# Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1372
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-12-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jyoti-builders-v-chief-executive-officer-ors-38261
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Whether a mandamus should be issued to the State Government
to acquire the subject property in accordance with s.14(1) of
the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 keeping in mind the order dated
26.02.2015 (2015 order) passed by the Chief Executive Officer-Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA); whether the appellant is entitled to
full Occupation Certificate for the final sale building in the slum
scheme upon handing over the portion of land admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. meant for Recreational Ground (RG) identified as the dark
green portion; whether the appellant has been fully compensated
by granting an equivalent and/or adequate area (FSI) for sale by
the State Government.
Headnotes†
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 - s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i) - Under the Development Plan
of 1991 for Mumbai, the Subject Property was reserved for
Recreational Ground (RG) - In 2015, an order was passed by
respondent No.1-SRA after giving notice to and hearing to all
the concerned including the respondent No.5 (the then owner)
inter alia holding that the Slum Scheme of the appellant-builder
had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering
the Project Property (including the Subject Property) and the
Subject Property was liable to be acquired in the interest
of the slum scheme and the slum dwellers on the Subject
Property had to be rehabilitated by the appellant - Respondent
No.5 transferred her title rights in the subject property in
favour of the respondent No.4 who floated its own proposal
for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme - Writ
* Author
318
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
petition filed by the appellant questioning the orders passed by
the SRA granting sanction to the respondent No.4 and refusal
to implement the 2015 Order and; seeking a mandamus for
the acquisition of the subject property relying on the SRA's
2015 order - Dismissed by High Court - Challenge to:
Held: Power of the State Government u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slum
Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner - It is
undisputed that when the respondent No.4 submitted its proposal
for development of the subject property in 2022, the same was
accepted in accordance with law as there was no slum scheme
proposal on the subject property - On facts, no case made out
by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the State
Government to acquire the subject property u/s.14, Slum Act -
Appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the Final
Sale Building in the slum scheme on the appellant handing over
the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved
for RG - Further, the appellant has been fully compensated by
granting adequate area/FSI for sale - Respondent No. 4, their
successors and assigns shall not put up any type of construction
on the subject property and the same shall be utilized only as a
RG. [Paras 67, 77]
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 -
Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Scheme of the Slum
Act, 1971. [Paras 60-62]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,872 of 78,774. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39872 for what follows._

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 317 : 2025 INSC 1372
Jyoti Builders
v.
Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025)
02 December 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a mandamus should be issued to the State Government
to acquire the subject property in accordance with s.14(1) of
the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 keeping in mind the order dated
26.02.2015 (2015 order) passed by the Chief Executive Officer-Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA); whether the appellant is entitled to
full Occupation Certificate for the final sale building in the slum
scheme upon handing over the portion of land admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. meant for Recreational Ground (RG) identified as the dark
green portion; whether the appellant has been fully compensated
by granting an equivalent and/or adequate area (FSI) for sale by
the State Government.
Headnotes†
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 - s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i) - Under the Development Plan
of 1991 for Mumbai, the Subject Property was reserved for
Recreational Ground (RG) - In 2015, an order was passed by
respondent No.1-SRA after giving notice to and hearing to all
the concerned including the respondent No.5 (the then owner)
inter alia holding that the Slum Scheme of the appellant-builder
had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering
the Project Property (including the Subject Property) and the
Subject Property was liable to be acquired in the interest
of the slum scheme and the slum dwellers on the Subject
Property had to be rehabilitated by the appellant - Respondent
No.5 transferred her title rights in the subject property in
favour of the respondent No.4 who floated its own proposal
for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme - Writ
* Author
318
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
petition filed by the appellant questioning the orders passed by
the SRA granting sanction to the respondent No.4 and refusal
to implement the 2015 Order and; seeking a mandamus for
the acquisition of the subject property relying on the SRA's
2015 order - Dismissed by High Court - Challenge to:
Held: Power of the State Government u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slum
Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner - It is
undisputed that when the respondent No.4 submitted its proposal
for development of the subject property in 2022, the same was
accepted in accordance with law as there was no slum scheme
proposal on the subject property - On facts, no case made out
by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the State
Government to acquire the subject property u/s.14, Slum Act -
Appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the Final
Sale Building in the slum scheme on the appellant handing over
the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved
for RG - Further, the appellant has been fully compensated by
granting adequate area/FSI for sale - Respondent No. 4, their
successors and assigns shall not put up any type of construction
on the subject property and the same shall be utilized only as a
RG. [Paras 67, 77]
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 -
Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Scheme of the Slum
Act, 1971. [Paras 60-62]
Case Law Cited
Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. [2025] 8 SCR 1193 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1795; Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Bishop John Rodrigues
& Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794 - relied on.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh [1964] 2 SCR 197 :
1963 SCC OnLine SC 96; State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of
Tamil Nadu & Anr. [2025] 4 SCR 985 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
770 - referred to.
