Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014512-014512 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 5163/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms High Court order |
| Type of Law | Slum rehabilitation; land‐acquisition law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 of the Slum Act is subject to the owner’s preferential right to redevelop under Chapter I-A and cannot be exercised before that right is extinguished (Tarabai; Saldanha). It refused to grant mandamus for acquisition after the land was sold and a fresh scheme invited. It directed issuance of an occupation certificate once the appellant hands over the portion reserved for Recreational Ground and confirmed full compensation by FSI. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Dispute concerned a 2,005 sq m plot reserved as Recreational Ground but encroached by 34 slum dwellers. Appellant implemented a slum‐rehab scheme from 1997 onwards, obtained a 2015 order directing acquisition of the plot under Section 14, but did not pursue acquisition. The owner sold to a third‐party developer in 2022 and a fresh scheme was invited. Appellant’s writ petition was dismissed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Independent acquisition power under Chapter V vs. Chapter I-A of Slum Act |
| Follows | Tarabai Nagar v. State of Maharashtra; Saldanha Real Estate v. Rodrigues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Power to acquire under Section 14 Slum Act is subject to owner’s preferential right; acquisition cannot proceed until that right is extinguished.
- SRA must invite the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before acquisition is contemplated.
- No mandamus for acquisition can issue once the land is sold and a fresh scheme invited.
- Occupation certificate for final sale building in a slum scheme is due once the developer hands over the portion reserved for Recreational Ground.
- Full compensation for rehab obligations is effected by granting equivalent FSI; developer cannot claim additional FSI if it fails to clear new scheme area.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory framework: Section 14 Slum Act grants acquisition power but Chapter I-A confers a preferential right on the owner to redevelop (Sections 3B, 3C, 3D).
- Preferential right vs. acquisition: Relying on Tarabai and Saldanha, acquisition must await the owner’s decision on redevelopment; State cannot proceed while owner’s right subsists.
- Citispace injunction: High Court’s 2002 order barred new schemes on land reserved for Recreational Ground until March 2022; no acquisition could be enforced earlier.
- Application to facts: Owner sold in March 2022; new developer’s scheme invited; appellant’s late writ for acquisition is impermissible.
- Occupation certificate: Developer entitled to OC after handing over 2,700 sq m dark‐green RG plot to Municipality.
- Compensation: Rehab cost discharged by allocation of equivalent FSI; appellant has no further claim.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – Jyoti Builders):
- Subject plot always part of appellant’s 1997 scheme; 2015 order directed acquisition under Section 14.
- SRA has no jurisdiction to entertain a new scheme when no slum dwellers remain.
- Entitled to OC once SRA duties under 2015 order are complied with; RG must be handed over.
- Acquiring plot by sale to new developer frustrates statutory acquisition duty.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (CEO–SRA; State):
- Subject plot was excluded from the original scheme; consent of owner was never validly obtained.
- SRA properly invited new developer to submit scheme; no acquisition pending.
- Appellant already received full FSI compensation for 34 slum dwellers as PAPs.
Respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers):
- Lawful purchaser of the plot; appellant cannot claim rights without purchase.
- Appellant rehabilitated dwellers without substrate title; no locus to claim OC or acquisition.
Respondent No. 5 (Original Owner):
- Owner’s preferential right to redevelop recognized; SRA obliged to invite owner before acquisition.
Slum Societies (Respondents Nos. 6 & 8):
- Concerned over loss of Recreational Ground; new developer’s scheme reduces open RG by 65%.
Factual Background
A 2,005 sq m parcel in Malad, Mumbai, declared slum in 1987, was bundled into a larger slum‐rehabilitation scheme from 1997. Appellant constructed four rehab buildings by 2011; in 2015 CEO-SRA ordered acquisition of the plot under Section 14. No acquisition steps ensued. In March 2022 the original owner sold the plot to a new developer, who submitted its own slum scheme. Appellant’s belated writ seeking mandamus for acquisition and OC was dismissed by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 14, Slum Act: Empowers State Government to acquire land for slum redevelopment after considering owner’s objections.
- Chapter I-A (Sections 3B–3D): Frames Slum Rehabilitation Scheme as Development Control Regulations; confers owner a preferential redevelopment right.
- MRTP Act, Section 152 (Proviso): Delegates planning‐authority powers to CEO-SRA for slum areas.
- DCR 1991, Regulation 33(10): Permits scheme only with owner’s consent or after acquisition under Section 14.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms Tarabai and Saldanha principles on owner’s preferential right vs. acquisition.