well as for the grant of tenements to
non-protected occupiers, were introduced. Most notably, the Legislature
has amended the stakeholders specified in Clauses (c) and (g) (which
correspond to Clauses (c) and (e), respectively, before the 2018
Amendment) from ‘landholders and occupants’ to ‘owners, landholders
and occupants’. It is worth noting that although the term ‘owner’ was
6
already defined in Section 2(f) of the Slums Act, it has been included in
the procedure for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes ( SR Schemes ) only after
the 2018 Amendment.
7.3. In its place, a new sub-section (4) has been added, stipulating that the
General SR Scheme shall be deemed to be ‘Development Control
4
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra) .
5
See Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra) .
6
See Paragraph 7 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 4 of 39
Regulations’ under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act, 1966 for an SR
Area and clarifying that the General SR Scheme shall prevail over any
other Development Control Regulations in force, such as the
Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai,
2034 ( DCPR 2034 ).
7.4. For complete clarity, the relevant portion of the amended version of
Section 3B is reproduced below:
“ 3B. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. – (1) The Slum Rehabilitation
Authority concerned, with the previous sanction of the State
Government, shall prepare or amend the general Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme for the areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3A, for
rehabilitation or relocation of protected occupiers and other occupiers
of the building in such areas.
[xxxx]
(4) The general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme published under sub-
section (3) shall be deemed Development Control Regulations under the
provisions of Chapter III of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 (Mah. XXXVII of 1966), for the said area and the
provisions of the general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme shall prevail over
the Development Control Regulations, published under the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Mah. XXXVII of
1966).
(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified under sub-section (3)
shall, generally lay down the parameters for declaration of any land
as the Slum Rehabilitation Area and indicate the manner in which
rehabilitation of the occupants of the area declared as Slum
Rehabilitation Area shall be carried out. In particular, it shall provide
for all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
[xxxx]
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the owners,
landholders and occupants of the land declared as the Slum
Rehabilitation Area under the approved Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme in the implementation of such Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation or entitlement of
compensation in lieu of transit accommodation to the slum
dwellers pending development of the Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(e) provision relating to allotment of tenements either in-situ or
otherwise, on development free of cost to the protected occupiers
of the building in such Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(f) provision relating to allotment of tenements either in-situ or
otherwise, on ownership or on rent, to the other non-protected
occupiers up to the 1st January 2011, subject to the availability
of tenements as per the terms and conditions and guidelines so
Page 5 of 39
notified in the Official Gazette, by the Chief Executive Officer with
the prior approval of the State Government;
(g) scheme for development of the Slum Rehabilitation Areas
under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the landholders and
occupants by themselves or through a developer and the terms
and conditions of such development; and the option available to
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for taking up such development
in the event of non-participation of the landholders or occupants;
[xxxx] ”
8. The process for declaring land as an SR Area under Section 3C(1) was
7
also augmented. Following the amendment, the CEO must provide the
owners and other stakeholders a 30-day notice and an opportunity to be
heard before issuing a reasoned order. Only then can the CEO declare
the land an SR Area ( Section 3C(1) Declaration ). However, the method
of publication/publicity of the Section 3C(1) Declaration remains
unchanged. For reference, the text of the amended Section 3C(1) is
provided below.
“ 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
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
7
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraph 20 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 6 of 39
authority has undertaken the responsibility of relocation and
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. ”
9. Substantial changes were also made to Section 3D, which, inter alia ,
modifies Sections 13 and 14 for their applicability to Chapter I-A of the
8
Slums Act.
9.1. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of this Section describes the applicability of
Section 13 to an SR Area. Through the 2018 Amendment, significant
changes have been made to the text of the provision. For reference,
Section 13, as it would apply under Chapter I-A after the amendment,
reads as follows:
“ 13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop Slum
Rehabilitation Area. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (10) of section 12, the Chief Executive Officer shall, after
any land has been declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area, including
community economic activity area, if the owners, landholders or
occupants of such land do not come forward within a reasonable time,
which shall not be more than one hundred and twenty days, required
for relocation and 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
into any agency or other developer for the purpose.
8
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraphs 27 and 28 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 7 of 39
(2) Where on declaration of any land as Slum Rehabilitation Area, the
Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that, the land in the Slum
Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the owners,
landholders or occupants or developers in contravention of the plans
duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-
section (10) of section 12, or in contravention of any provision of any
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or any condition specified in the approval
or has not been developed within the time, as specified under such
conditions of approval, he may, by order, determine to develop the land
declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area by entrusting it to any agency or
the other developer recognized by him for the purpose.
(3) The agency or the other developer so appointed shall within a period
of forty-five days of the order of the Chief Executive Officer, be required
to deposit an amount of compensation payable to the outgoing
landowners or occupants or developers, as the case may be, for
expenditure incurred by them on payment made to any public
authority, local bodies for receiving approvals for the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme and construction of rehabilitation tenements as
determined by the Chief Executive Officer:
Provided that, such compensation shall not be payable by the agency
appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, for any expenditure incurred
towards construction to meet conditional obligations made to any third
party by the landowners or occupants or previous developers, as the
case may be. The Chief Executive Officer before passing such order
shall obtain report from approved valuer independently appointed on
his behalf and by the concerned parties to the proceeding before the
Chief Executive Officer:
Provided further that, before passing such order by the Chief Executive
Officer, the concerned landowner or occupant or developer, as the case
may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and
time which shall not be more than thirty days of showing cause why
the order should not be passed:
Provided also that, an appeal, if any, against the order of the Chief
Executive Officer shall be filed before the Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee and order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee shall
be final and binding on all the parties. ”
9.2. With this amendment, the notion of ‘ reasonable time ’ in sub-section (1)
has been qualified with the phrase, “ which shall not be more than one
hundred and twenty days . ” Previously, no such qualification was
provided for. Additionally, the pre-condition under sub-section (1) has
changed from ‘ come forward … with a scheme for redevelopment ’ to
‘ come forward … for redevelopment of such land ’.
Page 8 of 39
9.3. Notably, when the 2018 Amendment was originally introduced, the final
proviso in Section 13 referred to the Grievance Redressal Committee
( GRC ). However, in 2023, with a retrospective amendment, this body was
9
renamed as the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee ( AGRC ).
9.4. Although the amendment has kept the procedure for land acquisition
under Chapter I-A untouched, it would be prudent for us to reproduce
Section 14, as it applies to the said Chapter:
“ 14. Power of State Government to acquire land. – (1) Where on
any representation from the Chief Executive Officer it appears to the
State Government that, in order to enable the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority to carry out development under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme in any Slum Rehabilitation Area it is necessary that such area,
or any land within adjoining or surrounded by any such area should
be acquired, the State Government may acquire the land by publishing
in the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State Government
has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this section:
Provided that, before publishing such notice, the State Government, or
as the case may be, the Competent Authority may call upon by notice
the owner of, or any other person who, in its or his opinion may be
interested in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should
not be acquired with reasons therefor, to the Competent Authority
within the period specified in the notice; and the Competent Authority
shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward any objections so
submitted together with his report in respect thereof to the State
Government and on considering the report and the objections, if any,
the State Government may pass such order as it deems fit.
Provided further that, the State Government may delegate its powers
under this sub-section to any officer not below the rank of
Commissioner.
(1A) The acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in sub-section
(1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose.
(2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the
land shall, on and from the date on which the notice is so published,
vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. ”
9
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment, Re-
enactment of Rules and Notification of Apex and other Grievance Redressal Committees and
Validation) Act, 2023, s 4.
Page 9 of 39
10. As in Tarabai (supra) , the instant case also pertains to an SR Area
under Chapter I-A. It is, thus, clarified that wherever the provisions of
Chapters IV and V are referred to in this Judgement, the reference is to
the modified provisions which are now encapsulated in Section 3D.
B. F ACTS
11. Having considered the changes introduced through the 2018
Amendment, we now proceed to observe the facts in detail, as portrayed
below.
11.1. The plot bearing CTS No. B-960 in Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri,
Mumbai, admeasuring a total area of 9,371.30 sq. m., is owned by the
Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount ( Church Trust ), a Public Trust based
in Mumbai. The Church Trust operates the Mount Mary Church in
Bandra, Mumbai, where, at the relevant time, Bishop John Rodrigues
served as the Rector and the sole trustee. The Subject Land, measuring
1,596.40 sq. m., is part of this larger plot.
11.2. The Subject Land has reportedly been encroached upon by hutment
dwellers since the 1930s, and a section admeasuring 1,334 sq. m. was
thereupon declared a Slum Area under Section 4 of the Slums Act on
30.11.1978. Over time, the hutment area ( Subject Slum ) expanded, and
the notification dated 30.11.1978 was accordingly amended on
12.06.2002, increasing the declared Slum Area to 1,532 sq. m.
Subsequently, through further expansion, the Subject Slum extended
Page 10 of 39
into an adjoining plot bearing CTS No. B-967, owned by the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ( BMC ).
11.3. In the intervening period, the dwellers of the Subject Slum formed the
Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed)
( Kadeshwari Society ). It appears from the records that there were 35
identified tenements in the Subject Slum, prior to 01.01.2000, who are
all members of Kadeshwari Society.
11.4. Since 2012, Kadeshwari Society and the Church Trust (through its sole
trustee) have been in communication regarding the redevelopment of the
Subject Slum. The record indicates that the parties had initially met for
this purpose, but it was subsequently identified that the land fell within
the Coastal Regulation Zone ( CRZ ), which impacted the feasibility of any
attempted redevelopment project.
11.5. In due course, however, the Government sought to relax restrictions on
the redevelopment of slums in CRZ areas, making rehabilitation on the
Subject Land feasible. This sparked a fresh round of communication
among the parties.
11.6. In this context, vide letter dated 13.06.2013, the Church Trust called on
Kadeshwari Society to: ( i ) submit written consent of all the 35 slum
dwellers eligible for rehabilitation; ( ii ) procure a resolution passed by the
General Body of Kadeshwari Society authorising redevelopment; and ( iii )
to permit the Society’s chosen developer to submit a tentative offer for
redevelopment, subject to the outcome of a tender process.
Page 11 of 39
11.7. Kadeshwari Society initially appointed M/s Accord Estates as its
preferred developer and notified the Church Trust accordingly. The
Society also appears to have entered into development agreements,
individual agreements, and tripartite agreements with this developer.
However, no further steps were taken in the following years until 2017.
11.8. Citing inaction on the part of M/s Accord Estates, Kadeshwari Society
terminated all agreements with this firm and its promoter. It, instead,
resolved to enter into an agreement with another developer, namely, M/s
Saldanha Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. ( Saldanha ), for the redevelopment of the
Subject Slum. Consequently, on 28.12.2017, Kadeshwari Society entered
into a Development Agreement with and executed a Power of Attorney in
favour of Saldanha. The developer also entered into individual
Development Agreements with the slum dwellers.
11.9. Having crystallised this relationship, Kadeshwari Society then besought
the Church Trust to grant a No-Objection Certificate to Saldanha,
allowing it to redevelop the Subject Land and to rehabilitate the slum
dwellers on it.
