Holding

A landowner has a preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area, the SRA must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit an SR Scheme, and acquisition under Section 14 cannot occur until that right is extinguished, leading to the setting aside of the acquisition.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the acquisition of a 9,054‑sq‑m land in a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Area in Mumbai, owned by Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) but claimed by the Tarabai Nagar Co‑op. Housing Society. The Court considered whether the owner has a preferential right to redevelop the SR Area under Chapter I‑A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, whether that right requires a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme, and whether the State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 is subject to that right. It held that the owner indeed enjoys a first‑right to redevelop, that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must specifically notify and invite the owner to submit an SR Scheme, and that acquisition cannot proceed until the owner’s right is extinguished. The Court found that the SRA failed to issue such notice and that the acquisition was therefore a colourable exercise of power. Consequently, the High Court’s decision setting aside the acquisition was upheld and the appeals were dismissed, with directions for ICM to file a fresh SR Scheme and for the SRA and State to process it promptly.

Issues considered

Whether the owner of the land in an SR Area has any preferential right to redevelop it under Chapter I‑A of the Slums Act.
Whether such preferential right, if any, entails that the owner be specially notified and invited to redevelop the SR Area before the SRA takes a decision under Section 13 read with Section 3D(b)(iii).
Whether the power of the State Government to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) is subject to the preferential right, if any, of the owner.
Whether, in the facts of the instant case, the acquisition of the Subject Land by the State Government has rightly been set aside by the High Court.

Legislation cited

Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971s. 12(10), s. 13, s. 13(1), s. 13(9), s. 14, s. 14(1), s. 3B(4)(e), s. 3C(1), s. 3D(b)(iii), s. 3D(c)(i)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the owner of the land in a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) has any preferential right to redevelop it under Chapter I-A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether such entails that the owner be specially notified and invited to redevelop the SR Area before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) takes a decision u/s.13 r/w s.3D(b)(iii), Slums Act; whether the power of the State Government to acquire land u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slums Act is subject to the

Subjects

Slum Rehabilitation AreaPreferential right of landownerSlum Rehabilitation SchemeAcquisition of landSection 13Section 14Section 3C(1) declarationSection 3D(b)(iii)Section 3D(c)(i)Reasonable timeNotice-cum-invitationSlum dwellersLandowner's rightsChapter I-A

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1193 : 2025 INSC 1015

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed)
v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11014 of 2025)
22 August 2025
[Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the owner of the land in a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR
Area) has any preferential right to redevelop it under Chapter I-A
of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether such preferential right, if any,
entails that the owner be specially notified and invited to redevelop
the SR Area before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) takes
a decision u/s.13 r/w s.3D(b)(iii), Slums Act; whether the power
of the State Government to acquire land u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i),
Slums Act is subject to the preferential right, if any, of the owner;
whether, in the facts of the instant case, the acquisition of the
Subject Land by the State Government has rightly been set aside
by the High Court.

Headnotes†
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Chapter I-A – By way of the
impugned judgement, High Court held that the scheme of
Chapter I-A of the Slums Act creates a preferential right in
favour of the owner of an SR Area to redevelop it – Whether
the owner of the land in a SR Area has any preferential right
to redevelop it under Chapter I-A:
Held: A landowner has the first right among stakeholders to
undertake redevelopment under an SR Scheme – Owner’s right
to develop an SR Area, holds preference over that of the SRA
within Chapter I-A of the Slums Act – ss.3B(4)(e) and 13(1) make
it clear that the SRA’s power to undertake redevelopment can only
be invoked if the owner extinguishes its right to redevelop – s.13
has its own measure to balance the rights of slum dwellers, by
imposing the restriction of ‘reasonable time’ on the owner’s right

* Author
1194 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to redevelop – The SRA cannot undertake development of the
SR Area unless the owner fails to come forward with a scheme
within a reasonable time – 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 – Impugned judgement upheld. [Paras 51, 53, 61, 63, 107]

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Whether the preferential right of
the owner, if any, entails that the owner be specially notified
and invited to redevelop the SR Area before the SRA takes a
decision u/s.13 r/w s.3D(b)(iii), Slums Act:
Held: Though, the Gazette notification or a public notice in
newspapers shall be deemed to have informed an owner
regarding the s.3C(1) Declaration however, it will be far-fetched
and preposterous to further assume that such owner is also
obligated to submit a redevelopment scheme when the said
notification does not invite the owner to submit any proposal –
Mere declaration of an area as an SR Area does not amount to
inviting the landowner to redevelop the land, and the publication
of the former cannot attract the consequences attributable to
the latter – Mere declaration of an area as an SR Area does
not amount to inviting the landowner to redevelop the land, and
the publication of the former cannot attract the consequences
attributable to the latter – Considering the dire consequences
potentially suffered by the owner upon inadvertent failure to
exercise its preferential right and the SRA’s previous notices, the
requirement for a specific notice inviting the owner to submit an
SR Scheme, as prescribed in the Impugned Judgement, must
be read as mandatory. [Paras 69, 75]

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – s.14 vis-à-vis s.13 – Power of State
Government to acquire land – Power of Competent Authority
to redevelop clearance area – Whether the power of the State
Government to acquire land u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slums Act is
subject to the preferential right, if any, of the owner:
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1195

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

Held: The owner has a preferential right over other stakeholders
to develop an SR Area – If the owner then chooses to exercise
this right by submitting and implementing a valid SR Scheme,
issues involving rights over the property would not arise – It is,
thus, not fathomable that when the landowner is implementing
an SR Scheme on its own, a necessity to acquire the land could
arise – Rather, any process to acquire the land shall have to be
kept in abeyance till such time as the owner’s preferential right
to develop it stands extinguished – Since it is open to the owner
to file its own SR Scheme within a reasonable time and the
proposal of the owner, if valid and complete, would take primacy,
it cannot be said that there is any legal necessity to acquire the
land – If acquisition is allowed to take place at this stage, it will
jeopardise the preferential right of the landowner – It is only when
the owner declines to undertake development or to support any
third-party development, thereby foregoing its preferential right,
that such a necessity would actually arise – Thus, as long as
the owner is willing to undertake development in exercise of its
preferential right, the acquisition cannot proceed – This can also
be harmoniously read in conjunction with the requirement for a
notice-cum-invitation to the owner in s.13 – When an SR Area
has been notified u/s.3C(1) of Chapter I-A and its development
through an SR Scheme is conceptualised, where-under there is an
inbuilt preferential right of an owner to carry out redevelopment, the
power of acquisition u/s.14 would not operate in an independent
silo; rather, it must derive meaning and effect from the principles
prevailing throughout the legislative scheme of Chapter I-A –
The owner possesses a preferential right to redevelop the SR
Area – SRA is duty-bound to invite the owner to submit an SR
Scheme and acquisition is not warranted until such right stands
extinguished. [Paras 83, 84, 87, 88]

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Chapter I-A – Validity of the
acquisition of land – Indian Cork Mills Private Limited
(ICM) was the owner of the subject land, over time, it was
encroached upon by hutment dwellers, and a portion of it
was declared as a ‘Slum Area’ u/s.4 – The slum expanded
and its dwellers formed the co-operative housing society-
appellant – Thereafter, entire subject land was declared as
SR area through a s.3C(1) Declaration – Appellant requested
Additional Collector for acquiring the Subject Land coupled
with a proposal to redevelop the same– Originally, proceedings
1196 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

were initiated before the Additional Collector in the absence
of ICM – Fresh notice was issued to the ICM and it responded
that as owner, it would like to develop the property itself,
under an SR Scheme – Eventually, the CEO submitted report
proposing to acquire the subject land recommending that the
acquisition be undertaken u/s.14 and that though, while ICM
had relayed its willingness to redevelop the Subject Land, it
had not filed any SR Scheme – Notification issued by State
u/s.14(1) for the acquisition of the Subject Land – ICM filed
writ petition, High Court set aside the acquisition inter alia
holding that a landowner has a preferential right to develop
the Subject Land u/ss. 3B(4) and 13(1); SRA was directed to
consider ICM’s proposal expeditiously – Whether, in the facts
of the case, the acquisition of the Subject Land by the State
Government was rightly set aside by the High Court:
Held: Impugned judgement upheld – The SRA never issued a
notice to Indian Cork Mills Private Limited-ICM (owner of the
subject land), thereby inviting it to submit an SR Scheme, and
does not appear to have explored the opportunity for the owner
to develop the Subject Land – As such, ICM’s preferential right
to develop the land was not extinguished – On facts, it cannot be
concluded that ICM failed to submit its scheme within the stipulated
time –ICM was, at all times, willing to prepare and submit an SR
Scheme, but neither the appellant-housing society nor the SRA
extended the necessary cooperation – Where the circumstances
and the conduct of the SRA and the Society themselves impeded
the owner from submitting the SR Scheme, it cannot be said that
the owner failed to do so within a reasonable period – The SRA
and the State exceeded their power, apparently to pre-empt the
owner from undertaking redevelopment – The acquisition of land,
in such circumstances, being a colourable exercise of power is
unsustainable – The conduct and bona fides of both the SRA and
the appellant are seriously doubtful – The SRA’s entire initiative to
undertake Slum Rehabilitation on the Subject Land was driven at
the behest of the appellant – To permit the acquisition to stand,
despite the dubious motives of the appellant and its developer and
the deeply suspect conduct of the SRA, would catalyse a travesty
of justice – Directions issued. [Paras 92-95, 106, 107]
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Scheme of the Act – Chapters
I-A; IV, V – Original Framework for Slum Redevelopment
(1971) vis-à-vis New Framework for Slum Rehabilitation
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1197

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

(Between 1995 and 2018) – 2018 Amendment – Subordinate
Legislation/Circulars – Development Control Regulations for
Greater Mumbai, 1991 – Guidelines for the Implementation of
Slum Rehabilitation Policy in Greater Mumbai, 1997 – General
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for Greater Mumbai, 1998 – SRA
Circular Nos. 144 and 144-A – Enumerated. [Paras 3-38]
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Chapter I-A – Scope – Discussed.

Case Law Cited
Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi and Others v. State of Maharashtra
and Others, Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11077 of
2017, judgement dated 29.08.2017 – distinguished.
Atesham Ahmed Khan v. Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2011
SCC OnLine Bom 239; Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari v. Chief Executive
Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom
481 – referred to.

List of Acts
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966; Development Control Regulations for Greater
Mumbai, 1991; Development Control and Promotion Regulations
for Greater Mumbai, 2034; Guidelines for the Implementation of
Slum Rehabilitation Policy in Greater Mumbai, 1997; General Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme for Greater Mumbai, 1998.

List of Keywords
Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area); Preferential right of the
landowner to redevelop Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area);
Preferential right to redevelop; Landowner be specially notified and
invited to redevelop the SR Area; Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR
Scheme); Acquisition of land; Validity of the acquisition of land;
Slum dwellers; Village Tungwa, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai; Greater
Mumbai; Hutment dwellers; Encroachment of land; Slum area;
Slum Rehabilitation Area; Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; Housing
society of slum dwellers; Owner’s preferential right; Owner’s right
to develop an SR Area; Chapters I-A; IV and V of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1198 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

1971; Redevelopment; Failure to exercise preferential right;
Landowners; Owner’s preferential right to develop; Sections 13,
14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Framework for Slum Rehabilitation
poorly structured; Power of State Government to acquire land;
Power of Competent Authority to redevelop clearance area;
Section 3C, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area;
Section 3C(1) Declaration; Pre-empt the owner from undertaking
redevelopment; Colourable exercise of power; Proposal for
redevelopment; Acquisition for redevelopment; Land acquisition
proposal; Willingness to develop the Subject Land; Scheme for
redevelopment; Landholders; Occupants; Peremptory right of
redevelopment; Marginalised section of urban society; Third-party
developers; Manipulating inhabitants; Reasonable time; Issuance
of notice-cum-invite to landowner.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11014 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 658 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 11015 and 11016 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv., Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi,
Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Arpit Rai, Sudipto Sircar, Aviral Kashyap.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Amar Dave,
Shyam Mehta, Sr. Advs., Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Ms.
Gautami Yadav, Ms. Srishty Pandey, Sunil Kumar Verma, Aman Raj
Gandhi, Ms. Jasmine Seth, Aryan Srivastava, Parthasarathy Bose,
Ms. Panchi Agarwal, Pranaya Goyal, Ms. Sonali Jaitley Bakhshi,
Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Ravi Tyagi, Mayank Mishra, Ms. Manmilan Sidhu,
Ankit Tyagi, Ms. Sudiksha Saina, Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Shikhar
Misra, P. V. Yogeswaran, Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1199

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Sachin Patil, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Utkarsh Kumar, Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal,
Aditya Krishna, Arpit Rai, Sudipto Sircar, Aviral Kashyap.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Surya Kant, J.

Leave granted.
2. The dispute which falls for consideration in these Civil Appeals pertains
to the validity of the acquisition of land bearing CTS Nos. 119 I and
119 I/1-83 in Village Tungwa, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai, admeasuring
9,054 sq. m. (Subject Land), under the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums
Act). The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (High Court), vide
the Impugned Judgements dated 13.06.2018 and 09.07.2018, has:
(i) allowed the writ petition filed by the landowner; (ii) held the
acquisition to be void; and (iii) directed the State of Maharashtra
and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to invite the landowner
and consider its proposal for redevelopment. The instant appeals
have, thus, been preferred by the proposed housing society of slum
dwellers, the State of Maharashtra, and the SRA.

A. LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
3. Before delving into the facts of this case, it may be prudent to first
consider the legislative scheme of the Slums Act.
4. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was originally enacted by the Maharashtra
State Legislature as “[an] Act to make better provision for the
improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and their
redevelopment.”

A.1 Original Framework for Slum Redevelopment (1971)
5. In its original form, the Slums Act provided a procedure for appointment
of a Competent Authority (Section 3); declaration by the Competent
Authority of certain slums as ‘Slum Areas’ (Chapter II); improvements
to be conducted in such Slum Areas by the landowner or the
Competent Authority (Chapter III); clearing and redevelopment of
1200 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Slum Areas (Chapter IV); and the acquisition of land for such
redevelopment (Chapter V).
6. Given the background of the instant appeals, it seems to us that,
besides the definitions contained in Section 2 of the Slums Act,
Chapters IV and V thereof also merit a more detailed consideration.
7. Section 2 contains the definitions of various terms and phrases used
in the Slums Act:
“2. Definitions.– In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires ––
[xxxx]
(d) “land” includes building and also benefits to arise
out of land, things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything attached to the earth;
(e) “occupier” includes,—
(i) any person who for the time being is paying
or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any
portion of the rent of the land or building in
respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(ii) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using,
his land or building;
(iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or
building; and
(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner
damages for the use and occupation of any
land or building;
(f) “owner”, when used with reference to any building
or land, means the person who receives or is entitled
to receive the rent of the building or land, if the building
or land were let, and includes,—
(i) an agent or trustee who receives such rent
on account of the owner;
(ii) an agent or trustee who receives the rent
of, or is entrusted with, or concerned for, any
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1201

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

building or land devoted to religious or charitable
purpose;
(iii) a receiver, sequestrator or manager
appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction
to have the charge of or to exercise the rights
of owner of the said building or land; and
(iv) a mortgagee-in-possession;
but does not include, a slumlord;
[xxxx]
(h) “slum clearance” means the clearance of any
slum area by the demolition and removal of buildings
therefrom;
[xxxx] ”
8. It may be noted that although the term ‘landholder’ is not expressly
defined within the legislation, it is taken to mean all the persons
who hold any interest in the land in question. This would, of course,
include the owner(s) of the land, but it also covers other interest
holders, such as mortgagees or assignees.
9. Chapter IV lays down the process whereby the Competent Authority
can decide to clear a declared Slum Area, execute such a decision,
and initiate the redevelopment of the area.
10. Section 11(1) allows the Competent Authority to declare a Slum Area
as a Clearance Area, if it is satisfied “that the most satisfactory
method of dealing with the conditions in the area is the demolition
of all the buildings in the area.”
11. Following the declaration, Section 12 stipulates how the buildings
and structures on the land would be cleared. A Clearance Order is to
be issued by the Competent Authority, whereafter the occupants are
given a specified time to vacate the buildings. An appeal against the
Clearance Order lies before a Tribunal. Once the Clearance Order
becomes operative, the landowner must demolish the buildings on
its land within six weeks, at its own cost.
12. Within this scheme, sub-section (10) of Section 12 further allows the
owner to redevelop the land after the execution of the Clearance Order,
subject to any laws governing town planning, erection of buildings, and
1202 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

approval of plans as well as any restrictions placed by the Competent
Authority. For reference, we shall quote the following portion of
Section 12:
“12. Clearance Order.–
[xxxx]
(10) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and of any other
law for the time being in force in relation to town-planning
and to the regulation of the erection of buildings, where
a clearance order has become operative, the owner of
the land to which the clearance order applies, may
redevelop the land in accordance with the plans approved
by the Competent Authority, and subject to such restrictions
and conditions (including a condition with regard to the
time within which the redevelopment shall be completed),
if any as that Authority may think fit to impose:
Provided that, an owner who is aggrieved by a restriction
or condition so imposed on the user of his land, or by a
subsequent refusal of the Competent Authority to cancel
or modify any such restriction or condition may, within
such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the Tribunal
and its decision shall be final.
(11) No person shall commence or cause to be
commenced any work in contravention of a plan
approved or a restriction or condition imposed under
sub-section (10).”
[Emphasis supplied]

13. Finally, the Competent Authority is also permitted to redevelop
the Clearance Area at its own cost under Section 13(1). The only
requirements to exercise this power are that the owner must not
have commenced redevelopment work and the Competent Authority
ought to be satisfied that such an action would be necessary in public
interest. Section 13 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“13. Power of Competent Authority to redevelop
clearance area.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-section (1) of section 12, the Competent Authority may,
at any time after the land has been cleared of buildings in
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1203

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

accordance with a clearance order, but before the work
of redevelopment of that land has been commenced by
the owner, by order, determine to redevelop the land at its
own cost, if that Authority is satisfied that it is necessary
in the public interest to do so.
(2) Where land has been cleared of the buildings in
accordance with a clearance order, the Competent
Authority, if it is satisfied that the land has been, or is
being, redeveloped by the owner thereof in contravention
of plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions
imposed under sub-section (10) of section 12, or has not
been redeveloped within the time, if any, specified under
such conditions, may, by order, determine to redevelop
the land at its own cost:
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why
the order should not be passed.”
14. To complement the above-mentioned ability of the Competent
Authority to redevelop the Clearance Area, Chapter V introduces
a procedure for the acquisition of land under the Slums Act. While
Section 14 gives power to the State Government to acquire land,
subsequent Sections provide for concomitant processes to take over
possession of the land as well as for computation, apportionment,
and payment or deposit of compensation for the acquisition.
15. For reference, Section 14 is reproduced below:
“14. Power of State Government to acquire land.– (1)
Where on any representation from the Competent Authority
it appears to the State Government that, in order to enable
the Authority to execute any work of improvement or to
redevelop any slum area or any structure in such 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
1204 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
(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.”
16. This above system, holistically, constitutes the original framework for
initiating the redevelopment of slums under the Slums Act, beginning
with declaration of a Slum Area and concluding with either the owner
developing it or the SRA taking over the redevelopment.

A.2 New Framework for Slum Rehabilitation (Between 1995
and 2018)
17. In 1995, the Maharashtra State Legislature amended the Slums
Act to introduce a new framework for Slum Rehabilitation through
Chapter I-A. According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Amendment, the intention was to establish an authority responsible
for overseeing each aspect of the slum rehabilitation process,
including situations where slum dwellers were not participating. The
phrase ‘Slum Rehabilitation Work’ has since been defined within
Section 2(h-e) of the Slums Act as “the work relating to demolition
of any structure or any part thereof in slum area or Slum
Rehabilitation Area, and construction of a new building thereon.”
This amendment, however, did not tinker with the original legislative
policy existing prior to 1995. Instead, Chapter I-A was incorporated
to act as a separate procedure, applicable to certain areas.
18. Section 3A provides for the appointment of the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority for certain areas to facilitate and regulate the redevelopment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1205

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

process. For this purpose, each SRA has a Chief Executive Officer
(CEO). In the context of the area concerned in the instant case, the
SRA for Greater Mumbai has been in place since 1995.
19. Section 3B stipulates the power and duty of the SRA to prepare the
General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (General SR Scheme) for the
area covered by the SRA. Sub-section (4), which lists the matters
which the General SR Scheme would provide for, is reproduced for
reference:
“3B. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.–
[xxxx]
(4) 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 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,-
(a) the parameters or guidelines for declaration of an
area as the slum rehabilitation area;
(b) basic and essential parameters of development of
slum rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme;
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the
landholders and occupants of the area declared
as the slum rehabilitation area under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme in the implementation of
the Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation pending
development of the slum rehabilitation area and
allotment of tenements on development to the
occupants of such area, free of cost.
(e) 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
1206 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
for taking up such development in the event of
non-participation of the landholders or occupants;
(f) provision regarding sanction of Floor Space Index
and transfer of development rights, if any, to be made
available to the developer for development of the
slum rehabilitation area under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme;
(g) provision regarding non-transferable nature of
tenements for a certain period, etc.
[xxxx] ”
[Emphasis supplied]

20. Section 3C, reproduced hereinafter, provides for the declaration of an
area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area). After the publication
of the General SR Scheme, the CEO can declare any area as an
SR Area, if it meets the criteria specified in the said Scheme. Such
a declaration (Section 3C(1) Declaration) would be published in
the Official Gazette, and an appeal against it lies before the Special
Tribunal.
“3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area.–
(1) As soon as may be, after the publication of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on being
satisfied 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 area to be a “slum rehabilitation area”. The
order declaring 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
Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the slum rehabilitation order
may, within four weeks of the publication of such order
prefer an appeal to the Special Tribunal; and the decision
of the Special Tribunal shall be final.
(3) On the completion of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
the Slum Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be such area.”
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1207

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

21. Section 3D contains the provisions for the application of other
Chapters of the Slums Act to an area declared as an SR Area.
Section 3D(a) stipulates that Chapters II (regarding declaration of
Slum Areas) and III (regarding improvements in Slum Areas) would
not apply to an SR Area.
22. Section 3D(b) clarifies that Chapter IV (regarding clearance and
redevelopment) applies to SR Areas. As per sub-clause (i), Section 11
(regarding declaration as Clearance Area) is not applicable to an SR
Area. As such, once an area is declared to be an SR Area, it cannot
then be declared as a Clearance Area.
23. Section 3D(b)(ii) provides that Section 12 of the Slums Act is applicable
with certain modifications. Effectively, the CEO is empowered to
issue a Clearance Order under Section 12 in respect of SR Areas.
It is pertinent that the modification virtually retains sub-section (10),
wherein, as already elucidated, the private owner of the SR Area has
the right to redevelop it after the Clearance Order comes into force.1
24. Section 3D(b)(iii), then, effectively substitutes Section 13 and
introduces a new framework which replaces the original scheme.
Under this new provision, the SRA can decide to undertake
rehabilitation of the slum itself after the area is declared an SR Area.
25. Section 3D(c) deals with the applicability of Chapter V (regarding the
acquisition of land). Generally, the acquisition powers under Chapter
V are made applicable to SR Areas with certain modifications. These
modifications place the CEO as a substitute for the Competent
Authority. Specifically, a modification is also made to the first part of
Section 14 to clarify when the acquisition can be undertaken.
26. The remaining provisions in Section 3D address other aspects of
implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) and
ensuring the rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
27. At this juncture, it is essential to reproduce the relevant portions of
Section 3D:
“3D. Application of other Chapters of this Act to slum
Rehabilitation Area with modification.– On publication
of the slum Rehabilitation Scheme under sub-section (1)
of Section 3B, the provisions of other Chapters of this Act

1 Reproduced in Paragraph 12.
1208 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

shall apply to any area declared as the slum rehabilitation
area, subject to the following modifications, namely:-
[xxxx]
(b) in Chapter IV,-
[xxxx]
(ii) in Section 12,-
[xxxx]
(H) in sub-section (10),-
(a) for the words “Competent Authority”,
the words “Slum Rehabilitation
Authority” shall be substituted;
(b) in the proviso,-
(i) for the words “Competent
Authority”, the words “Chief
Executive Officer” shall be
substituted;
(ii) for the words “Tribunal”, the
words “Special Tribunal” shall
be substituted;
(iii) for Section 13, the following Section shall
be substituted, namely:-
“13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority
to develop Slum Rehabilitation Area.– (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (10) of section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation
authority may, after any area is declared as the
Slum Rehabilitation Area, if the landholders or
occupants of such area do not come forward
within a reasonable time, with a scheme for
redevelopment of such land, by order, determine
to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any
agency for the purpose.
(2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum
Rehabilitation Area the Slum Rehabilitation
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1209

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

Authority , is satisfied that the land in the
Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being
developed by the owner in contravention of
the plan duly approved, or any restrictions of
conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of
section 12, or has not been developed within
the time, if any, specified under such conditions
it may, by order, determine to develop the land
by entrusting it to any agency for the purpose:
Provided that, before passing such the owner
shall be given a reasonable opportunity of cause
why such order should not be passed.”;
(c) in Chapter V,-
(i) in Section 14, in sub-section (1),-
(A) for the portion beginning with the
words “Where on any representation” and
ending with the words “clearance area”
the following portion shall be substituted,
namely:-
“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”
(B) after the proviso, the following proviso
shall be added, namely:-
“Provided further that, the State Government
may delegate its powers under this
sub-section to any officer not below the
rank of Commissioner.”
[xxxx] ”
28. The text of Section 14, as contained in Chapter V in the original
legislative scheme, has already been reproduced in Paragraph 15
above. However, as previously noticed, for the purpose of giving effect
1210 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to the new scheme envisaged in Chapter I-A, the said Section 14,
especially sub-section (1) thereof, has been partially amended through
Section 3D and reads as follows:
“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.
[xxxx] ”
[Emphasis supplied]

29. The subsequent provisions of Chapter I-A lay down the administrative
aspects of the SRA’s functioning.
30. Since the instant case pertains to an SR Area under Chapter I-A,
it is clarified that wherever the provisions of Chapters IV and V are
referred to, the reference remains to the modified provisions as they
are now encapsulated in Section 3D. However, wherever need be,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1211

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

the original provisions of Chapters IV and V will be referred to with
the phrase ‘original framework’.

A.3 The 2018 Amendment
31. The Slums Act was further amended in 2018, with substantial changes
made to the expressions and language of certain provisions, reflecting
the revised legislative policy.
32. However, considering that the actions impugned before the High
Court took place before the amended Act came into force on
26.04.2018, there is no gainsaying that the instant case would have
to be adjudicated in accordance with the law as it stood when the
acquisition was initiated.
33. We are pained to observe that the Slums Act, especially the framework
for Slum Rehabilitation, is poorly structured. There appears to be no
cogent reason as to why, instead of enacting a self-contained code
within Section I-A, the drafters of this legislation chose to incorporate
an entirely distinct slum rehabilitation mechanism by amending the
existing legislation through Section 3D. This approach to drafting
inevitably blurs the boundaries between the two frameworks, creating
confusion in the mind of a reader. In this backdrop, dealing with the
2018 Amendment at this stage would only exacerbate the perplexity.
We thus do not deem it necessary to refer to or reproduce the 2018
Amendment.

A.4 Subordinate Legislation and other Circulars
34. It is also imperative to note that the Slums Act is supplemented
by critical subordinate legislation/circulars to enable its proper
implementation. Keeping in view the discussion above, consideration
would be limited to the subordinate legislation/circulars applicable
at the time of initiation of the acquisition. The same are noticed
herein below.

A.4.1 Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai,
1991
35. The development of urban areas in Maharashtra is governed by
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Under
this Act, the State Government notified the Development Control
Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR 1991). It creates a
regulatory framework for any development work to be carried out within
1212 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Greater Mumbai. Regulation 33(10) was introduced to cover plans
to redevelop slums. This Regulation predates the new framework
under Chapter I-A of the Slums Act and is thus applicable in cases
of development of Slum Areas as well as SR Areas. It provides a
comprehensive scheme of requirements and approvals, along with
development incentives, such as additional transferable Floor Space
Index (FSI). Although the DCR 1991 has been replaced in 2020 by
the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater
Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR 2034), Regulation 33(10) retains its position
and remains substantially unchanged.

A.4.2 Guidelines for the Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation
Policy in Greater Mumbai, 1997
36. The SRA issued the Guidelines for the Implementation of Slum
Rehabilitation Policy in Greater Mumbai, 1997 (1997 Guidelines),
to clarify the procedure for slum rehabilitation. Clause IV of the
1997 Guidelines outlines the procedure for submitting, processing,
and approving SR Schemes. In Paragraph 8 thereof, it is provided
that redevelopment plans are to be prepared in accordance with
Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991. Furthermore, it lays out the
various Annexures which are to be duly filled and submitted along
with the proposal. They require details such as the ownership of the
land, the existing structures on the land, a list of dwellers, and their
approval for the proposed redevelopment scheme, as well as the
financial details showing the promoter’s capacity to undertake and
complete the redevelopment. The 1997 Guidelines subsequently
outline the further steps to be taken by the SRA to process any
proposal submitted in the specified format.

A.4.3 General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for Greater Mumbai,
1998
37. The SRA has also notified the General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
for Greater Mumbai, 1998 (1998 General Scheme) under Section
3B of the Slums Act. It covers the parameters based on which the
rehabilitation of the slum would be undertaken by the SRA.

A.4.4 SRA Circular Nos. 144 and 144-A
38. The SRA has issued various circulars to clarify and lay down the
procedures of its functioning. Specifically, Circular No. 144, issued
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1213

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

on 31.08.2013, provides the procedure for submission, scrutiny,
and consideration of an SR Scheme. Inter alia, it requires that the
proposal be submitted as per Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991, and
all the relevant Annexures be included with the proposal. It also
makes various clarifications and suggestions to streamline the
scrutiny process. Importantly, it lays down that the SR Schemes
must be strictly in conformity with the laid down format. The SRA
has also issued Circular No. 144-A on 09.11.2015, whereunder, it
recognises that landowners have the first right to file SR Schemes
and has relaxed the requirement of obtaining the consent of 70% of
slum dwellers if the landowner(s) themselves file the SR Scheme.

B. FACTS
39. Having illustratively captured the statutory scheme, we now advert
to the facts of this case, which are delineated below in detail.
39.1. Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) has been the owner
of the Subject Land since 1970. The said land seems to have
been encroached upon by hutment dwellers, and thereupon, a
portion of it admeasuring 3,045.03 sq. m. was declared as a
‘Slum Area’ under Section 4 of the Slums Act on 18.09.1979.
39.2. Over time, the slum expanded, and its dwellers formed the
Tarabai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed)
(Tarabai Society) on 28.02.2002.
39.3. Tarabai Society moved letters and applications in 2006-2008
before the Competent Authority under the Slums Act, seeking a
survey of the slum, declaration of the remainder of the Subject
Land as a Slum Area, and its acquisition for redevelopment.
Accordingly, surveys were conducted, and vide notification
dated 11.03.2011, the SRA declared the entire Subject Land
as an SR Area through a Section 3C(1) Declaration.
39.4. As a consequence, Tarabai Society reiterated its request to
the Additional Collector (Encroachment/Clearance), Eastern
Suburban, Mumbai, for acquiring the Subject Land under
Section 14,2 through letters dated 28.02.2012, 15.03.2012, and
05.05.2012, coupled with a proposal to redevelop the same.

2 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
1214 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

39.5. In pursuance of the above proposal, the State of Maharashtra,
through the Additional Collector, issued a public notice dated
17.05.2012 under the first proviso to Section 14(1),3 calling
upon ICM, as landowner, and other interested parties to
show cause as to why Tarabai Society’s proposal should not
be forwarded for approval. As per ICM, this notice was not
served upon it.
39.6. As things stood thus, proceedings in this regard were originally
initiated before the Additional Collector in the absence of
ICM. Although some third parties had raised objections, the
Additional Collector rejected them as these were in respect
of adjoining parcels of land, not the Subject Land. As such,
the Additional Collector recommended that the Subject Land
be acquired and forwarded a report dated 04.08.2012 to the
Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra.
39.7. Upon consideration of the report, the Ward Officer, Housing
Department, sought the remarks of the CEO on the land
acquisition proposal. The CEO, vide letter dated 29.11.2012,
informed the State that no SR Scheme had been received in
respect of the subject property, and there was no objection
to the acquisition. However, the State was not satisfied with
the response and sought clarification from the CEO as to
whether the landowners had been heard or any opportunity
had been given to them.
39.8. Accordingly, a fresh notice was issued to ICM on 08.08.2013
regarding the land acquisition proposal. It responded to the
notice on 23.08.2013, stating, inter alia, that, as the owner,
it would like to develop the property itself, under an SR
Scheme, without any third-party involvement. ICM further
reiterated this objection during the hearings dated 26.08.2013
and 16.09.2013, whereafter the CEO reserved its order on
the matter.
39.9. Meanwhile, ICM relayed a communication dated 12.09.2013
to the Deputy Collector, SRA, highlighting its intention to
redevelop the Subject Land without any interference from
third-party builders and developers.

3 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1215

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

39.10. ICM also addressed a letter dated 08.10.2013 to Tarabai
Society, confirming its willingness to redevelop the Subject
Land by implementing an SR Scheme. However, the Tarabai
Society does not appear to have responded to the said
letter. On the other hand, a different society, namely, the
Tara Nagar Welfare Society, approached ICM regarding
rehabilitation, but no substantive communication proceeded
with this society.
39.11. Finally, the CEO submitted its report dated 21.12.2013 to the
State Government, proposing to acquire the Subject Land. It
was recommended that the acquisition be undertaken under
Section 14,4 and that while ICM had relayed its willingness to
redevelop the Subject Land, it had not filed any SR Scheme.
The CEO also conveyed a formal request for acquisition,
vide letter dated 09.01.2014.
39.12. Subsequently, the SRA, acting on the directions of the State
Government, conducted inspections and surveys on the
Subject Land to determine its feasibility for implementing an
SR Scheme. It was reported that rehabilitation is feasible,
and if the land were to be acquired, the SRA would be
able to approve an SR Scheme. The Housing Department,
thereafter on 09.01.2015, directed that the matter be placed
for consideration before the Minister for Housing, Government
of Maharashtra, for appropriate orders.
39.13. In this backdrop, ICM sent a letter dated 25.02.2015 to the
Minister for Housing, reiterating its intention to develop the
Subject Land and not to grant rights in this regard to any third
party. This letter was then forwarded to the CEO, requesting
that it reply to ICM and mark a copy to the Government.
39.14. ICM communicated another letter, dated 06.05.2015, to
the CEO, reiterating its willingness to develop the Subject
Land in accordance with the stipulations prescribed under
Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991. For this purpose, ICM
sought directions from the SRA to enable it to carry out
a survey and demarcation so as to submit a proposal for
redevelopment.

4 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
1216 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

39.15. Considering the above correspondence, the CEO, on
15.05.2015, recommended to the State that, in conformity
with the notion that the landlord ought to be afforded the first
right to develop the land, an opportunity ought to be given to
ICM to submit an SR Scheme. Still further, the State, in its
response dated 12.10.2015, recorded that the entire matter
ought to be reconsidered, either at the level of the SRA or,
if necessary, at the level of the High-Powered Committee
constituted by the High Court.5
39.16. The CEO, however, in what can be construed as a volte
face, forwarded a report dated 12.09.2016 to the State
Government, reaffirming its previous reasoning that ICM has
not submitted any SR Scheme and that it would thus not
be proper to provide another opportunity to ICM. As such, it
was recommended that the acquisition of the Subject Land
be initiated by the State Government.
39.17. In this vein, the State Government issued a notification dated
22.12.2016 under Section 14(1)6 for the acquisition of the
Subject Land.
39.18. Additionally, the SRA sent a communication dated 07.01.2017
to ICM, seeking details of the Subject Land required for
the acquisition. This included the number of hutments, the
approximate rent of each hut, and the total rent recovered
over the last 5 years. ICM was also informed to be present
before the Deputy Collector, SRA, for a hearing scheduled
on 19.01.2017.
39.19. Aggrieved, ICM filed Writ Petition No. 658 of 2017 before
the High Court, challenging the notification dated 22.12.2016
and the notice dated 07.01.2017.
39.20. The High Court, vide an interim order dated 27.01.2017,
directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the
acquisition of the property.

5 High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007, judgement dated 01.11.2007; High
Court of Judicature at Bombay, Notice of Motion No. 126 of 2008 in Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007,
judgement dated 18.12.2008.
6 Reproduced in Paragraph 28
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1217

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

39.21. The High Court on 13.06.2018 passed the Impugned
Judgement, allowing the Writ Petition. As already iterated, the
High Court held that (i) a landowner has a preferential right to
develop the Subject Land, which is enshrined in Sections 3B(4)
and 13(1) of the Slums Act;7 (ii) the SRA was under a duty to
issue a notice to invite the owner to submit an SR Scheme
once private land is declared to be an SR Area; and (iii) the
power of the State to acquire land under Section 14 read with
Section 3D(c)(i)8 was subject to the owner’s preferential right.
The Court, therefore, concluded that if an owner had not
been invited to submit an SR Scheme, such acquisition would
be without foundation and consequently fail. Keeping these
postulates in mind, the High Court observed that the State
and the SRA had conducted the acquisition in the absence
of any proper opportunity afforded to ICM to submit its SR
Scheme. Thus, the High Court set aside the acquisition and
directed the SRA to consider ICM’s proposal expeditiously.
39.22. Vide a clarificatory order dated 09.07.2018, the High Court
corrected a typographical error in the judgement dated
13.06.2018.
39.23. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Tarabai Society,
the State of Maharashtra, and the SRA have filed independent
appeals against the Impugned Judgements dated 13.06.2018
and 09.07.2018.

C. CONTENTIONS
40. Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of
Tarabai Society, vehemently contended that neither the legislative
scheme of the Slums Act nor the facts and circumstances of this case
warrant that ICM be allowed to interfere in the redevelopment of the
Subject Land. In this regard, he adduced the following submissions:
(a) The High Court has incorrectly interpreted a preferential right in
favour of the landowner as being implied in Section 13 of the
Slums Act.9 The text of the provision does not indicate that the

7 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.
8 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.
9 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
1218 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

owner has the right to redevelop land over other stakeholders.
The law also does not provide for any specific notice to be
issued to the landowner.
(b) A landholder, which includes the owner of the land, does not
fulfil the requirement of Section 1310 by merely announcing its
intent to redevelop the land. Instead, it must demonstrate that
actual steps have been taken to initiate an SR Scheme.
(c) The SR Scheme must be submitted within the format prescribed
by the 1997 Guidelines and Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991.
In this regard, reliance has been placed on two judgements of
the Bombay High Court, Atesham Ahmed Khan v. Lakadawala
Developers Pvt. Ltd.11 and Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari v. Chief
Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority,12 as well
as SRA Circular No. 144 dated 31.08.2013, to buttress the
contention that the proposal to redevelop must be strictly as
per the format.
(d) The power to acquire land under Section 14 of the Slums
Act13 is independent of Section 13,14 which only deals with the
decision of the authority to develop the land on its own. Such
a distinction was also upheld by this Court in an unreported
judgement titled Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi and others v.
State of Maharashtra and others,15 wherein it was held that
acquisition would only be subject to the requirements explicated
in Section 14.
(e) The High Court has wrongly distinguished Murlidhar Teckchand
Gandhi (supra) on account of the difference between a ‘Slum
Area’ and an ‘SR Area’. Despite the variation between the cited
case and the present appeals, the scope and interrelationship of
Sections 13 and 14, as, laid down in the former,16 are squarely
applicable to the latter.17

10 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
11 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 239.
12 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 481.
13 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
14 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
15 Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 11077 of 2017, judgement dated 29.08.2017.
16 Reproduced in Paragraphs 13 and 15.
17 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1219

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

(f) In the instant case, ICM has been negligent towards the slum
dwellers. In spite of a part of the Subject Land having been
declared a Slum Area in 1979, no efforts were undertaken
by ICM for over four decades towards any development or
improvement. Even after the Subject Land was declared as an
SR Area in 2011, ICM has not redeveloped it.
(g) ICM was aware of the Section 3C(1) Declaration dated
11.03.2011, more so when it stood published in the Official
Gazette on 16.03.2011. There is a presumptive notice to the
public at large from the date of publication of the Official Gazette.
As such, ICM ought to have come forward within a reasonable
time with an SR Scheme for the redevelopment of the Subject
Land. Failing this, ICM has fallen short of its obligation under
Section 1318 and cannot now claim any purported preferential
right.
(h) ICM has no intention to redevelop the Subject Land. Originally,
in 2012, it did not attend the hearing on the acquisition proposal
under the garb of not being informed. This was despite notices
being published in one English and one vernacular (Marathi)
newspaper. Even in 2013, when the hearings were conducted
anew, ICM’s representatives only conveyed that they intended
to redevelop the Subject Land. No SR Scheme was submitted
as per Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991. Instead, mere letters
were sent between 2013 and 2016, reiterating ICM’s purported
intention to redevelop the Subject Land independently.
(i) ICM’s inaction has resulted in huge delays in the rehabilitation
process. The slum dwellers, who are the constituents of Tarabai
Society, are its primary victims. In light of this delay, there was,
thus, no option but to move for the acquisition of the Subject
Land. Keeping in mind ICM’s conduct, the High Court erred in
setting aside the acquisition and granting it another opportunity.
41. Mr. Shyam Mehta, learned Senior Counsel representing the State
of Maharashtra, and Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the SRA, clarified that the State and
the SRA were not intending to take any position on the facts of the
case. Instead, the respective appeals were filed because they were

18 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
1220 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

aggrieved by the High Court’s legislative interpretation. The following
submissions were made on their behalf:
(a) Section 1319 creates equal interest and rights in favour of the
‘landholders’ and ‘occupants’. There is no preference for owners
(as part of ‘landholders’) vis-à-vis the slum dwellers (occupants).
Even other provisions of the Slums Act, such as Section 3B(4)
(c) and (e),20 envision the rights of the owner to be on par with
those of other stakeholders.
(b) The High Court has incorrectly interpreted a requirement
for specific notice in Section 13.21 Even if the owner has a
preferential right to redevelop an SR Area, there is no basis
for a demand to be specifically invited to redevelop. Section 13
does not contemplate the issuance of any specific notice to a
party. Rather, when the Section 3C(1) Declaration is published
in the Official Gazette, it ought to constitute adequate notice to
the owner, as also all other stakeholders.
(c) The intention behind the system developed in Chapter I-A of
the Slums Act is aimed at efficient and effective rehabilitation of
slums. The process must be simplified and expedited to ensure
efficiency. Adding requirements for specific notice in favour of
the owners and allowing them to interfere in development efforts
belatedly would only delay the process.
42. On the contrary, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Amar Dave,
learned Senior Counsels appearing on behalf of ICM, asserted that
the High Court’s interpretation of the Slums Act was well-founded.
They also highlighted the substantive and procedural lapses on the
part of the Appellants in the instant case. In this respect, they sought
to put forth the following averments:
(a) The Slums Act creates a preferential right in favour of the owner
to develop it. Section 3B(4)(c) and (e),22 as well as Section 13,23
showcase this inalienable right in the cases of SR Schemes.
The primacy of the landowner is also discernible in the SRA’s

19 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
20 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
21 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
22 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
23 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1221

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

Circular No. 144-A dated 09.11.2015, wherein it is stated that
the ‘first right to file the Slum Rehabilitation scheme is
of the owner of the land’. Such a preferential right has also
been accepted by the State and the SRA in their internal
communications.
(b) The requirement of a specific notice to the owner to submit an
SR Scheme is essential to protect its preferential right. If the
owner does not act within a reasonable time under Section 13,24
the SRA or another entity can move to undertake redevelopment,
prejudicing the owner’s rights. The SRA must, thus, ensure
that the owner is notified of the Section 3C(1) Declaration
and invited to submit an SR Scheme. This enables the owner
to exercise its rights. The SRA has also issued such notices
in previous cases, inviting the landowners therein to submit
redevelopment proposals.
(c) There is no legislative mandate encapsulated within Section
13 of the Slums Act,25 which necessitated the submission of a
scheme in the format prescribed by the DCR 1991.
(d) A complete SR Scheme, in line with Regulation 33(10) of DCR
1991, can only be submitted once mapping, surveys, and studies
are completed. This requires the consent and support of the
SRA. In the absence of such support, no owner would be able
to submit an SR Scheme. No such material information was
ever offered by the SRA to ICM.
(e) If the consequent proposal submitted by the owner is considered
deficient, the SRA must notify the owner of the deficiencies and
provide a reasonable opportunity to rectify the same.
(f) Sections 13 and 14 read with Section 3D of the Slums Act26 are
not independent provisions. The purpose of acquisition under
Section 14 is to enable the SRA to carry out development under
an SR Scheme. Since the decision of the SRA to redevelop the
SR Area on its own is governed by Section 13, it is intertwined
with the purpose of acquisition under Section 14. If the SRA
does not first allow the owner to redevelop, it cannot decide

24 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
25 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
26 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.
1222 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to develop the land itself, and the purpose of acquiring the
land cannot arise. Thus, acquisition under Section 14 cannot
pre-empt the statutory compliance of the mandate contained
under Section 13.
(g) The decision of this Court in Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi
(supra) is inapplicable to the instant case and has been rightly
distinguished by the High Court in the Impugned Judgement.
(h) ICM has, unequivocally, been ready to redevelop the land on
its own. Through various means, including letters to the SRA
and the State, the owner has reiterated this intention. It had
even reached out to the Tarabai Society to initiate the process
of redevelopment in 2013, but no response was received from
them.
(i) Though the State and the SRA have recognised ICM’s preferential
right to redevelop the Subject Land in their communications and
internal noting, no opportunity was granted to it to submit a
proposal for redevelopment.
(j) Tarabai Society is operating with a mala fide intention, aiming to
grab the Subject Land at a low price to benefit a private builder,
with whom they are colluding. The land, after redevelopment,
could generate approximately INR 900 crores in revenue from
the sale of residential and commercial units. In comparison, the
land acquisition compensation, which would be paid to the owner,
is a paltry sum of INR 25 lakhs. The Society and its builder
have also previously acted deceitfully, when the representative
of the said builder had filed a false affidavit before the SRA that
it was ICM’s Constituted Attorney.
(k) Following the pronouncement of the Impugned Judgement,
ICM promptly submitted its SR Scheme, and the process for its
approval was underway when the instant appeals were filed. By
seeking and obtaining an order of status quo from this Court,
Tarabai Society has further delayed the process of rehabilitation.

D. ISSUES
43. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and
having scrutinised the material on record, we find that the following
issues arise for consideration by this Court:
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1223

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

I. Whether the owner of the land in an SR Area has any preferential
right to redevelop it under Chapter I-A of the Slums Act?
II. Whether such preferential right, if any, entails that the owner be
specially notified and invited to redevelop the SR Area before
the SRA takes a decision under Section 13 read with Section
3D(b)(iii) of the Slums Act?27
III. Whether the power of the State Government to acquire land
under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slums Act28
is subject to the preferential right, if any, of the owner?
IV. Whether, in the facts of the instant case, the acquisition of the
Subject Land by the State Government has rightly been set
aside by the High Court?

E. ANALYSIS

E.1 Issue I: Existence of a Preferential Right to Develop the Land
44. The High Court vide the Impugned Judgement has held that the
scheme of Chapter I-A of the Slums Act creates a preferential right in
favour of the owner of an SR Area to redevelop it. For this, besides
interpreting the relevant provisions, the High Court has relied upon
the communications between the SRA and the State as well as SRA
Circulars to identify a preferential right encapsulated in the legislative
scheme. On the other hand, the Appellants have sought to make
out that the text of the Slums Act does not exhibit any such primacy
in favour of the owner.

E.1.1 The Owner’s Right to Develop the Land
45. Let us first consider the right of the owner to develop the SR Area.
46. The Statute contemplates that once the land is declared as an
SR Area, it must ordinarily be redeveloped under an SR Scheme.
However, before an SR Scheme is envisaged or implemented, if a
Clearance Order is passed in respect of such land, then the owner
may develop it in terms of the right conferred under Section 12(10).29

27 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
28 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.
29 Reproduced in Paragraphs 12 and 27.
1224 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Here, the owner is given clear, unparalleled rights to develop the SR
Area, as long as the plan is approved by the SRA.
47. The landowner is also included within the framework of SR Schemes.
The mandate for involvement of the owner in rehabilitation goes
beyond mere obligatory participation (see Clause (c) of Section
3B(4)).30 Clause (e) of Section 3B(4), rather expressly conceptualises
that there can be an SR Scheme propounded by the ‘landholders’ and
occupants themselves or through a developer, with an option to the
SRA for taking up such development in the event of non-participation
of the ‘landholders’ or occupants. This statutory mandate has been
explicitly insulated in the 1998 General Scheme, Clause 6 whereof,
permits the ‘landlord’ to undertake an SR Scheme.
48. In fact, the legislative intent imbibed in Section 3B(4)(e)31 has been
reiterated throughout Section 13(1),32 which, inter alia, provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in Section 12(10), the SRA can
launch a scheme for redevelopment of such land which has been
declared as SR Areas and where the landholders or occupants of
such areas do not come forward within a reasonable time with a
scheme for redevelopment.

E.1.2 The Primacy of the Owner’s Right over the SRA’s Power
49. Since the owner of an SR Area has been granted an unambiguous
right to redevelop, we now proceed to analyse whether such owner
holds any precedence over the SRA’s power to develop the SR Area.
50. The question posed in the previous paragraph need not detain us for
long, as, in our considered opinion, the Legislature has answered it in
so many words through Section 3B(4)(e),33 referred to above. We say
so for the reason that the SRA has been assigned the responsibility to
redevelop an SR Area only when the landholder or occupants do not
come forward with a proposal for redevelopment. To put it differently,
where landholders or occupants have submitted a proposal for
redevelopment, it places a caveat against any claim by the SRA for
its statutory right or preference to redevelop the SR Area on its own.

30 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
31 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
32 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
33 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1225

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

51. It may, however, be clarified that Section 1334 has its own measure
to balance the rights of slum dwellers, by imposing the restriction
of ‘reasonable time’ on the owner’s right to redevelop. The resultant
effect is that the SRA cannot undertake development of the SR
Area unless the owner fails to come forward with a scheme within
a reasonable time.
52. A similar approach to the development of an SR Area is also visible in
Section 12(10)35, where the owner is given a clear first right to develop
the land in accordance with a plan approved by the SRA. The Appellants
have sought to argue that the primacy established in Section 12(10)
is irrelevant to the power of the SRA under Section 13,36 given the
non-obstante clause at the beginning of the latter Section. Be
that as it may, the said provision reflects the common legislative
thread running throughout the Chapter I-A framework, which is that
the landholders/owners possess primacy over the SRA’s ability to
redevelop the SR Area.
53. As such, a logical reading of Sections 3B(4)(e) and 13(1)37 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
develop an SR Area, thus, holds preference over that of the SRA within
Chapter I-A of the Slums Act.

E.1.3 The Primacy of the Owner’s Right over Other Stakeholders
54. The Appellants, especially the State of Maharashtra and the SRA,
have further argued that while the SRA’s power to redevelop may
be subject to the rights of the ‘landholder’ and the ‘occupants’, there
is nothing in these provisions to create a preference for owners/
landlords over the rights of the ‘occupants’ or other ‘landholders’.
Mr Mehta, in his arguments, emphatically took us through Sections
3B(4)(e) and 13(1)38 to point out that no explicit distinction is created
between ‘landholders’ and ‘occupants’, even if there is primacy over
the powers of the SRA.

34 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
35 Reproduced in Paragraph 12.
36 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
37 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.
38 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.
1226 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

55. We are, however, unable to accept this contention. We say so because
a landowner of an SR Area is not only entitled to the rights granted
by the Slums Act but also enjoys some inherent rights attached to
an immovable property. Ordinarily, a landowner is entitled to all the
incidental benefits derived from the ownership of such immovable
property. Ownership rights are also constitutionally protected and can
only be interfered with as a result of the operation of law. Even the
principles of equity come to the rescue of an owner, barring when
the landowner is denuded of such protection in accordance with
law. These rights even go beyond those of the other landholders.
56. Be that as it may, there also exist slum dwellers, belonging to the poor
strata of society, who, on account of their economic backwardness
and lack of governmental or social support, take shelter in extremely
unhygienic conditions within slum areas. India being a welfare
state, the Government has an unquestionable duty to confer these
sections of our society with actionable rights for shelter and enable
them to lead a dignified life. It is in performance of this duty and
for the rehabilitation of these slum dwellers that the Slums Act has
been enacted in Maharashtra. In doing so, while the Legislature has
created rights in favour of the slum dwellers, the Slums Act also
attempts to resolve the resultant dichotomy of interests between
the landowners and slum dwellers. The legislation provides an
opportunity for the landowner to develop the land, as well as for the
occupants to bring their own scheme. It also creates incentives for
a developer to undertake the development, such as an additional
FSI and free-sale units.
57. Nevertheless, the dichotomy emerges in its complete form when we
consider a case where the owner submits a valid SR Scheme, fulfilling
all requirements for the slum dwellers, and the slum dwellers (through
a proposed society) also bring forward another valid SR Scheme,
nominating a different developer to undertake the rehabilitation. If
the argument of the Appellants is accepted, both of these proposals
would have equal priority.
58. In such a situation, if the SRA is allowed to exercise any discretion
in giving priority to a particular proposal, it may lead to discriminatory
and arbitrary results motivated by extraneous considerations. It
also creates scope for an unholy nexus between the SRA and
private developers. Such a regime would leave slum dwellers,
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1227

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

who are already at a grave disadvantage against developers and
landowners, vulnerable to greater exploitation, and could even result
in unaccountable losses to the State exchequer. Ultimately, the real
victims would be the slum dwellers themselves, left in inhumane living
conditions and pushed to the very end of the line when receiving
the benefits envisaged under the Slums Act. To counteract such
occurrences, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has thought it appropriate
to confer preferential rights on the landowner, though conditional for
the redevelopment of the SR Area.
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 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
1228 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

E.2 Issue II: Specific Notice/Invitation to the Owner
64. Having held that the landowner has a preferential right to develop
the land, the High Court then read into the provisions of the Statute
a requirement for a specific notice to be issued to the owner,
inviting it to participate in the redevelopment of the land. The High
Court has, in this regard, interpreted the phrase ‘reasonable time’
in Section 1339 to mean that the clock would start ticking only after
the landowner is invited to submit an SR Scheme. Per contra, the
Appellants have contended that no specific notice is required, and the
owner is deemed to be notified once the Section 3C(1) Declaration,
converting the land to an SR Area, is issued.
65. As discussed earlier, there are at least three provisions in
the Slums Act, where the preferential right of a landowner to
redevelop an SR Area is traceable. However, such a right is
subject to the condition encompassed under Section 13,40 viz.,
the SR Scheme must be submitted within a reasonable time
after the Section 3C(1) Declaration. The owner failing to do
so would likely result in the SRA exercising its power under
Section 13 and taking over the development of the SR Area. In that
eventuality, the owner would stand deprived of its preferential right
to redevelop the SR Area.
66. We may hasten to add that beyond this adverse consequence,
the situation would likely escalate to acquisition of the land under
Section 14,41 backed by payment of a meagre compensation, which
is far less than the fair and just market value of the property. In

39 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
40 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
41 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1229

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

this eventuality, the owner loses not only its right to redevelop but,
potentially, also the entirety of its rights over such land. This situation
amplifies the already resounding need for the owner to first be notified
and invited to exercise its rights.
67. It cannot be overlooked that in the absence of a prior notice, the
owner may not even become aware that the Subject Land has been
declared an SR Area. Unaware that it is required to submit an SR
Scheme to exercise its preferential right, the owner could lose a
substantial part of its rights over the land. This is despite being
willing to submit an SR Scheme and undertake redevelopment. In
contrast to the high likelihood of prejudice caused to the landowner,
the procedural necessity of a prior notice does not cause inequity
either to the first beneficiaries of the scheme, namely the slum
dwellers, or to the SRA or the State. We fail to understand the
SRA’s admonishable conduct in assuming that an owner, whose
rights, in no uncertain terms, would be adversely impacted, does
not deserve to be heard before it is deprived of its preferential right
for redeveloping the SR Area.
68. The Appellants have also averred that the publication of the Section
3C(1) Declaration constitutes adequate notice to a landowner. They
have relied upon the text of Section 3C(1),42 which prescribes that
the order declaring the land to be an SR Area shall be published in
the Official Gazette and given wide publicity in the manner specified
by the SRA, amounting to a deemed notice on the owner. At its core,
the argument raised is that the owner ought to be vigilant, and the
publication/publicity would be an adequate measure undertaken
towards informing it.
69. True it is that the Gazette notification or a public notice in newspapers
shall be deemed to have informed an owner regarding the Section
3C(1) Declaration. It will, however, be far-fetched and preposterous
to further assume that such owner is also obligated to submit a
redevelopment scheme when the said notification does not invite the
owner to submit any proposal. Mere declaration of an area as an SR
Area does not amount to inviting the landowner to redevelop the land,
and the publication of the former cannot attract the consequences
attributable to the latter.

