Owner holds preferential right to redevelop slum rehabilitation area; SRA’s acquisition set aside for failure to invite owner

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court heard challenges to the validity of acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, as amended in 2018. The appeals arose out of the High Court of Bombay’s order dated 11.06.2024 which had declared the acquisition of a portion of CTS No. B‑960, Bandra (the Subject Land), void and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to consider the landowner’s redevelopment proposal.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court. It held that the owner of an area notified as a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) enjoyed a preferential right to develop that area, that the SRA was obliged to invite the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme and to afford reasonable time before that preferential right could be treated as extinguished, and that acquisition could not lawfully proceed without compliance with those preconditions. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court further found that the SRA had not issued the specific notice under Section 13 to the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (the Church Trust) and that acquisition proceedings were tainted by questionable conduct by private parties and the Authority. The judgment recorded concerns about a private developer’s communications suggesting pressure tactics, quoting a portion of the developer’s earlier letter that the members “are in a position to make a claim that they are in adverse possession of the land…”.

Background The dispute concerned 1,596.40 sq. m. of CTS No. B‑960, part of a larger property owned by the Church Trust; a slum had occupied parts of the plot since the 1930s and portions were earlier notified as slum. The Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Society (proposed) (representing slum dwellers) supported developer Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., which sought redevelopment; the Church Trust opposed a third‑party takeover and proposed a composite redevelopment of its entire holding. Following the SRA’s declaration of the area as an SR Area on 29.12.2020, the Church Trust objected and filed statutory appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), which remained pending. The SRA processed the society/developer’s proposal, issued a notice under Section 14 inviting objections to acquisition on 29.10.2021, and recommended acquisition on 29.03.2022 on the ground that the owner had not submitted an SR Scheme within 120 days. The Church Trust challenged the acquisition before the Bombay High Court, which set aside the acquisition notice and related order and held that the Trust had a preferential right to develop; the SRA, the society and the developer appealed.

The Supreme Court examined the effect of the 2018 Amendment and followed the Court’s prior analysis in Tarabai Nagar and Indian Cork Mills: the amendment did not eliminate the owner’s preferential right nor the requirement of a specific invitation under Section 13 to enable the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme. The Court found no specific Section 13 notice on record, rejected the contention that publication of the Section 3C(1) declaration alone satisfied the statutory precondition, and held that the owner had not waived its preferential right. The Court also recorded that the conduct of the society, the developer and the SRA supported the High Court’s finding of mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Final result: the appeals were dismissed; the High Court judgment was upheld. The Court granted liberty and issued directions: the Church Trust was permitted to submit an SR Scheme within 120 days; the Trust would be bound by the offers already made to slum dwellers; the SRA must assist surveys/demarcation and process the Trust’s proposal expeditiously and complete statutory processing within 60 days of submission.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1016 Case Title: Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues & Others (with connected appeals: Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd (proposed) v. Bishop John Rodrigues & Others; The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Another v. Bishop John Rodrigues & Others) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan (for Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd (proposed)); Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande (for Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.); Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari (for Slum Rehabilitation Authority) For the Respondent(s): Dr. Milind Sathe and Mr. Chander Uday Singh (for Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount / Bishop John Rodrigues)