Supreme Court of India

Tarabai Nagar Co Op. Hog. … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2025

August 23, 2025

Supreme Court of India

Tarabai Nagar Co Op. Hog. … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2025

2.
Signature Not Verified
The dispute which falls for consideration in these Civil Appeals pertains
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2025.08.22
12:23:03 IST
Reason: 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

Page 1 of 55
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Redevelopment) Act, 1971 was originally enacted by the Maharashtra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

Page 2 of 55
Authority (Chapter III); clearing and redevelopment of 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 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] ”

Page 3 of 55

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

approval of plans as well as any restrictions placed by the Competent

Page 4 of 55
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 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

Page 5 of 55
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 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.”

Page 6 of 55

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

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.

Page 7 of 55

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 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

Page 8 of 55
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.”

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

Page 9 of 55
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 shall apply to any area
declared as the slum rehabilitation area, subject to the following
modifications, namely:-

[xxxx]

1 Reproduced in Paragraph 12.

Page 10 of 55

(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 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] ”

Page 11 of 55

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 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, the original

Page 12 of 55
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

Page 13 of 55
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 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

Page 14 of 55
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 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.

Page 15 of 55
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.

Page 16 of 55
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.

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

2 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

3 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 17 of 55
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.

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

Page 18 of 55
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

4 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 19 of 55
carry out a survey and demarcation so as to submit a proposal for

redevelopment.

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

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

Page 20 of 55
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.

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

7 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.

8 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.

Page 21 of 55
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 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

9 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

10 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 22 of 55

redevelop the land. Instead, it must demonstrate that actual steps

have been taken to initiate an SR Scheme.

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

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.

Page 23 of 55
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

(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.

16 Reproduced in Paragraphs 13 and 15.

17 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.

18 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 24 of 55
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 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

19 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 25 of 55

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.

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

20 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

21 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 26 of 55
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 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.

22 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

23 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

24 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 27 of 55

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 to develop the land

itself, and the purpose of acquiring the land cannot arise. Thus,

25 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

26 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.

Page 28 of 55
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

Page 29 of 55
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:

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?

27 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

28 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.

Page 30 of 55

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 Here, the owner is given

clear, unparalleled rights to develop the SR Area, as long as the plan is

approved by the SRA.

29 Reproduced in Paragraphs 12 and 27.

Page 31 of 55

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.

30 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

31 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

32 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 32 of 55

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.

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

33 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

34 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

35 Reproduced in Paragraph 12.

36 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 33 of 55
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.

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

37 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.

38 Reproduced in Paragraphs 19 and 27.

Page 34 of 55
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,

Page 35 of 55
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, 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.

Page 36 of 55

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

implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.” They have

further relied upon internal communications between the SRA and the

Page 37 of 55
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

39 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

40 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 38 of 55
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 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,

41 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 39 of 55
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.

70. Learned Senior Counsel for ICM rightly contended that without an

invitation to conduct surveys, etc., on the SR Area and other support by

42 Reproduced in Paragraph 19.

Page 40 of 55
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

Page 41 of 55
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]
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

Page 42 of 55
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 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

43 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 43 of 55
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 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

44 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

45 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

Page 44 of 55
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 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

Page 45 of 55
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,

46 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

47 Reproduced in Paragraphs 27 and 28.

Page 46 of 55
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 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

48 Reproduced in Paragraph 15.

49 Reproduced in Paragraph 28.

50 Reproduced in Paragraph 13.

51 Reproduced in Paragraph 20.

52 Reproduced in Paragraph 27.

Page 47 of 55
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 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.

Page 48 of 55

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

Page 49 of 55
redevelopment. The acquisition of land, in such circumstances, being a

colourable exercise of power, cannot be sustained.

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 then-prevailing 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

Page 50 of 55
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 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.

Page 51 of 55

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]

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.

Page 52 of 55

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.

Page 53 of 55

105. Moreover, having observed the above-quoted communications, the bona

fides of the SRA as well as the Government are called into 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.

Page 54 of 55

108. All the matters and pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand

disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

109. Ordered accordingly.

…………………………………..……………J.
(SURYA KANT)

…………………………………..……………J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 22, 2025

Page 55 of 55

Source link

Satendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025

Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2025

Burla Venkata Rao vs G Anjaneyulu on 22 August, 2025

Crl.Pet./696/2025 on 13 August, 2025

Davinder Kumar vs Dcp J&K Police And Others on 6 August, 2025

Satendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025

Chalitar Yadav @ Charitar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2025

Burla Venkata Rao vs G Anjaneyulu on 22 August, 2025

Crl.Pet./696/2025 on 13 August, 2025

Davinder Kumar vs Dcp J&K Police And Others on 6 August, 2025

Tarabai Nagar Co Op. Hog. … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2025

Supreme Court of India

Tarabai Nagar Co Op. Hog. … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 August, 2025

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe