Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on a 2,005 sq. mts. parcel in Malad, Mumbai, originally declared a slum in 1987 under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The subject property was reserved for a Recreational Ground under the 1991 Development Plan. Respondent No. 5 purchased it in 1991 and shortly thereafter entered into an MOU with the appellant's predecessor, Harishree Enterprises, consenting to redevelopment, thereby waiving her preferential right to develop. Harishree Enterprises propounded a slum scheme on a larger property that included the subject property, and Annexure II was issued in 1997 listing 34 slum dwellers. A Letter of Intent was granted in 1997. Following a dispute with Vikas Housing Ltd., Consent Terms in 2000 assigned the project property, including the subject property, to Vikas Housing. The appellant acquired rights from Vikas Housing, and a revised LOI was issued in 2005. Rehabilitation buildings were constructed between 2005 and 2022. On 26.02.2015, the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority passed an order holding that the appellant's scheme had substantially been implemented and that the subject property was liable to be acquired under Section 14 of the Slum Act, with compensation to Respondent No. 5. This order was never challenged. However, the State Government took no steps to acquire the property. In 2022, Respondent No. 5 sold the subject property to Respondent No. 4, Alchemi Developers, who then submitted its own slum scheme. The appellant alleged collusion and challenged the SRA's orders dated 03.10.2022 and 07.10.2024, and sought mandamus to enforce the 2015 order. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the State Government had not followed Section 14 procedures, the appellant had delayed for seven years and could have purchased the property, the subject property was not part of the appellant's scheme, and the subsequent purchaser's scheme was valid. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal but the judgment provided only the factual background and the High Court's reasoning; the Supreme Court's own analysis and final decision were not included in the text.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Acquisition of Slum Land - State Government's Failure to Acquire - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Section 14 - Despite the CEO SRA's 2015 order that the subject property was liable to be acquired, the State Government did not initiate proceedings under Section 14 for seven years. The High Court held that it was too late to direct acquisition, and the appellant could have purchased the property instead of seeking mandamus. Held, the writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 22-23) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Competing Schemes - Inclusion of Property in Scheme - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The High Court found that the subject property was not included in the appellant's slum scheme. Consequently, respondent No. 4, being the registered owner after purchase, was entitled to submit its own scheme for redevelopment. Held, the subsequent scheme was valid. (Para 25) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to enforce the 2015 order, citing the appellant's inaction for seven years and the changed circumstances due to the sale of the property to a third party. The court characterised the appellant's attempt as a back door entry. Held, no mandamus was issued. (Para 23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders dated 03.10.2022 and 07.10.2024 and refusing to direct implementation of the 2015 order; whether the subject property was part of the appellant's slum scheme; whether the subsequent purchaser could submit a new scheme
Law Points
- State Government's power to acquire slum land under Section 14 of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
- 1971
- requirement of giving notice and considering objections
- failure to acquire for seven years bars mandamus
- subsequent purchaser's right to submit scheme
- inclusion of property in slum scheme