11.10. Meanwhile, Saldanha also approached the Church Trust with a proposal
to purchase the Subject Land on an ‘ as-is-where-is ’ basis. Saldanha and
the sole trustee of the Church Trust deliberated on this issue on
21.03.2018, pursuant to which the developer forwarded an offer of INR
2.5 crores for the Subject Land. The offer was later revised to INR 3
crores, but the parties did not proceed with this deal.
Page 12 of 39
11.11. It is pertinent to highlight at this stage that the Church Trust intended
to develop the Subject Land along with the rest of its land in CTS No.
B-960, as well as some other adjoining plots, totalling approximately
10,709 sq. m. in land area. The plan was to redevelop ‘Nirmala Colony’,
including the Subject Land, as a contiguous project.
11.12. However, when this proposal was presented to the slum dwellers,
Kadeshwari Society sent a communication dated 04.02.2019 to the
Church Trust, opposing a composite project and requesting the Trust to
allow independent redevelopment of the Subject Land by Saldanha.
11.13. This was followed by a series of communications between Kadeshwari
Society and the Church Trust, where the former sought an NOC for
redevelopment by Saldanha, while the latter attempted to obtain consent
from the slum dwellers for combined development.
11.14. In this backdrop, Kadeshwari Society submitted a proposal dated
24.09.2019 before the SRA for the declaration of the entire Subject Slum,
now covering 1,976.60 sq. m. (1,596.40 sq. m. being the Subject Land
and 380.20 sq. m. being BMC’s land), as an SR Area under Section
10
3C(1).
11.15. Parallelly, the Church Trust sent a letter dated 07.02.2020 to the Chief
Executive Officer of the SRA ( CEO ), informing that it was in
communication with the slum dwellers. It stated that the representatives
of the Trust had met with the members of Kadeshwari Society, and the
10
Reproduced in Paragraph 8.
Page 13 of 39
dwellers had accepted the feasibility of the composite development. The
Church Trust also submitted a feasibility report prepared by its architect
for the redevelopment of the area.
11.16. The SRA, however, disregarded the Church Trust’s communication and,
instead, acted on the proposal of the Kadeshwari Society. It issued public
notices as well as a specific notice to the Trust on 30.09.2020, calling for
objections to the proposal for a Section 3C(1) Declaration.
11.17. The Church Trust filed its written objections and attended the
subsequent hearing on the proposal. It conveyed its intention to
redevelop the Subject Property on its own, without the interference of a
third-party. The Trust also averred that the Subject Land was not densely
populated, and the structures thereon had sufficient ventilation, light,
sanitation, and facilities, considering which it should not be designated
as a slum.
11.18. The CEO after the hearing the parties, vide order dated 29.12.2020,
rejected the objections of the Church Trust and declared the Subject
Slum as an SR Area. The Section 3C(1) Declaration dated 29.12.2020
was published in the Official Gazette on 31.12.2020, and the order and
the declaration were also forwarded by the SRA to the Church Trust on
05.01.2021.
11.19. Aggrieved, the Church Trust challenged the order dated 29.12.2020
11
through statutory appeal under Section 3C(2) bearing Application No.
11
Reproduced in Paragraph 8.
Page 14 of 39
20 of 2021 before the AGRC on 01.02.2021. The AGRC does not appear
to have heard the appeal even a single time, and it has remained pending
to date.
11.20. Following the declaration dated 29.12.2020, Saldanha and the Church
Trust filed their respective proposals for redevelopment.
11.21. Saldanha filed its proposal dated 23.04.2021 in accordance with SRA’s
12 13
Circular No. 144 and Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034 for
redevelopment of the Subject Slum. This proposal was filed with support
from Kadeshwari Society.
11.22. On the other hand, the Church Trust filed its proposal through a letter
dated 04.05.2021, sent by its architect to the SRA. It envisaged the
rehabilitation of the Subject Slum through the aforementioned composite
development of the Nirmala Colony and included relevant maps and
design plans. It was clarified in the communication that the proposal was
made without prejudice to and subject to the outcome of Application
No. 20 of 2021. The Church Trust also submitted its composite proposal
before the BMC.
11.23. The record reveals that the SRA only took steps to consider Saldanha’s
proposal, completing various internal processes by July 2021. However,
faced with the objection of the Church Trust to this proposal, Kadeshwari
12
See Paragraph 38 of Tarabai (supra) .
13
See Paragraph 35 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 15 of 39
Society submitted an application on 09.09.2021 for the acquisition of the
14
Subject Land under Section 14.
11.24. The SRA, in response to the above-stated application, issued a public
notice dated 29.10.2021, calling for objections from all interested parties
to the proposal for acquisition. The Church Trust submitted its written
objections, and in the course of the acquisition proceedings, the
representatives of the Trust were also heard on 14.12.2021. Thereafter,
another hearing was set for 31.12.2021.
11.25. Before the second hearing could be conducted, the Executive Engineer,
SRA, vide order dated 22.12.2021, rejected the Church Trust’s proposal
dated 04.05.2021. The reasons given in the order were that: ( i ) the
proposal was not within the prescribed format; ( ii ) it was not submitted
to the correct authority/officer; and ( iii ) the proposal filed by Saldanha
was already being processed.
11.26. After the second hearing on 31.12.2021, anticipating irreversible
consequences of the acquisition, the Church Trust moved the AGRC for
an urgent interim stay on the Section 3C(1) Declaration dated
29.12.2020, but it was promptly declined on 07.01.2022.
11.27. The Church Trust, thus, aggrieved by the initiation of acquisition
proceedings, approached the High Court through Writ Petition No. 1212
of 2022, seeking quashing of the notice dated 29.10.2021.
14
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.4.
Page 16 of 39
11.28. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the SRA completed the scrutiny
of Saldanha’s SR Scheme and granted an in-principle approval on
28.03.2022. This acceptance was, however, restricted to that area of the
Subject Slum which was on the BMC’s land. It was clarified that
consideration for the proposal qua the Subject Land would be taken up
only after its acquisition was completed.
11.29. On the very next day, the CEO, vide order dated 29.03.2022, approved
the acquisition proposal on the premise that the Church Trust had not
filed an SR Scheme within 120 days. The proposal for acquisition was,
as such, directed to be forwarded to the State Government for approval.
11.30. Consequently, the Church Trust sought to amend its Writ Petition, which
was allowed by the High Court, vide order dated 08.04.2022, so as to
enable the Church Trust to bring these subsequent events on record. In
the amended Writ Petition, an additional prayer to set aside the order
dated 29.03.2022 was also incorporated. The High Court, while
entertaining the amended Writ Petition, directed as an interim measure
that no further steps towards the acquisition would be taken till the next
date of hearing. That order remained operative till the Writ Petition was
finally decided.
11.31. The High Court vide the Impugned Judgement dated 11.06.2024,
allowed the Writ Petition and, relying upon the reasoning assigned in
Indian Cork Mills (supra) , held that the Church Trust had a preferential
right to develop the Subject Land. It further held that: ( i ) the SRA
Page 17 of 39
neglected this right of the Trust; ( ii ) the acquisition proceedings were
marred by the absence of any proper notice to the Trust; and ( iii ) the
questionable conduct of the SRA, Saldanha, and Kadeshwari Society
vitiated the entire acquisition. The High Court, consequently, set aside
the notice dated 29.10.2021 and the order dated 29.03.2022, allowing
the Church Trust to proceed with development of the Subject Land.
11.32. Kadeshwari Society, Saldanha, and the SRA, being aggrieved, have filed
separate appeals challenging the Impugned Judgement.
ONTENTIONS
C. C
12. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel, representing Kadeshwari
Society, highlighted the alleged shortcomings in the Church Trust’s
development proposal. In this regard, he made the following
submissions:
(a) The High Court, even preliminarily, ought not to have entertained
the Church Trust’s Writ Petition. The notice dated 29.10.2021 and
the order dated 29.03.2022 neither caused any prejudice to the
Trust nor created any rights in favour of a third-party. The notice
and the order were merely procedural and did not merit
interference, since no final decision had been taken on the proposed
acquisition.
(b) The mandatory notice and hearings before a Section 3C(1)
Declaration eliminate the need for another notice under
Page 18 of 39
15
Section 13. The 120-day time limit further indicates a shift in
legislative policy, where the onus of submitting a proposal is placed
on the landowner. The provisions amended in 2018 render the
judicial mandate for a specific notice to invite the landowner for
redevelopment incompatible.
(c) The Church Trust has acted lackadaisically towards the interests of
the slum dwellers as well as its own interests in the Subject Land.
It never exercised its right to develop the Subject Land since 1978,
when part of it was declared as Slum Area. Even after the
Section 3C(1) Declaration, the Trust never submitted any SR
Scheme as per Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034.
(d) The Church Trust’s proposal dated 04.05.2021 is belated. The
16
period of 120 days prescribed under Section 13 would start from
the publication of the Section 3C(1) Declaration in the Official
Gazette, viz. , 31.12.2020. As such, the 120 days were over on
30.04.2021, and the Trust was 5 days late in submitting its
proposal.
(e) Although this Court, through successive orders passed in Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 and connected matters, has
generally extended the period of limitation from 2020 till 2022 due
15
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
16
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
Page 19 of 39
to the then ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic, such extension does not
17
apply to the time limit in Section 13(1).
(f) SR Schemes are to be submitted in the format prescribed by the
Guidelines for the Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Policy in
18
Greater Mumbai, 1997 and Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034.
As per SRA’s Circular No. 144, strict conformity with the format is
a prerequisite for consideration of the proposed SR Scheme. The
Church Trust’s proposal dated 04.05.2021 does not adhere to any
of these stipulations and was thus rightly rejected by the SRA vide
order dated 22.12.2021. The Trust has not challenged this order
before any forum, so it cannot rely on the said proposal to claim that
it has fulfilled its duty under Section 13.
(g) There was no procedural infirmity in or ulterior motive behind the
notice dated 29.10.2021 and order dated 29.03.2022. The former
was only to invite objections to the acquisition proposal, in line with
the first proviso to Section 14. The latter is a reasoned order, passed
after hearing all the parties, merely recommending the acquisition
of the Subject Land to the State Government.
13. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
SRA, in response to a specific query, clarified that the SRA was not
intending to take any sides among the parties. The appeal was filed to
challenge the High Court’s interpretation of the owner’s preferential
17
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
18
See Paragraph 36 of Tarabai (supra) .
Page 20 of 39
right. His contentions, however, have already been considered and
negatived by this Court in Tarabai (supra) .
14. Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, learned Senior Counsel representing Saldanha,
apart from adopting the arguments made by Mr. Divan, sought to
impress upon this Court that the proposed acquisition was not an
attempt to grab the Church Trust’s land. Rather, it was a effort
bona fide
to ensure redevelopment of the Subject Slum, motivated by the incentive
of reasonable profits.
15. Dr. Milind Sathe and Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned Senior Counsels
appearing on behalf of the Church Trust, asserted the correctness of the
Impugned Judgement and underlined the attempted breach of the
Trust’s preferential rights through the acquisition. They made the
following averments:
19
(a) The time limit of 120 days in Section 13 is only directory in nature
and not mandatory. Even if it is considered mandatory, the period
would only begin when a specific notice is received by the owner.
The Church Trust has submitted its proposal within 120 days of
05.01.2021, when it was informed of the Section 3C(1) Declaration.
(b) In any event, the directions of this Court in Cognizance for
20
Extension of Limitation, In re generally extending the period of
limitation from 2020 till 2022, would also apply to the limit of 120
19
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
20
(2022) 3 SCC 117.
Page 21 of 39
days. Additionally, even as a matter of equity, the Church Trust
should not be deprived of its inherent ownership rights due to an
inconsequential delay of a few days.
(c) There is no legislative requirement to submit the proposal as per
Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034. It is only applicable when
development incentives are sought under that Regulation, and the
landowner can choose not to invoke Regulation 33(10). As such, the
proposal of the Church Trust was wrongly disregarded merely for
alleged inconsonance with format requirements.
(d) The SRA or the private parties have shown no necessity to acquire
the land for redevelopment. The CEOs’ order dated 29.03.2022 only
mentions that an acquisition is required because 120 days have
passed and the owner has not submitted any SR Scheme.
(e) Moreover, there is a mala-fide intention behind the acquisition, i.e.,
Saldanha’s objective to grab the Subject Land. When the developer’s
original attempt to purchase the land fell through, it initiated the
process to acquire it through Kadeshwari Society and the SRA for a
very low price.
(f) The SRA, for the reasons best known to it, exhibited a singular focus
towards opposing the Church Trust’s attempts to redevelop, so as
to pave the way for Saldanha’s SR Scheme. The Trust’s proposal was
discarded on hyper-technical grounds, while Saldanha’s
submission was processed despite its own defects. It is in pursuance
Page 22 of 39
of this resolve of the SRA that the acquisition process was initiated
under Saldanha’s SR Scheme without formally rejecting the Trust’s
proposal.
(g) The decisions taken by Kadeshwari Society are highly suspect, as
only 7 out of 35 members are signatories to them. This assertion is
further fortified by the fact that the Society refuses to accept the
owner’s proposal for larger units with better facilities as compared
to the smaller units offered by Saldanha. The Society has no
justification for not accepting a composite development. Kadeshwari
Society cannot dictate the manner of development; its members only
have a right to rehabilitation as per the law, not to a specific
rehabilitation of their choice.
D. I SSUES
16. Having regard to the issues already adjudicated upon in Tarabai
(supra) , we deem it appropriate to confine our analysis to the following
three questions:
I. Whether the High Court has rightly rejected Kadeshwari Society’s
preliminary objection?
II. Whether the 2018 Amendment impacts the law laid down in Indian
Cork Mills (supra) and as reiterated in Tarabai (supra) ?
III. Whether, in the facts of the instant case, the High Court rightly set
aside the notice dated 29.10.2021 and the order dated 29.03.2022?
Page 23 of 39
E. A NALYSIS
E.1 Issue I: Preliminary Objection
17. It would be suitable, at the outset, to address the preliminary issue
raised by Mr. Divan on behalf of Kadeshwari Society. He argued that the
notice dated 29.10.2021 was merely an invitation for objections to the
acquisition proposal, and the order dated 29.03.2022 was simply a
recommendation to the State. He further submitted that these orders, at
best, were a preliminary exercise for acquisition of the Subject Land and
therefore, it was premature for the High Court to have interfered when
no actual step causing prejudice to the Church Trust had been taken.
18. Although the contention appears to be attractive at first blush, it is liable
to fall flat when a deeper analysis is undertaken. We say so for the reason
that the High Court, in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, can prevent or annul any executive overreach,
arbitrary decision-making process, action tainted with mala fides , or
colourable exercise of power. Where the solitary object of the notice and
order, namely, to acquire the Subject Land, has not been disputed by the
SRA, the High Court was justified to intervene at a preliminary stage. Not
doing so would have invited more complications on account of creation
of third-party rights by the private builder and consequential multiplicity
of litigation. Mere absence of any direct impact on the entitlement of the
Church Trust does not take away from the administrative nature of the
notice and the order or the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider their
validity.
Page 24 of 39
19. Moreover, the notice and the order are traceable to the statutory
21
framework of the Slums Act, especially in Section 14, and the same
having been issued in purported exercise of statutory power were
amenable to judicial review. Therefore, these actions must be taken
strictly in accordance with the legislative framework, and any challenge
that raises questions about the legality and integrity of such acts is
maintainable under Article 226. This preliminary objection raised by the
Appellants, thus, would fail. The appeals must, instead, be considered
on their merits.
E.2 Issue II: The Impact of the 2018 Amendment on the Slums Act
20. The learned Senior Counsels for the Appellants strenuously argued that,
as a consequence of the 2018 Amendment, there is no statutory
requirement to issue a separate notice for initiation of proceedings under
22
Section 13 of the Slums Act. The reason attributed to this inference
was that such a notice already stands effected on a landowner under
Section 3C, as a rule of audi alteram partem within the process of
notifying the land as an SR Area. It was thus elaborated that in view of
the changed legislative policy, the precondition of a separate notice under
Section 13 as outlined in Indian Cork Mills (supra) and upheld by this
Court in Tarabai (supra) would no longer be applicable. It was clarified
that the cited decisions pertain to the situation as it stood prior to the
2018 Amendment and are, thus, distinguishable.
21
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.4.
22
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
Page 25 of 39
21. In this regard, a pointed reference was also made to the phrase, ‘ which
shall not be more than one hundred and twenty days ’ in
23
Section 13, to buttress the submission that the onus has been shifted
onto the landowner to remain vigilant and submit the SR Scheme within
the stipulated period once the Section 3C(1) Declaration is issued.
22. On a bare perusal of the 2018 Amendment, it seems to us that no attempt
has been made to remove or dilute the preferential right of the landowner
to redevelop an SR Area. All those provisions which have been analysed
in Tarabai (supra) lead to only one conclusion, i.e., that the owner has
a primary right to 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
24
text of Section 3B(5) and Section 13, along with the existing expressions
of ‘landholders’ and ‘occupants’. The Legislature has, thus, expressly
acknowledged the distinct rights enjoyed by the owner or a landlord
within Chapter I-A.
23. In order to address the Appellants’ contention, it is germane, firstly, to
observe that, under Chapter I-A, no occasion arises for any stakeholder
to develop an area unless it has been finally notified as an SR Area. In
other words, the Section 3C(1) Declaration is a stage prior to
25
redevelopment being initiated under Section 13. The issuance of a
23
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
24
Reproduced in Paragraphs 7.4 and 9.1.
25
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
Page 26 of 39
26
notice under Section 3C is meant to accord hearing to a landowner and
invite objections, if any, against declaration as an SR Area. By contrast,
this Court, in Tarabai (supra) , has expressly held that the purpose of a
specific notice under Section 13 is to invite and enable the owner to
initiate redevelopment. Keeping in mind the fact that both the provisions
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. With this view of the matter, the plea of the
Appellants that the new mechanism within Section 3C no longer
necessitates a separate notice-cum-invitation on the landowner cannot
be accepted.
24. Further, Tarabai (supra) outlines very cogent and critical reasons for
27
why the specific notice under Section 13 is a mandatory requirement.
This Court, considering the practical realities of preparing an SR Scheme
as well as the potentially drastic consequences of not submitting the
same, held that it would not be feasible for the owner to file the scheme
without being invited to do so. The newly added qualification of 120 days
in Section 13 in no way impacts or has any relation to such an invitation
or the reasons behind its necessity. The incorporation of this condition
cannot lead to the conclusion that the notice-cum-invitation is no longer
required. Rather, the stipulated time-limit would come into effect after
the owner is notified and invited to redevelop the SR Area, whereupon
26
Reproduced in Paragraph 8.
27
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
Page 27 of 39
they must come forward within the time-ceiling. The claim of the
Appellants that the owner is expected to present an SR Scheme within
120 days of the Section 3C(1) Declaration without any notice-cum-
invitation is wholly misconceived and, thus, accordingly rejected.
25. On a conspectus of the 2018 Amendment and the perceived resultant
variation on the pre-amendment legislative policy, we are satisfied that
the holistic interpretation of the Slums Act made by this Court in
Tarabai (supra) is also squarely applicable on post-2018 Amendment
actions/events, barring the now legislatively stipulated timeline within
which a redevelopment scheme has to be submitted by an interested
landowner. It, then, goes without saying that SRA’s actions initiating the
acquisition in the instant case must also be tested against the same
principles, which we shall now proceed to assess in the following issue.
E.3 Issue III: Validity of Acquisition
26. This Court in Tarabai (supra) has unequivocally established that: ( i ) the
private owner of an SR Area has a preferential right to develop it; ( ii ) the
SRA must invite the landowner to come forward with a redevelopment
proposal and give them reasonable time to do so before the said
preferential right extinguishes; and ( iii ) the State or the SRA cannot move
to acquire the land before the preferential right of the owner is
extinguished. These principles will also apply mutatis mutandis to the
case in hand.
Page 28 of 39
27. Consequently, there vests a preferential right in favour of the Church
Trust, over and above the SRA, occupants, or other stakeholders, to
develop the Subject Land. The Trust ought to have been invited by the
SRA to submit a proposal and undertake such redevelopment after the
declaration dated 29.12.2020 was issued. Thus, the SRA cannot proceed
for acquisition of the Subject Land unless ( i ) such a notice-cum-
invitation is extended, and ( ii ) thereafter, the right of the Church Trust
is extinguished if it fails to submit a redevelopment scheme within the
prescribed period of 120 days.
28. The High Court has held that there was no compliance of these
preconditions by the SRA before initiating the acquisition, and the entire
process was liable to be invalidated. The High Court has further found
from the conduct of the Appellants that the acquisition proceedings
arose from an exercise of power in bad faith. We, therefore, now proceed
to examine whether the High Court was right in drawing such a
conclusion.
E.3.1 Prerequisites for Acquisition
29. At the cost of repetition, it may be reiterated that Mr. Divan advanced a
two-pronged submission. First , he contended that all statutory
requirements for initiating acquisition, particularly the issuance of notice
to the Church Trust, had been duly complied with. Second , he argued
that the Church Trust, by failing to proactively develop the Subject Land
or submit a proposal in the prescribed format under Regulation 33(10)
of the DCPR 2034, had effectively waived its preferential right. On this
Page 29 of 39
basis, he asserted that the acquisition proceedings were valid and did
not merit interference.
E.3.1.1 No Notice-cum-Invitation for Redevelopment
30. Regarding the first strand of these claims, we hasten to observe at the
very outset that there is no notice or invitation under Section 13 on the
record that was issued to the Church Trust.
31. The only communication relied upon by the Appellants is the Deputy
Collector, SRA forwarding the Section 3C(1) Declaration to the Church
Trust. We have already held that such notice does not amount to
compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 13 of the
28
Slums Act.
32. The inevitable consequence of the SRA’s omission to issue a separate
29
notice under Section 13 is that the Church Trust’s preferential right to
redevelop the Subject Land remains intact. In the absence of a valid
notice or opportunity, there existed no legal basis to extinguish this right.
The acquisition was, therefore, vitiated in law, falling afoul of the
prescribed procedure.
