Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Challenging Slum Land Acquisition Notification Under Slums Act on Grounds of Collusive Consent Decree and Natural Justice Violation. Petitioner challenged acquisition of CTS Nos. 29 and 32 under Section 14 of Slums Act for Slum Rehabilitation Area without hearing and relying on collusive consent decree between developer and slum society.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging acquisition of land under Section 14 of the Slums Act for slum rehabilitation scheme.

Petitioner sought quashing and setting aside of Notification dated 17 November 2016 issued by Respondent No.1, Public Notice dated 29 April 2017 issued by Respondent No.2, and all consequent proceedings including order dated 20 June 2018 passed by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

Petitioner claimed ownership of CTS Nos. 29 and 32 and alleged that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated by absence of hearing, non-consideration of objections, reliance on collusive consent decree between developer and slum society, and failure to remove R.G. Reservation before filing any scheme.

Short Cause Suit No.1124/2007 resulted in consent decree dated 21 January 2009; Execution Application was allowed by consent on 19 December 2012; High Court order dated 10 February 2011 directed SRA to apply the judgment in Amit Gulabdas Shah v. State of Maharashtra; this Court passed order dated 23 June 2017 directing SRA not to conduct further proceedings pursuant to impugned notification; status quo order dated 14 July 2017 in this petition; Respondent No.5 deleted as per order dated 20 February 2023.

Whether the acquisition notification under Section 14 of the Slums Act was vitiated by failure to grant hearing to the land owner before issuance. Whether the objections raised by the land owner were considered by SRA and State Government before issuing the notification. Whether the consent decree obtained by the developer and slum society was collusive and could not form the basis for the acquisition proposal. Whether the failure to remove R.G. Reservation and non-scrutiny of eligible slum dwellers vitiated the acquisition proceedings. Whether the compensation determination order passed on preponed date without adequate notice was valid.

Petitioner contended he was owner of CTS Nos. 29 and 32 and had repeatedly objected to acquisition, offering to develop the land himself, but no hearing was granted before the notification under Section 14 of the Slums Act. Petitioner alleged that SRA submitted a report after eight months without reference to his objections and falsely stated that land owners did not object; SRA admitted no scrutiny of eligible slum dwellers was carried out. Petitioner argued that the consent decree in Short Cause Suit No.1124/2007 was collusive, obtained without impleading him, and that the acquisition relied upon this collusive decree. Petitioner contended that unless R.G. Reservation was removed, no scheme could be submitted; he made detailed representation on 8 April 2017 offering redevelopment subject to modification of reservation. Petitioner claimed that the compensation hearing fixed for 27 June 2017 was preponed to 20 June 2017 without proper notice and final order passed on preponed date. Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 opposed the writ petition by filing affidavits; Petitioner also filed additional affidavit on 17 November 2022.

Not mentioned in provided text; final reasoning and holding not available.

The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside Notification dated 17 November, 2016, issued by the Respondent No.1 in respect of the property bearing CTS No. 29 and 32, admeasuring about 7154.3 and 500 sq.mtrs respectively. On 16 November, 2013 the SRA issued a public notice under Section 14 of the Slums Act in respect of the writ lands and called upon the owners to show cause as to why the lands must not be acquired. On 17/11/2016, after 23 months, State Government issued notification under Section 14 of the Slums Act, thereby aquiring the writ property. It is the case of Petitioner that no hearing was granted to the Petitioner before passing the said impugned notification dated 17 November,2016 under Section 14 of the Slums Act. On 20 June, 2017 Respondent No.5 preponed the date of hearing from 27 June,2017 to 20 June, 2017 and passed final order fixing the compensation on the preponed date.

Petitioner filed writ petition under Article 226 challenging notification dated 17 November 2016 and public notice dated 29 April 2017. Rule was issued and petition taken up for final disposal on consent. Earlier, Short Cause Suit No.1124/2007 was filed by developer against society; consent decree passed on 21 January 2009; execution application allowed on 19 December 2012. High Court on 10 February 2011 directed SRA to apply Amit Gulabdas Shah case. SRA issued notice under Section 14 on 16 November 2013; petitioner filed objections on 23 November 2013, 26 February 2014, 1 March 2014, 15 October 2016, and 8 April 2017; hearings held on 3 February, 10 March, and 11 April 2014. Notification under Section 14 issued on 17 November 2016. Compensation hearing initially fixed for 27 June 2017 was preponed to 20 June 2017 and final order passed. This Court passed order dated 23 June 2017 directing SRA not to conduct further proceedings and status quo order dated 14 July 2017. Respondent No.5 deleted on 20 February 2023. Judgment reserved on 20 February 2023 and pronounced on 13 April 2023.

• Constitution of India: Article 226
• Slums Act: Section 14
• Right to Information Act: