The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision and the AGRC’s findings. It held that the area was a ‘censused slum’ included under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR, making the SRA’s redevelopment scheme legally valid. The appellants were found to be ineligible slum dwellers, and their claims of tenancy under MHADA were unsubstantiated. The Court also noted the finality of the AGRC’s order and the appellants’ failure to challenge it in due time.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 226

2. Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) — Sections 2(ga), 3, 4, 4A, 33, 38

3. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act)

4. Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR) — Regulation 33(5), 33(10)

Subjects:

Slum Redevelopment — Slum Rehabilitation Authority — Censused Slum — Transit Camp Tenants — MHADA Layout — Slum Dwellers’ Rights — Legal Finality — Eviction Order — Slum Rehabilitation Scheme

Nature of Litigation:

Civil Appeals filed against the dismissal of a Writ Petition by the High Court of Bombay challenging eviction notices issued under the Slum Act for the redevelopment of slum areas.

Relief Sought by Appellants:

Appellants sought to quash the eviction notices and claimed the area was a MHADA layout, arguing that the redevelopment should be conducted under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR rather than under the Slum Act.

Reason for Filing the Case:

Appellants contested the legitimacy of the slum rehabilitation project and claimed their tenancy rights under the MHADA layout, questioning the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in undertaking the project.

Previous Decisions:

1. AGRC Order dated June 12, 2019 — Dismissed appellants’ objections and affirmed the validity of the SRA’s redevelopment project.

2. High Court of Bombay Order dated January 4, 2023 — Dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants and upheld the SRA’s eviction notice.

Issues:

1. Whether the slum rehabilitation project undertaken by the SRA under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR was legally valid.

2. Whether the area in question was a MHADA layout requiring redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR.

3. Whether the appellants were eligible slum dwellers with legitimate tenancy rights.

Submissions/Arguments:

a) Appellants argued that the plot was a MHADA layout and should be developed by MHADA under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR. b) Appellants claimed they were paying rent to MHADA and were legitimate tenants, not slum dwellers. c) Appellants contended that the consent of 70% of the occupants required under the DCR was not obtained.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. A ‘censused slum’ falls within the definition of slums for redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR and does not require a separate notification under the Slum Act.

2. Mere payment of transit fees and service charges to MHADA does not establish a landlord-tenant relationship.

3. Finality of the AGRC order dated June 12, 2019, remains unchallenged and binding.

4. Dilatory tactics by ineligible slum dwellers cannot obstruct a legally sanctioned redevelopment project benefiting a majority of eligible occupants.