E.3.1.2 No Waiver of Preferential Right
33. Having held so, we shall now consider whether the Church Trust has,
through its conduct, waived the preferential right to develop the Subject
Land. Since such right can extinguish only after the owner is invited for
28
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
29
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.1.
Page 30 of 39
redevelopment, the threshold for how such right may be waived, even
before an invitation is extended, is inevitably high. In our view, if there
is no clear and overt communication by the owner that it does not wish
to exercise its preferential right to develop the SR Area, there cannot be
an automatic waiver of the right.
34. The record demonstrates that the Church Trust has, since 2013,
consistently expressed its intent to redevelop the Subject Land. Following
the Section 3C(1) Declaration dated 29.12.2020, the Trust reiterated its
willingness to undertake redevelopment, including by submitting a
consolidated proposal to the SRA and BMC, which addressed both, the
slum dwellers’ entitlements and the utilisation of its remaining land.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, it also appointed a developer
through a bidding process to implement its development plan. In these
circumstances, there is no basis to infer any waiver of its preferential
right.
35. Although some concerns were raised during the course of the hearing
regarding the permissibility of an amalgamated development, these
issues do not fall for adjudication in the instant appeals. As such, we
need not delve into the validity of the Church Trust’s proposal in terms
of the applicable Regulations. Suffice it to say that these contentions do
not undermine the Church Trust’s clear and consistent intent to
undertake the rehabilitation of the Subject Slum.
Page 31 of 39
36. Given the above findings in respect of the invitation to the Church Trust
and its persistent effort to redevelop the Subject Land, the prerequisites
30
of initiating an acquisition under Section 14, as laid out in Tarabai
(supra) , have not been fulfilled. The High Court has thus made no error
in holding that the acquisition ought to be ex facie illegal.
E.3.2 Questionable Conduct of the Parties
37. We now turn to the second ground on which the High Court quashed the
acquisition. The High Court not only found the integrity and objectivity
of the acquisition process compromised but also cast suspicion on the
motives of the Appellants. Upon our own independent scrutiny of the
facts, we too are impelled to draw adverse inferences from the Appellants’
disconcerting conduct throughout the acquisition proceedings.
38. While the record reveals a concerted and motivated attempt by the
parties to acquire the Subject Land, we shall now proceed to examine, in
detail, the conduct of the private and official Appellants separately.
E.3.2.1 Conduct of Kadeshwari Society and Saldanha
39. The primary ground for doubting the bona fide of Kadeshwari Society lies
in its persistent resistance to the Church Trust’s efforts to redevelop the
Subject Slum. The Trust has overwhelmingly demonstrated that the
proposed redevelopment ensures all statutory entitlements to slum
dwellers, including allotment of units on the Subject Land itself. These
units exceed the minimum size mandated under Regulation 33(10) of the
30
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.4.
Page 32 of 39
DCPR 2034, with all other entitlements either matching or surpassing
the regulatory requirements.
40. Despite the Church Trust’s proposal offering significantly better benefits,
Kadeshwari Society has persisted in pursuing redevelopment exclusively
through Saldanha. This choice inevitably disadvantages the slum
dwellers, who stand to receive smaller units and reduced benefits.
Meanwhile, Saldanha gains the opportunity to commercially exploit the
Subject Land, acquired at a fraction of its market value, in one of
Mumbai’s most land-constrained areas. This stark divergence between
the welfare of slum dwellers and the Society’s perplexing allegiance to
Saldanha compels us to conclude that Saldanha is, in effect,
orchestrating the Society’s actions from behind the scenes.
41. Saldanha’s actions suggest a calculated attempt to wrest the Subject
Land from the Church Trust, along with over 380 sq. m. of adjoining
BMC land, by exploiting the markedly low acquisition rates for
commercial gain. This intent surfaces as early as its proposal to privately
purchase the land from the Church Trust. While seemingly a bona-fide
negotiation, the text of the correspondence reveals a veiled threat aimed
at pressuring the Trust into relinquishing its property. This is
particularly evident in Saldanha’s letter dated 03.04.2018, addressed to
Bishop John Rodrigues, the relevant portion of which is reproduced
hereafter:
“ [xxxx]
As you are already aware, the Pawar Chawl has been in existence
since 1935 and the members are in possession and occupation of this
Page 33 of 39
portion of land admeasuring approximately 1590 sq.mtrs of which
1532 sq.mtrs has been declared as slum. The members of Pawar
Chawl have been paying the municipal taxes and water bills
since inception and are in a position to make a claim that they
are in adverse possession of the land or even approach the CEO,
SRA to acquire this portion of land declared slum and occupied
by them under the SRA rules and regulations with regard to
acquisition as per the legal advice given to them. If
implemented, it would take a maximum time of three months to
acquire or claim adverse possession as the structures of the
slum are in a total dilapidated condition.
Owing to the above, I request you to take a quick decision to
execute the matters in this regard and to grant us the
conveyance/perpetual lease in our favour.
We have already entered into a development agreement with
Shree Kadeshwari Society (Proposed) for the redevelopment of
their slum occupying B/960 (pt) under SRA Scheme 33(10) and
awaiting your response so that we are able to execute go ahead
with the project . We will obtain all necessary permissions including
that of the Charity Commissioner if at all necessary.
In case of any further queries, we will be happy to discuss to take
things further. We do hope you will consider our offer favorably,
assuring you of our best services at all times.
[xxxx] ”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]
42. Subsequently, upon realising that the Church Trust was unwilling to
part with the Subject Land, Saldanha initiated a driven attempt to usurp
it through the machinery of the SRA. Acting through Kadeshwari Society
as its proxy, it sought to effectuate what can only be described as a land
grab—one that aligns squarely with the tenor of its earlier coercive
communication. At every stage of the Section 3C(1) Declaration and the
ensuing acquisition proceedings, the pattern of conduct exhibited by
both Saldanha and Kadeshwari Society points unmistakably to the
former calling the shots, while safely being in the shadows.