42 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.
1230 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

70. Learned Senior Counsel for ICM rightly contended that without an
invitation to conduct surveys, etc., on the SR Area and other support
by the SRA, the owner would be unable to prepare any SR Scheme,
given the technical and otherwise inaccessible requirements for its
preparation. As has already been discussed, SRA’s Circular No. 144
mandates that an SR Scheme must be complete in all respects,
including the required Annexures. Generally, this would entail that
the promoter of an SR Scheme undertakes a complete survey and
feasibility study for the project. The 1997 Guidelines also stipulate
specific requirements for the SR Scheme, including the details
of the plot area (required to be mapped by government officials),
existing hutments and their type, tenement density, extent and type
of reservations, amenities, and available FSI, as well as number,
details, identification, and consent of the slum dwellers.
71. There is no doubt in our minds that an owner would be unable
to obtain this information without the involvement of the SRA in
conducting surveys and demarcation. This is especially important
if the slum dwellers are not in favour of the owner’s proposal. The
owner cannot be left high and dry by the SRA when it comes to
providing necessary support for the preparation of the SR Scheme.
As such, the SRA cannot be allowed to shy away from its duty to
invite the owner to conduct surveys, map the area, and conduct the
necessary tests before finalising the SR Scheme and submitting it
to the SRA.
72. We are also unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mehta that the
requirement of a specific notice would reduce efficiency and lead to
delay. The issuance of the specific notice would undoubtedly involve
some expenditure of time and effort. However, the requirement to wait
for the owner to come forward within a reasonable time already exists.
By ensuring that the owner is able to come forward sooner, the SRA
would reduce delays in obtaining proposals for SR Schemes. All that
the SRA would need to incorporate into its process is the issuance of a
notice-cum-invite to the landowner.
73. In fact, the record reveals that the SRA has employed this method in
the past. ICM has sought to showcase two such instances, where the
SRA has issued a specific notice-cum-invitation to the owner. It may
be relevant to reproduce certain portions of the said communication:
“ [xxxx]
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1231

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

And whereas, your name appears in record of rights made
available from Revenue department, the list whereof is
enclosed herewith. These lands are partly and/or fully
encroached by Slum Dwellers, who are residing there
without having basic civil amenities and in unhygienic
conditions.
And whereas you must be aware that the Government of
Maharashtra has published general Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme as contemplated U/sec. 3(B) of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas (IC&R) Act, 1971 in respect of Mumbai
city and its suburban districts and even to that effect
the Official Gazette Notification has been published on
9.4.1998.
Accordingly in keeping with the aims and objects of the
Government of Maharashtra to remove the slums from the
Mumbai city and its suburban districts and to make the
city slum free and in view of the provisions of Section-12
(10) and 3(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (IC&R) Act,
1971 and considering the provisions of Appendix-IV of
amended DCR-33(10) you are called upon to indicate
whether you claim to have first preferential right for
implantation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on
the subject property under amended DCR 33(10) as
per Section 13(1) of Slum Act, and in case of claim
to such a right, you are further called upon to submit
documents to substantiate such claim and to submit
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in respect of said lands
under the amended Regulation 33(10) of Development
Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai 1991 within
3 months from the date of receipt of this notice. The
Slum Rehabilitation Authority assures you of full co-
operation on its part.
Please take note that if you fail to intimate the claim
under Section 13(1) of Slum Act and/or to establish
your ownership claim as contemplated U/Sect. 13(1) of
Slum Act and/or to the submit the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme within 3 months, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
will be compelled to initiate action under Maharashtra
Slum Areas (IC&R) Act 1971 for acquisition of the
1232 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

said lands for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme in the larger interest.
Note:- Attached list of survey numbers
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Chief Executive Officer
Slum Rehabilitation Authority”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]

74. The above notice clearly reveals the intention of the SRA to bring the
owner’s attention to its preferential right and its duty to implement
an SR Scheme in exercise of such right. It calls upon the owner
to prepare and submit the SR Scheme within 3 months of receipt
of the notice so as to exercise its preferential right. In fact, it also
assures the owner of full cooperation from the SRA for preparing
the SR Scheme.
75. Considering the dire consequences potentially suffered by the owner
upon inadvertent failure to exercise its preferential right and the
SRA’s previous notices, we find that the requirement for a specific
notice inviting the owner to submit an SR Scheme, as prescribed in
the Impugned Judgement, must be read as mandatory.

E.3 Issue III: Section 14 vis-à-vis Section 13
76. Mr. Divan contended on behalf of Tarabai Society that even if there
is a preferential right in favour of the owner, it does not militate
against the power of the State to acquire the land under Section
14.43 In support of this contention, he heavily relied upon this Court’s
decision in Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi (supra). Contrarily, ICM
submitted that the power of the State to acquire land under Section
14 is not independent but flows from Section 13.44

E.3.1 The State’s Power to Acquire
77. In this context, we deem it appropriate to clarify at this stage that
Section 1445 empowers the State Government to acquire land if

43 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
44 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
45 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1233

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

necessary to enable the SRA to carry out development under the
SR Scheme. It is writ large on the text of Section 14 that the State
can invoke its power to acquire the land, if it is necessitated, as per
the SRA, for the implementation of a Scheme.
78. To explicate, the SRA, in line with the scheme envisaged by the
Slums Act, is not only authorised but also responsible for ensuring
that development is undertaken in SR Areas. In furtherance of this
objective, it invites developers to submit SR Schemes. In the event
no developer comes forward, the SRA can take over the development
itself. To achieve this, it would undoubtedly need to utilise the land
in the SR Area for various purposes, such as preparing temporary
or permanent transit residences, construction work, setback area,
and access roads.
79. However, when tasked with such an endeavour, the SRA may face
instances where the owner is unwilling to accede to the redevelopment
of the land. In such situations, as per the 1997 Guidelines and
Regulation 33(10), a consent or no-objection certificate from the
owner is mandatory for any proposal to be considered. By withholding
such consent, the landowner has the ability to perpetually stall the
entire redevelopment.
80. This instance illustrates how it may become necessary for the State
to acquire land using its eminent domain for the purpose of facilitating
slum rehabilitation.

E.3.2 Interplay with the Owner’s Rights
81. Given the above backdrop, what becomes important for us to
ascertain is whether such necessity can arise before the landowner’s
preferential right to redevelop is extinguished.
82. As already held, the owner has a preferential right over other
stakeholders to develop an SR Area. If the owner then chooses
to exercise this right by submitting and implementing a valid SR
Scheme, issues involving rights over the property would not arise. It
is, thus, not fathomable that when the landowner is implementing an
SR Scheme on its own, a necessity to acquire the land could arise.
83. Rather, any process to acquire the land shall have to be kept in
abeyance till such time as the owner’s preferential right to develop it
stands extinguished. Since it is open to the owner to file its own SR
1234 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Scheme within a reasonable time and the proposal of the owner, if
valid and complete, would take primacy, it cannot be said that there
is any legal necessity to acquire the land. If acquisition is allowed
to take place at this stage, it will jeopardise the preferential right
of the landowner. It is only when the owner declines to undertake
development or to support any third-party development, thereby
foregoing its preferential right, that such a necessity would actually
arise. There can thus be no doubt that, as long as the owner is
willing to undertake development in exercise of its preferential right,
the acquisition cannot proceed.
84. This can also be harmoniously read in conjunction with the requirement
for a notice-cum-invitation to the owner, as set out in Section 13.46
Until the SRA has invited the owner to submit an SR Scheme, the
owner’s right to develop the land cannot be said to have closed. In
such a case, the subsisting preferential right cannot be frustrated
or undermined by initiating the acquisition process.
85. This Court in Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi (supra) held that
Sections 13 and 14,47 as they were couched in the original framework,
are independent provisions, which can be invoked separately. Mr.
Divan, on this premise, urged that a similar independent power to
acquire the land was traceable under Chapter I-A also. However,
such a contention would merit acceptance only if the object and
scope of acquisition under Section 14, as contained in Chapter V
of the original framework, are similar, if not identical, to the scope
and power of acquisition conferred under the same provision when
proceeding under the Chapter I-A framework. In this context, it
becomes crucial to analyse the differences herein.
86. Firstly, the original framework and the cited judgement do not confer
or provide any preferential right in favour of the owner to develop
the land, whereas there exists a definite primacy of the owner’s
right to develop the SR Area under Chapter I-A. Secondly and
more importantly, the scope of acquisition under Section 14 (within
Chapter V) in the original framework48 is much broader than that in

46 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
47 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.
48 Reproduced in Paragraph 15.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1235

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

Chapter I-A.49 In the former, the power of acquisition is wide enough
to include improvement works and specific structures, whereas in the
latter, it is restricted only to the implementation of an SR Scheme.
Thirdly, in Murlidhar Tekchand Gandhi (supra), this Court had
no occasion to evaluate the scope of Chapter I-A, to which we are
concerned in the present matter. The perceived power to proceed
under Section 14 without responding to the rights and powers created
under Section 13,50 cannot, thus, be applied mutatis mutandis in a
case of an SR Scheme to be given effect under Chapter I-A. Given
these stark differences, comparing the interpretation of the original
framework and the Chapter I-A framework is akin to matching apples
with oranges. The High Court has thus rightly distinguished this
decision in the Impugned Judgement.
87. When an SR Area has been notified under Section 3C(1) of Chapter
I-A51 and its development through an SR Scheme is conceptualised,
whereunder there is an inbuilt preferential right of an owner to carry
out redevelopment, the power of acquisition under Section 1452 would
not operate in an independent silo; rather, it must derive meaning
and effect from the principles prevailing throughout the legislative
scheme of Chapter I-A.

E.4 Issue IV: Validity of the Acquisition in the Instant Case
88. Having held that the owner possesses a preferential right to redevelop
the SR Area; that the SRA is duty-bound to invite the owner to submit
an SR Scheme; and that acquisition is not warranted until such right
stands extinguished, it is now apropos to apply these principles to
the facts of the case in hand.

E.4.1 Absence of Necessity to Acquire
89. A bare reading of the records in this case indicates that the SRA
never issued a notice to ICM, thereby inviting it to submit an SR
Scheme, and does not appear to have explored the opportunity for

49 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.
50 Reproduced in Paragraph 13.
51 Reproduced in Paragraph 20.
52 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.
1236 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the owner to develop the Subject Land. As such, ICM’s preferential
right to develop the land was not extinguished.
90. Mr. Divan nevertheless contended that ICM was fully aware of the
proposal to acquire the Subject Land, having appeared before the
SRA on 26.08.2013 and 16.09.2013 for hearings, yet it failed to
submit any SR Scheme from 2013 until 2016, when the acquisition
notice was ultimately issued. He further pointed out that, despite
being aware of the Section 3C(1) Declaration, ICM did not submit
any SR Scheme within a reasonable time. According to him, such
prolonged inaction must be treated as, and indeed amounts to, a
closure of its preferential right.
91. The records, however, indicate otherwise. ICM consistently
demonstrated its willingness to redevelop the land and submit an SR
Scheme in accordance with Regulation 33(10). It addressed letters
dated 23.08.2013 and 12.09.2013 to the SRA while the acquisition
proposal was still under consideration, expressing its readiness to
undertake redevelopment. It also approached the Tarabai Society
by letter dated 08.10.2013, to which no response was received.
Further, on 25.02.2015, ICM wrote directly to the State, reiterating
its intent to redevelop the Subject Land under an SR Scheme, and
on 06.05.2015, it applied to the SRA seeking directions to carry out
a survey and demarcation of the land to enable such a scheme.
The SRA, however, for reasons best known to it, failed to act on the
owner’s express willingness to proceed with the redevelopment even
despite further correspondence dated 15.07.2015 and 16.07.2015
sent by the owner.
92. In light of the foregoing facts, it cannot be concluded that ICM failed
to submit its scheme within the stipulated time. The record reflects
that ICM was, at all times, willing to prepare and submit an SR
Scheme, but neither the Tarabai Society nor the SRA extended the
necessary cooperation. Where the circumstances and the conduct
of the SRA and the Society themselves impeded the owner from
submitting the SR Scheme, it cannot be said that the owner failed
to do so within a reasonable period.
93. It naturally follows from the above that the SRA and the State exceeded
their power, apparently to pre-empt the owner from undertaking
redevelopment. The acquisition of land, in such circumstances, being
a colourable exercise of power, cannot be sustained.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1237

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

E.4.2 Doubtful Conduct of the SRA and Tarabai Society
94. That being so, a closer examination of the record discloses a matter
of even greater concern, casting serious doubt on the conduct and
bona fides of both the SRA and the Tarabai Society.
95. To begin with, it is evident that the SRA’s entire initiative to undertake
Slum Rehabilitation on the Subject Land was driven at the behest
of the Tarabai Society. Since 2006, the Society had been submitting
various proposals—first for the declaration of the expanded slum as a
Slum Area under the thenprevailing framework, and subsequently for
the acquisition of the slum land. This process ultimately culminated
in a fresh survey by the SRA and, on 11.03.2011, the declaration of
the Subject Land in its entirety as an SR Area. Even thereafter, the
push for acquisition was persistently advanced by the Tarabai Society
through its letters dated 28.02.2012, 15.03.2012, and 05.05.2012.
These circumstances beg the question—why was it so?
96. The answer perhaps lies in the fact that the Tarabai Society had
appointed a developer, M/s Concrete Lifestyle and Infrastructures
Pvt. Ltd., even before any proposals were forwarded to the SRA. This
fact alone is sufficient to draw an almost irrefutable inference that
the poor slum dwellers were allured by a powerful private developer,
who had a vulture’s eye on the Subject Land and was seemingly
affluent enough that it could effectively influence the decision-making
process within the SRA as well. The conduct of the Society, too,
adds to this understanding.
97. To instantiate, the Society never approached ICM after the publication
of the Section 3C(1) Declaration to explore the development of the
Subject Land. On the contrary, even when ICM itself reached out to
the Society, no response was forthcoming. The management of the
Society also seems to largely be under the influence of the private
developer, who prevented it from pursuing legitimate remedies and
rights available to the Society under an SR Scheme. Instead, it
actively pursued every available avenue to have the State and the
SRA acquire the Subject Land, thereby enabling the ill-intentioned
developer to undertake an SR Scheme and reap the benefits of
Regulation 33(10).
98. That there was an invisible power acting behind the Society and the
SRA is further evident from the fact that in some of its initial filings for
1238 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the acquisition proposal, one Mr. Anuj Desai, Director of the developer
company, submitted affidavits claiming to be the Constituted Attorney
of ICM. However, no such Power of Attorney had been granted by
ICM in favour of Mr. Desai. The High Court has also recognised
such fraudulent acts of the developer in the Impugned Judgement,
painting a stark picture as to how the constituents of Tarabai Society
were rendered mute spectators as their rights were being used by
the private developer to meet its greed.
99. The conduct of the SRA is equally, if not more, troubling and warrants
a closer scrutiny. Its actions reflect a pattern of shifting positions
and an approach that is arbitrary and unreasonable and lacks bona
fides. To begin with, the SRA made no attempt to invite or facilitate
the submission of an SR Scheme from ICM. Even when ICM, on
its own initiative, expressed readiness to undertake surveys and
demarcation and sought the SRA’s assistance in that process, the
authority remained unresponsive, turning a deaf ear to the owner’s
requests.
100. Further, internal correspondences reveal that both, the SRA and the
State, accepted that the owner has a preferential right to develop the
SR Area. The CEO also recommended to the State on 15.05.2015
that ICM ought to be given an opportunity to submit an SR Scheme.
It is relevant to reproduce an extract of this communication:
“ [xxxx]
On the property to be acquired, M/s Indian Cork Mills Pvt.
Ltd. has been reflected as the landlords… the argument
was done on behalf of the Landlords that we can submit
the scheme as landlords. As per the provisions under
Section 3(b)(4)(e) of the Maharashtra Slum Area
(Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act,
1971, the Landlord has a first right to develop the
Slum Rehabilitation Area/Zone. Considering the
provisions under the Act, it is deemed proper to
give one opportunity to the landlords to submit the
rehabilitation scheme before taking any final decision
in the matter of land acquisition. Hence, request is made
to take decision at the Government Level.”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1239

Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
The State of Maharashtra and Others

101. In this vein, the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Housing, Government
of Maharashtra, in its letter dated 12.10.2015, also endorsed the
above-reproduced proposal.
102. The subsequent internal noting made by the District Collector (SRA)
on the SRA’s file in respect of the acquisition have reaffirmed the
preferential right of the landowner, as may be seen from the following
contents of the noting dated 05.04.2016:
“ [xxxx]
Considering the provisions under Section 3(b)(4)(e) of
the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance
& Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the landlord has a first
right to develop the slum rehabilitation area/zone.
Considering the provisions of the said Act, it has been
decided to grant one opportunity to the landlords in
respect for submitting slum rehabilitation scheme,
before taking final decision on acquisition of land. As such,
it would be proper to give an opportunity to the landlords
at the authority level. Furthermore, if the abovementioned
proposed action is acceptable, then to submit the said
matter to the High Power Committee does not arise.”
[Sic] [Emphasis supplied]

103. However, the very same document surprisingly reveals that the
CEO took a contradictory view and stated that since one opportunity
had already been granted to ICM, there was no necessity to give
it one more chance to bring a development scheme. The record,
thus, not only evidences an abrupt reversal of the CEO’s earlier
position but also discloses a complete disregard for the directive of
the Deputy Secretary. Such conduct raises serious reservations as
to the considerations underlying the CEO’s decisions.
104. This part of the CEO’s opinion, even more curiously, found favour
with the State, notwithstanding the previous letter dated 12.10.2015.
The State’s readiness to accept the CEO’s report raises suspicions
about the sanctity and integrity of the administrative process involved
in this case.
105. Moreover, having observed the above-quoted communications, the
bona fides of the SRA as well as the Government are called into
1240 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

question when they seek to challenge, through these appeals, an
interpretation that they had themselves previously accepted.
106. Such an anomalous situation does not speak well of the conduct of
the private and the official actors. To permit the acquisition to stand,
despite the dubious motives of Tarabai Society and its developer and
the deeply suspect conduct of the SRA, would catalyse a travesty
of justice.

F. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
107. 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. The status quo directed vide order dated 27.01.2017 is,
consequently, vacated;
iii. Keeping in mind the amendment in the applicable regulations
during the pendency of these Civil Appeals, liberty is granted to
ICM to submit, within a period of 120 days, a fresh SR Scheme
for redevelopment of the Subject Land, strictly in accordance
with laws and regulations in force; and
iv. The SRA and the State shall process ICM’s proposal as
expeditiously as possible under the prescribed procedure,
within a period of not more than 60 days from the date of ICM’s
submission.
108. All the matters and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
109. Ordered accordingly.

Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey