Can a Slum Rehabilitation Authority compel acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act despite the landowner’s preferential right?

LawSikho
December 3, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

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 existing precedent (Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Society v. State of Maharashtra; Saldanha Real Estate v. Bishop Rodrigues)
Type of Law	Slum Rehabilitation (Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971) & regional town-planning provisions
Questions of Law	Whether a writ of mandamus can compel the State to acquire land under Section 14 of the Slum Act when the owner’s preferential right to redevelop is unextinguished? Whether a developer is entitled to an occupation certificate for its sale component if it hands over the Recreational Ground portion?
Ratio Decidendi	The State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 of the Slum Act is subject to the owner’s preferential right to submit and implement its own slum-rehabilitation scheme. Acquisition proceedings cannot begin until the SRA has invited the recorded owner to propose redevelopment and that preferential right has lapsed. No mandamus will lie to compel acquisition when the owner (or its transferee) retains a live preferential right. A developer who has substantially implemented its scheme and cleared the slum component is entitled to its occupation certificate for the sale buildings, but only after handing over the plot reserved for Recreational Ground to the municipal body. Lands reserved for public recreation cannot be redeveloped for slum schemes during an extant High Court injunction (Citispace). Directions in a 2015 CEO-SRA order to acquire the owner’s land cannot be enforced by back-door mandamus once the owner’s rights have been transferred and a new development proposal is on file.
Judgments Relied Upon	Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1795 Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Bishop John Rodrigues, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794 Citispace v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court order 31 Jul 2002
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon	Preferential right of owner under Section 3B and MRTP Act s. 2(19) & DCR 1991 Reg 33(10) Purposive construction of Chapter I-A of the Slum Act to harmonise ss. 13(4) (notice-cum-invitation) and 14 acquisition power Distinction between original acquisition scheme in Chapter V and Chapter I-A framework (Tarabai) Injunction protecting lands reserved as Recreational Ground (Citispace)
Facts as Summarised by the Court	A 2,005 sqm plot reserved for Recreational Ground in Malad, Mumbai, was declared slum land in 1987. Early LOIs (1997–2005) included this plot in Harishree’s slum-scheme; 34 hutment dwellers were identified. A 2015 CEO-SRA order held the scheme “substantially implemented,” directed acquisition of the owner’s land and rehabilitation of those 34 as PAPs. A 2002–2022 High Court injunction barred redevelopment of Recreation Ground. The original owner sold the plot in March 2022 to Alchemi Developers, who filed its own slum-scheme proposal immediately thereafter. The appellant Jyoti Builders applied for mandamus to force Section 14 acquisition and for its occupation certificate; the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts and Slum Rehabilitation Authority officials
Persuasive For	High Courts considering balance between acquisition power and owner’s preferential right
Overrules	None
Distinguishes	Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi (1963 SCC OnLine SC 96) – original Chapter V acquisition; upholds distinction from Chapter I-A framework
Follows	Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1795) Saldanha Real Estate v. Bishop Rodrigues (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that a landowner’s preferential right under the Slum Act must be exhausted before any acquisition under Section 14 is valid.
Confirms that no writ of mandamus can force acquisition where the owner (or transferee) remains entitled to propose redevelopment.
Emphasises that lands reserved for public recreation are protected from slum-scheme redevelopment until injunctions are vacated.
Clarifies that a developer’s right to its occupation certificate is conditional upon handing over the plot earmarked as Recreational Ground.
Highlights the need for SRA to invite the recorded owner to submit its scheme before initiating acquisition steps.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Statutory Framework & Owner’s Rights
Slum Act Chapter I-A and MRTP Act amendments grant SRA authority but recognise a landowner’s preferential right (Section 3B, DCR 33(10)).
Acquisition Power Subject to Preferential Right
Following Tarabai, SRA must invite the owner to submit its own scheme; acquisition under Section 14 is in abeyance until preferential right lapses.
High Court Injunction on Recreational Ground
Citispace injunction (2002–2022) barred any slum redevelopment on land reserved for gardens/playgrounds.
Implementation of 2015 CEO-SRA Order
The 2015 order directing acquisition of the owner’s plot cannot be enforced by mandamus after the plot was lawfully sold and a new scheme proposed.
Occupation Certificate Condition
Developer entitled to occupation certificate for sale buildings only after handing over the 2,700 sqm “dark green” Recreational Ground parcel.
Equitable Compensation
Developer already received equivalent FSI against 34 PAPs; no further compensation claims lie.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Jyoti Builders)

Subject plot was always part of its slum-scheme (LOIs, Annexure II, 2015 order).
No valid new scheme could be sanctioned to Alchemi since no slum dwellers remained; SRA lacked jurisdiction.
2015 CEO-SRA order attained finality; no power to reopen or review it.
Occupation certificate was wrongly withheld; developer handed over rehabilitation component and remains entitled.
Preferential right and acquisition duty arise from Section 14 and binding CEO-SRA order.

Respondents No. 1 & 2 (SRA/State)

The plot was excluded from the slum-scheme after owner withdrew consent and injunction remained in force till March 2022.
The appellant never acquired title; original MOU terminated, suit dismissed.
Occupation certificate condition was correctly imposed only for handing over Recreational Ground.
Owner’s preferential right and fresh scheme by Alchemi bar any Section 14 acquisition mandate.

Respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers)

Purchased the plot for value; appellant cannot usurp it without consideration.
No slum dwellers to rehabilitate; past rehabs were under PAP route directed by SRA.
Developer’s own scheme valid; appellant should not benefit from its own wrong.

Respondent No. 5 (Original Owner)

Owner’s preferential right must be respected; SRA required to invite Alchemi to submit its slum-scheme before any acquisition.

Respondents No. 6 & 8 (Slum Societies)

Concerned about loss of open Recreational Ground; Alchemi’s scheme would build on 65% of the plot, shrinking public RG.

Factual Background

A 2,005 sqm parcel in Malad was declared a slum in 1987 and reserved for Recreational Ground in the 1991 Development Plan. Harishree Enterprises (1997–2005 LOIs) included it in a slum-rehabilitation scheme, rehousing 34 hutment dwellers. A 2015 CEO-SRA order found the scheme “substantially implemented” and directed acquisition of the owner’s plot under Section 14. A 2002–2022 Bombay High Court injunction barred use of RG land for slum redevelopment. In March 2022 the original owner sold the plot to Alchemi Developers, who filed a fresh scheme. Jyoti Builders then sought writ mandamus to compel acquisition and for its occupation certificate.

Statutory Analysis

Section 3B Slum Act & DCR 1991 Reg 33(10): Provides the SRA scheme framework and recognises consent or acquisition for slum redevelopment, awarding incentive FSI to developers.
Section 14 Slum Act: Empowers State to acquire land for scheme after considering owner’s objections; acquisition is a “public purpose” under sub-s. 1(A).
MRTP Act s. 2(19) & s. 152 proviso: Treats SRA as Planning Authority for slum areas; delegates power to CEO-SRA to sanction schemes and certificates.
Judicial guidelines: High Court injunction protecting RG (Citispace). Apex decisions (Tarabai, Saldanha) on owner’s preferential right and acquisition interplay.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or separate opinions were filed; both judges concurred in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

None identified beyond reaffirmation of existing protocols under s. 13 (notice-cum-invitation) and s. 14 acquisition procedures.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Society v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1795) and related precedents.