43. Such pervasive influence inevitably corrupts any action taken by
Kadeshwari Society as well as Saldanha and calls upon us to impute
Page 34 of 39
patently dishonest intent on their conjoined attempt to take over
development of the Subject Land.
E.3.2.2 SRA’s Conduct
44. Considering the other side of the coin, we find the manner in which the
SRA and its functionaries have approached this case is even more
shocking. The record reveals a dire lack of application of mind or any
objective and coherent reasoning in the decisions of the SRA.
45. Despite the judgement of the High Court in Indian Cork Mills (supra)
continuing to hold the field, the SRA’s actions expose its attempts to
thwart any possibility of the Church Trust exercising its preferential
right.
46. First , after the Subject Land was declared as an SR Area on 29.12.2020,
the SRA never issued any specific notice to the Church Trust. It blatantly
chose to shrug off its duty to invite the owner to come forward with a
scheme for redevelopment. Instead, the SRA merely forwarded the
Section 3C(1) Declaration to the Trust, trying to create an impression
that it was completing all requisite processes, while not actually fulfilling
the basic requirement of specific notice.
47. Second , the SRA paid no heed to the Church Trust’s attempts for a
consolidated redevelopment. When the Trust’s proposal was forwarded
on 04.05.2021, the SRA made no attempt to act on it. Instead, while it
remained pending, the SRA proceeded to process and favourably
consider Saldanha’s proposal, including advancing the acquisition
Page 35 of 39
process. Although the SRA conducted a hearing for the Church Trust, it
turned down the Trust’s proposal during the intervening period between
two acquisition hearing dates on the flimsy ground that it was not
submitted in the prescribed format or to the designated Head Clerk,
Engineering. Importantly, no attempt was made by the SRA to allow the
Church Trust to rectify the purported deficiencies in its proposal.
Instead, a mere general rejection of the proposal was conveyed.
48. Finally , the SRA did not consider that the Section 3C(1) Declaration
dated 29.12.2020 was itself under challenge in Application No. 20 of
2021 before the AGRC. By going on appeal, the Church Trust has
challenged the very status of the Subject Land as an SR Area. Such
31
status is a sine qua non for acquisition under Section 14. Given the
irreversible consequences and third-party interests created by it, the SRA
ought not to have gone ahead with the proposal for acquisition till the
very foundation of the acquisition was confirmed in the statutory appeal.
Nevertheless, for some inexplicable reason and with a sense of
uncharacteristic urgency, which again speaks to the invisible but
pervading influence of the powerful private developer, the SRA has
forsaken the basic tenets of equity and recommended the acquisition.
49. Throughout this case, the SRA and its CEO appear to have abandoned
their public duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the rights of the
landowner. On the contrary, the facts reveal a prejudiced attempt by the
31
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.4.
Page 36 of 39
SRA to undermine legislative and judicial efforts and hand over the
Subject Land and the benefits of its rehabilitation to Saldanha. Such
actions of a public authority, marred by collusion and connivance and
motivated by extraneous profit interests of private builders, are highly
depreciable and underline the possibility of bureaucratic misuse of
statutory provisions.
50. The facts of the instant case compel us to infer that Saldanha’s
overreaching influence went beyond the slum-dwellers’ proposed society.
In its attempt to take over the Subject Land, the developer appears to
have gotten the typically slow-moving bureaucratic wheels of the SRA to
run at full speed. Moreover, Saldanha was able to achieve this
manoeuvre at a time when the entire country was under lockdown and
the machinery of governance was overwhelmed by the unprecedented
challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
51. These circumstances underpin the need for practical and actionable
safeguards in a legal system involving competing interests among private
parties. The Slums Act, while providing wholesome protection to slum
dwellers and their homes and livelihood, does not give such express
protection to the interests of the owner of the land. The ensuing vacuum,
as we have seen in these appeals, allows opportunistic developers to
swoop in, exploit the circumstances of the poor slum dwellers,
manipulate the hand-in-glove authorities, and enrich themselves off the
helpless owner’s land.
Page 37 of 39
52. Keeping the facts of this case and the obviously colourable conduct of
the Appellants in mind, the acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed to
sustain. As such, the High Court has rightly nipped these proceedings in
the bud, protecting the statutory rights and interests of the Church Trust
over the Subject Land and preventing the Appellants from illegally
grabbing it.
ONCLUSION AND IRECTIONS
F. C D
53. For the reasons set out above, the instant appeals are dismissed. The
following conclusions and directions are accordingly issued:
i. The Impugned Judgement of the High Court stands upheld;
ii. Liberty is granted to the Church Trust to submit, within a period of
120 days, an SR Scheme for the redevelopment of the Subject Slum,
strictly in accordance with laws and regulations in force;
iii. The Church Trust shall be bound by the offer of the size of the
apartments as well as other benefits and entitlements already made
by it to the slum dwellers;
iv. The SRA shall offer full support to the Church Trust for surveys,
demarcation, etc., as per the applicable Regulations, to enable it to
submit an SR Scheme; and
v. The SRA and the State shall process the Church Trust’s proposal as
expeditiously as possible within the prescribed procedure, within a
period of 60 days from the date of the Trust’s submission.
Page 38 of 39
54. All the matters and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of in the aforementioned terms and directions.
55. Ordered accordingly.
.................…….........J.
(SURYA KANT)
.................…….........J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 22, 2025
Page 39 of 39