Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the acquisition of land and a structure situated at Bhandup Village Road, Mumbai, by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The first petition was filed by the legal heirs of late Shrimati Malti Naryan Kakade, and the second by Tulsiram Devidayal Charity Trust, both claiming ownership of the subject land. Though an inter se ownership dispute existed between the petitioners, they joined in challenging the acquisition on common grounds. The subject land was notified as a slum under Section 4(1) in 1998. In 2008, a redevelopment proposal was submitted. A show cause notice under Section 14 was issued in 2013 but served on an unauthorized person. A report recommending acquisition was made later that year. The land was declared a slum under Section 3C in 2015, and a notification under Section 14(1) was issued. Notices for compensation determination were sent purportedly between 2016 and 2017, but the petitioners contended they were never properly served; one notice was attempted on an address where the recorded owner had passed away, and the process server’s remark indicated non-service. Despite this, an ex-parte award was passed under Section 17 on 7 June 2017 awarding Rs. 2,70,000, and paper possession was taken. The petitioners learned of the acquisition around 2018 through RTI. A Letter of Intent was issued to the developer in 2021. The petitioners contended that the entire acquisition was illegal for failure to issue the mandatory prior notice under Section 13, for improper service of subsequent notices, and for passing the ex-parte award in violation of natural justice and the procedure under Section 17(5). The court issued Rule and heard the parties finally by consent. The judgment was reserved on 24 September 2025 and pronounced on 14 October 2025, but the provided text only contains the factual background and the petitioners’ prayers; the court’s analysis, findings, and final order are not included in the excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition of land under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, without issuing a prior notice under Section 13, is violative of the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice; and whether the ex-parte award under Section 17 of the Act is sustainable when the owner was not properly served with notices.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 7
Writ Petition No. 942 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 1923 of 2019, Interim Application No. 2702 of 2024
G.S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe
Ranjit Thorat, Balasaheb Deshmukh, Shakeeb Shaikh, Noorain Patel, Usha Rahi, Vrushali Kabre, Jagdish G. Aradwad, Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Abhishek Roy, Sweta Shah, Prerak A. Sharma, A.S. Khandeparkar, Sahil L. Shah
Suresh Narayan Kakade, Chhaya Janu Mandavi, Sushma Ratnakar Bhandhari, Pramila Milind Thombre, Tulsiram Devidayal Charity Trust, Balkishan A.Devidayal, Shashi B.Devidayal
The State of Maharashtra, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Samata Seva Vikas Co-op. Housing Society (proposed), M/s. Sankalp Developers, Additional Collector (Encroachment/Demolition), Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Demolition)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public law litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition of land by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners seek to quash the acquisition report dated 1 October 2013, notification dated 13 October 2015, and ex-parte award dated 7 June 2017, and to declare the acquisition proceedings illegal and violative of natural justice.
Filing Reason
The acquisition was conducted without issuing the mandatory prior notice under Section 13 of the Slum Act, and notices under Section 14 and for compensation determination were not properly served on the petitioners, resulting in an ex-parte award.
Issues
Whether the acquisition of land under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, without issuing a prior notice under Section 13 of the same Act, is legally valid?
Whether the ex-parte award dated 7 June 2017 under Section 17 of the Act, passed without proper service of notice on the affected parties, violates the principles of natural justice?
Whether the entire acquisition proceedings should be quashed for non-compliance with statutory provisions and procedural irregularities?
Submissions/Arguments
Both sets of petitioners contended that the acquisition is illegal as it was undertaken without complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing a notice under Section 13 before moving to acquisition under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.
The petitioners in the Second Petition specifically argued that the show cause notice under Section 14 dated 1 April 2013 was served on one Prem Amirchand Devi Dayal, who was neither a trustee nor authorized by the Trust, and thus they never received the notice.
They further submitted that subsequent notices for the compensation hearing were not properly served; the process server’s report indicated that service was attempted after the notice date and that the owner had passed away, yet an ex-parte award was made.
They also contended that the ex-parte award under Section 17 was passed without following the procedure under Section 17(5) and without affording a fair hearing, and that the paper possession taken on 29 August 2017 was done in disregard of their rights.
The petitioners sought quashing of the acquisition report, the notification, and the award, and a restraint on further development pending the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
These two Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the acquisition of the piece and parcel of the land and the structure thereon ... (Para 2)
Both the Petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) under section 14(1) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) of the subject land. (Para 3)
Both the Petitioners contend that the impugned acquisition is illegal and not in accordance to the due process of law and is contrary to the provisions of the Slum Act which require that prior to making an acquisition under section 14 of the Slum Act, a notice under section 13 of the Slum Act ought to have been issued. (Para 3)
Procedural History
The subject land was notified as a slum under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act on 10 December 1998. A redevelopment proposal was submitted by Respondent No. 5 society to SRA on 11 April 2008. A show cause notice under Section 14 was issued on 1 April 2013 to an unauthorized person; the petitioner Trust did not receive it. The CEO, SRA prepared a report recommending acquisition on 1 October 2013. The land was declared a slum under Section 3C on 28 August 2015, and the State Government issued a notification under Section 14(1) on 13 October 2015. Notices for compensation hearing were purportedly sent in late 2016-2017 but the petitioner contends they were not properly served; a public notice was published on 8 December 2016 and 1 January 2017. An ex-parte award under Section 17 was passed on 7 June 2017 awarding Rs. 2,70,000. Paper possession was recorded on 29 August 2017. The petitioner learned of the acquisition around 2018 through RTI. A Letter of Intent was issued to the developer on 18 January 2021. The first writ petition (No. 942 of 2024) was filed by the legal heirs of Malti Kakade, and the second (No. 1923 of 2019) by the Devidayal Trust. They were heard together with an interim application for impleadment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: 4(1), 3C, 13, 14(1), 17, 17(5)
- Constitution of India: 226
- Bombay Public Trust Act, 1956:
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