Citispace & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, Order passed by the
Bombay High Court dated 31.07.2002 in Writ Petition No. 1152
of 2002 - referred to.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
319
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Maharashtra Regional Town Planning
Act, 1966; Development Control Regulations, 1991.
List of Keywords
Section 14, Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; No mandamus can be issued to
State Government to acquire property under Section 14, Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971; Recreational Ground; Slum rehabilitation scheme; Slum
redevelopment scheme; Owner possesses a preferential right
to redevelop the Slum Rehabilitation Area; Preferential right to
redevelop; Redevelopment of slum dwellers; Mandamus to State
Government to acquire property; Redevelopment; Recreational
ground; Occupation certificate; Occupation Certificate for the
final sale; Slum scheme; Dark green portion; Rehabilitation and
redevelopment of slum dwellers; Slum Rehabilitation Authority;
Development Plan of 1991 for Mumbai.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14512
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WPL No. 31702 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Shyam Divan, Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advs., Anish Agarwal, Yogesh
Adhia, Pratik Chakma, Ms. Natasha Bagga, Abhinav Maurya,
Ms. Pooja Kane, Jitendra Jain, Yashvardhan Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Vikas Singh, Vinay Navare, K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pallavi
Sharma, Shubhranshu Padhi, Bharat Jain, Purvesh Buttan, Karan
Batura, Prateek Narwar, Nikhil Vijay Adkine, Ms. Tuhina Kakkar,
Himanshu Buttan, Ms. Prachi Bhutani, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Amol
Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, B. Dhananjay, Ms. Srishty Pandey,
Palash Singhai, Harshal Sareen, Pragya Prakash Upadhyaya.
320
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction)
dated 18.12.2024 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein seeking to challenge the orders passed by the respondent
No. 1 herein dated 03.10.2022 and respondent No. 3 herein dated
07.10.2024 respectively came to be dismissed.
3.
Over and above the challenge to the two orders referred to above, the
appellant also prayed before the High Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein respectively to implement
the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 herein i.e.
the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO-SRA).
4.
This litigation has a chequered history. The facts are quite complicated.
In such circumstances, we need to give a fair idea about this litigation
which, according to the High Court, was a third round of litigation
between the parties.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5.
The dispute in the present case relates to a parcel of land admeasuring
2,005 sq. mts. bearing CTS No.620/A/1A/1(Part) (now renumbered
as CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/1 and 620/A/1A/1B/2) of Village Malad in
Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District ("Subject Property").
6.
The Subject Property was originally owned by F.E. Dinshaw Trust.
Since there were hutments on the Subject Property and the same
had no proper hygiene and sanitation, it was declared as a slum
on 26th November, 1987 under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for
short "Slum Act").
7.
On 25th March, 1991, the Development Plan of 1991 for Mumbai was
published, wherein the Subject Property was reserved for Recreational
Ground ("RG"). The Subject Property even today is reserved for RG.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
321
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
8.
The respondent No. 5, i.e., Phuldai R. Yadav claims to have purchased
the Subject Property from the Trust on 18th September, 1991 under
a distressed sale for an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-. Within a period of
6 months from the date of purchase, the respondent No. 5 is said to
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 9th
February, 1992 ("1992 MOU") for sale of the Subject Property with
the appellant's predecessor in interest viz. Harishree Enterprises
("Harishree Enterprises"). The respondent No. 5 is said to have
granted her consent to Harishree Enterprises for redevelopment. It
is the case of the appellant that such act on the part the respondent
No. 5 is a pointer that she was not interested in developing the
property herself or in any case, had waived her preferential right, if
any, to redevelop the slum land i.e. the Subject Property way back
in the year 1992.
9.
Initially, Harishree Enterprises propounded the slum scheme on a
larger property consisting of seven plots of land, admeasuring 19456.7
sq. mts. ("Larger Property"). The Subject Property is one of the said
seven plots. The 1992 MOU was considered as grant of consent
by the owner for the proposed redevelopment as per the prevailing
law. The other six plots of land are either owned by the appellant's
predecessor (and thereafter the appellant) or the development rights/
consent for the slum scheme had been given for the same.
10. Accordingly, a survey was undertaken to identify the number of
slum dwellers. As per the survey, 34 slum dwellers were found to
be residing on the Subject Property.
11. On 30th January 1997, Certified Annexure-II ("Annexure II") was
issued by the SRA in respect of the slum dwellers of the Larger
Property including the Subject Property. Annexure II contains a plan
on which slum scheme is to be implemented. The plan annexed to
Annexure II includes the Subject Property and contain names/details
of 34 slum dwellers who had their hutments on the Subject Property.
12. On 3rd September, 1997, a Letter of Intent ("1997 LOI") was issued
in favour of Harishree Enterprises for implementation of the Slum
Scheme on Larger Property, which includes the Subject Property.
13. In the meantime, there was an agreement between Harishree
Enterprises and one M/s. Vikas Housing Ltd. ("Vikas Housing")
for joint development. This led to a dispute, which, in turn, was
322
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ultimately resolved through Consent Terms dated 3rd August, 2000. In
accordance with the consent terms, Vikas Housing became entitled
to develop 12606.7 sq. mts. ("Project Property"), which includes the
Subject Property. The said Consent Terms came to be subsequently
registered. In the present appeal we are not concerned with the
balance portion of the Larger Property which came to Harishree
Enterprises's share as per the Consent Terms.
14. The appellant claims to have acquired its rights from Vikas Housing
for Project Property. On 9th August, 2005, a revised LOI came to be
issued in favour of the appellant thereby sanctioning slum scheme
on Project Property and Annexure II was certified. The plan includes
the Subject Property. The 34 slum dwellers whose hutments were
on the Subject Property were included in the Annexure II issued to
the appellant.
15. A Public Notice dated 8th June, 2004 was issued by the SRA intimating
the public at large that a Letter of Intent with respect to the Project
Property including the Subject Property had been issued to Harishree
Enterprises for rehabilitation and redevelopment of slum dwellers.
16. Thereafter four Rehabilitation Buildings were constructed between
the year 2005 and 2011 and the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the
fifth Rehabilitation building was issued by the SRA in the year 2022.
17. On 26th February, 2015 ("2015 Order"), a detailed order came to
be passed by the CEO-SRA after giving notice to and hearing to
all the concerned including the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai, the then
owner) inter alia holding that the Slum Scheme of the appellant
had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering the
Project Property admeasuring 12,606 sq. mts. (including the Subject
Property) and that a substantial number of slum dwellers had already
been accommodated and in furtherance of the slum scheme, the
Subject Property was liable to be acquired in the interest of the slum
scheme and the slum dwellers on the Subject Property had to be
rehabilitated by the appellant. It further states that the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) would be entitled to monetary compensation amount
after acquisition. The 2015 Order never came to be challenged by
the respondent No.5 (Phuldai) and thus, has attained finality.
18. Accordingly, on the application filed by the society of the slum dwellers,
a survey for demarcation of the Subject Property was carried out by
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
323
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the Officers of SRA and requests were made by the Slum Societies
for acquisition of the Subject Property from time to time as per the
2015 Order. It is the case of the appellant that the Full Occupation
Certificate for the sale building in favour of the appellant was not
granted on the ground that the Subject Property of the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) was yet to be acquired under Section 14 of the Slum
Act and handed over to MCGM.
19. On 26th March, 2022, the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) sold the
Subject Property to the respondent No. 4 ("Alchemi Developers").
According to the appellant, it was sold on the pretext that there
are slum dwellers on the Subject Property who are required to be
rehabilitated. It is alleged by the appellant that the subject property
was sold with the knowledge that the slum scheme had already
been implemented. However, the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) has now floated its own scheme giving a list of 34
persons, most of whom, according to the appellant, have already been
rehabilitated.
20. The subject matter of the present dispute is only to the extent of 2005
sq. mts. i.e. the Subject Property which was owned by the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) and which has belatedly been acquired by another
builder, i.e. respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) on 26th March,
2022 with knowledge that the Slum Scheme on the area of 12606.7
sq. mts., i.e. the Project Property, including Subject Property, had
fully been implemented by rehabilitating 498 slum dwellers. It is the
case of the appellant that the SRA has changed its earlier consistent
stand till the issuance of letter dated 14th March, 2022 only after the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) acquired rights from the
respondent No. 5 (Phuldai), i.e. after March 2022.
21. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant invoked the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court and questioned the legality and
validity of the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 (CEO-SRA)
granting sanction to the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) and
refusal to implement the 2015 Order referred to above.
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
22. The High Court first looked into Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.
Section 14 relates to the power of State Government to acquire
land. Section 14 of the Slum Act reads thus:-
324
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
"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 had 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 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.
1(A) 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."
23. The High Court took notice of the proviso to Section 14 of the Slum
Act which imposes an obligation on the State Government to consider
the SRA's report as well as the objections that might have been raised
by the owner as regards the acquisition. Based on such material, the
State Government would thereafter proceed to pass an appropriate
order as it may deem fit. The High Court observed that the State
could have proceeded with the acquisition subject to the conditions
prescribed in the proviso contained under Section 14 of the Slum
Act referred to above. The High Court recorded that indisputably
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
325
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the State Government had failed to take steps contemplated under
Section 14(1) referred to above despite the order dated 26.02.2015.
However, according to the High Court, it was too late in the day now for
Jyoti Builders (appellant herein) to assert that the State Government
should be directed to acquire the subject property. In other words,
the finding returned by the High Court is that the respondent No. 5
(Phuldai) was never called upon to develop the subject property in
accordance with Section 14 of the Slum Act. The High Court noted
that Jyoti Builders (appellant herein) had failed to take necessary
steps for a period of seven years i.e. between 2015 and 2022. The
High Court had also returned the finding that the attempt now being
made by Jyoti Builders is to acquire the subject property by back
door entry. If Jyoti Builders at all intended to acquire the subject
property, it could have purchased it. It is when Jyoti Builders failed
to purchase the subject property, then respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers purchased it.
24. The High Court thereafter considered the question whether the
respondent No. 4 herein (Alchemi Developers) had submitted a
scheme for the subject property. According to the appellant herein, the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) is responsible for dragging
one and all to this litigation. The appellant has levelled serious
allegations against the respondent No. 4 alleging that it managed
with the authority concerned. However, the High Court returned
the finding that since the rights of respondent No. 5 (Phuldai), the
owner of the subject property, were yet to be adjudicated upon, the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) would be entitled to submit
its scheme for redevelopment.
25. The third issue that the High Court addressed itself was whether the
subject property was included in the slum scheme. In this regard, the
High Court returned the finding that subject property is not included
in the slum redevelopment scheme.
26. In such circumstances referred to above, the final conclusion arrived
at by the High Court reads thus:-
"14) Additionally, even as per Jyoti the benefits of subject
property were excluded. Furthermore, in light of Citispace
vs. State of Maharashtra ("Citispace") Order dated 31" July
2002 in Writ Petition No 1152 of 2002 read together with
the Order dated 25th July 2014, no new scheme could be
326
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
implemented on the land reserved for garden. This was
the view of the CEO SRA in Order dated 26th February
2015 where he noted the following:
"Further with regard to the land owned by
Respondent No. 2 viz. Shrimati Phuldai R Yadav,
the record shows that the said land is reserved
for recreation ground and therefore the same
cannot be developed in view of the order dated
31-7-2002 passed by the Honourable High Court
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002
[Citispace v State of Maharashtra]. However
since the land is occupied and encroached
by the Slum Dwellers, they are required to be
rehabilitated as Project Affected Persons and it
is the responsibility of the developer to handover
the RG plot of land to MCGM."
It was only after 1st March 2022 that an owner could propose
a scheme for such property. Therefore, the question of
Phuldai attempting to propound a scheme post SRA's
order of 26th February 2015 does not arise.
15) Regarding the contention of Mr. Kadam that, the CEO
SRA whilst passing the Order dated 3rd October 2022 had
reviewed the Order dated 26th February 2015, - we reject
it outrightly. We clarify that the CEO SRA acted solely
in compliance with the Court's directive to examine the
contentions raised by Jyoti and Alchemi in Jyoti's Petition
itself, which opposed the implementation of S R Scheme
on the subject property by Alchemi. The CEO SRA's
role was limited to addressing the rival contentions and
did not involve reopening or reconsidering the earlier
decision. Therefore Mr Kadam's claim that the CEO
SRA "reviewed" the matter is unfounded and is hereby
rejected. Consequently, the judgements of Kapra Mazdoor
Ekta Union (supra), Deoki Nandan Parashar (supra) and
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) cited by Mr. Kadam will
render no assistance to the Petitioner.
16) We agree with Mr. Chinoy's argument that Jyoti has
already benefitted from accommodating the slum dwellers
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
327
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
under the scheme by receiving necessary FSI under the
Rules. Therefore, the cost of relocation has effectively
been compensated to Jyoti.
17) The AGRC has rightly asked the SRA to 'look into'
the matter. We now expect that the SRA will not adopt a
contrary stance, especially after recording that the slum
dwellers on Phuldai's plot have been already allocated
apartments.
18) Considering the case from another perspective, in our
view, first Harishree and now Jyoti's intent appears on
usurping Phuldai's land in some form or manner and to
deprive her of her legitimate benefit under the law.
18.1) It is undisputed that prior to the slum scheme
proposed by Harishree, a MoU was entered into between
Phuldai and Harishree with the intent to purchase Phuldai's
land for consideration. For reasons unknown, that MOU
failed. However, Harishree proceeded with the slum
scheme, assuming they would acquire Phuldai's land at a
later stage. A significant portion of the plot (approximately
1905 sq. mtrs.) remained vacant, as evidenced by the MOU.
The LoI's issued from time-to-time further confirm this fact.
19) A comparison of LoI dated 4th June 2004 and 9th
August 2005 reveals that not only was the area of the
plot reduced, but the number of slum dwellers slated
for rehabilitation was also reduced from 574 to 472. It is
undisputed that the conditions outlined in the LoIs required
Harishree - and later Vikas - to produce title documents
and clear the land concerning Phuldai Yadav's plot. Since
this was not accomplished, the utilization of the FSI was
kept in abeyance.
20) Pausing here for a moment, we ask ourselves: what
remained on the plot apart from FSI? There were only 34
slum dwellers on a specific portion of the subject property
that needed rehabilitation. It is undisputed that this plot
was reserved for garden and HD purposes, meaning that
the land had to remain open and vacant. The FSI was,
therefore, the only component to be utilised - either on
the same plot or elsewhere.
328
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21) As the FSI of the said plot was kept in abeyance, it
raised a significant question about the land's inclusion in
the scheme. The LoIs clearly demonstrate that the SRA
was not convinced about Harishree's or Jyoti's title to the
subject property. Even the CEO SRA's order dated 26th
February 2015 noted that Jyoti will have to give clear title
to MCGM. In our view it meant that Jyoti was required to
acquire it and that which its predecessors had intended
and based on which proposed the scheme.
22) We believe that Harishree and now Jyoti, assumed they
would purchase the land from Phuldai and, in anticipation
relocated the slum dwellers. However, the critical question
is, if someone decides to relocate and clear the slum
dwellers from someone else's plot, can they subsequently
claim beneficial rights of the plot? In our view, the answer
is in the negative. Notably, Phuldai was never called upon
to develop the subject property as per Section 14(1) of
the Slums Act. There is an inexplicable delay in enforcing
the 26th February 2015 Order.
23) What Jyoti did during seven years between 2015 to
2022? In our opinion, seeking acquisition now appears
to be an attempt at a backdoor entry. If Jyoti intended to
acquire the property, they could have purchased it. They
did not and Alchemi did. Therefore, any benefit or loss
concerning the property rightfully belongs to Alchemi alone.
24) Jyoti cannot claim a right over the property simply
because they rehabilitated the slum dwellers. At best,
they are entitled to compensation, which, in our view, has
already been provided by granting them an equivalent and/
or adequate area for sale.
25) We reiterate that we find no error or illegality in the
AGRC's findings that would warrant setting them aside.
We thus concur with the findings of the AGRC. In view of
the above deliberation, we find no merits in the Petition
and therefore dismiss it."
27. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before
this Court.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
329
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
28. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, broadly submitted the following:-
(a) Subject Property is not excluded from the appellant's
predecessor's slum scheme of 1997 and the same continues
to be an integral part of the appellant's slum scheme till date.
(b) No new slum scheme could have been propounded and/
or sanctioned in favour of the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) as there are no slum dwellers to be rehabilitated.
(c)
The SRA does not have jurisdiction to entertain or approve the
respondent No. 4's scheme.
(d) As per the appellant's scheme, the entire subject property is
required to be handed over to the MCGM as a Recreational
Ground (i.e. open green land), whereas the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) has applied for slum rehabilitation scheme
under DCPR 2034 and, if the same is approved, then the
respondent No. 4 would construct upon 65% of the RG area
and would keep only 35% vacant as RG. As per the learned
senior counsel, this would lead to reduction of RG in the city
of Mumbai which already has been very low per capita green
spaces. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 4's scheme
ought not to have been accepted.
(e) A slum scheme in Mumbai was implemented as per Regulation
33(10) of DCR 1991 till 2018 and thereafter as per Regulation
33(10) of DCPR 2034 (both provisions are in pari materia).
Appendix (IV) of DCR 1991 and DCPR 2034 allows redevelopment
of slum properties by slum dwellers (self-redevelopment),
through a developer, owner, public authorities or NGOs. Thus,
consent of owner is not mandatory for implementation of slum
scheme. In the event the owner does not consent or redevelop
the property, it can be acquired by the State Government on
the recommendation of the SRA. The owner gets compensation
as per Section 17 of the Slum Act.
(f)
By 2015 Order, the CEO-SRA could be said to have adjudicated
the lis between the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) and the appellant.
After hearing the respondent No. 5 (who belatedly objected
to the continuation of implementation of slum scheme), and
330
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
considering the rival contentions between the parties, by
the 2015 Order, the CEO-SRA held that the slum scheme
of appellant has progressed substantially and therefore the
Subject Property cannot be excluded from the scheme. The
CEO-SRA saying so issued directions to the Dy. Collector
SRA to take steps for acquiring the Subject Property under
Section 14 of the Slum Act for the effective implementation of
the appellant's slum scheme. There was no challenge to the
2015 Order; the same attained finality; and as such, could not
have been revisited either by the parties or slum authorities
respectively. The respondent Nos. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
and 5 (Phuldai) respectively were aware that the 2015 Order
is binding on them. To overcome this, they have gone to the
extent of misinterpreting the 2015 Order by misconstruing the
words 'carve out'. The words 'carve out' have to be read in the
context of the finding and conclusion of the 2015 Order, which
is to include the same and not exclude from the slum scheme.
As such, the purport of 2015 Order is that the property should
be "demarcated" i.e. carved out for the purpose of acquisition
and handing over the same to BMC. The demarcation was
already undertaken on 6th October, 2016. The 2015 Order does
not in any manner suggest "taking out" the Subject Property
out of the appellant's scheme.
(g) In such circumstances referred to above, the power of the SRA
under Section 14 of the acquisition is also coupled with duty to
acquire the Subject Property. Such a duty has been recognized
by this Court in the case of (i) State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Jogendra Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 96, and (ii) State of
Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 770.
29. Mr. Divan, the learned senior counsel further highlighted the SRA's
diametrically opposite stance before and after the respondent No.
4 proposed its alleged illegal scheme which, according to him, is
evident from the following:-
(a) From the year 1997 to 2022:
The SRA's stand prior to Alchemi Developers coming in picture is
as follows:
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
331
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(i) All the LOIs issued by the SRA clearly show that the
Subject Property is part of the appellant's slum scheme.
(ii) The SRA included 34 slum dwellers on the Subject
Property in the Annexure II of the appellant's slum
scheme.
(iii) The SRA directed rehabilitation of the said 34 slum
dwellers in the rehab component of the appellant's slum
scheme.
(iv) By an Order dated 26th February, 2015, the SRA
directed acquisition of the Subject Property and stated
that the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) would be entitled to
monetary compensation after the acquisition.
(v) In pursuance of 2015 Order, the Subject Property was
demarcated by CTS Officer on 6th June, 2015.
(vi) When the appellant requested for grant of Occupation
Certificate in respect of the Sale Building No. 4, the SRA
(respondent No.1) vide its letter dated 14th March ,2022
stated that the request for Occupation Certificate cannot
be granted as RG is not handed over and that the Subject
Property is yet to be acquired under Section 14(1) of the
Slum Act.
(vii) On 20th April, 2022 the Tehsildar from the office
of SRA gave an opinion stating that necessary steps
towards acquisition should be taken with respect to the
Subject Property as per 2015 Order and in fact enclosed
a draft Notice to be issued under Section 14 (1) of the
Slum Act and sent the same to the CEO-SRA for further
process.
(viii) On 27th May, 2022 the Chief Legal Consultant of SRA
gave his opinion and stated that the Subject Property be
acquired as per 2015 Order.
(ix) From 2015 till 2022, it was a consistent stand of the
SRA that the Subject Property forms part of the appellant's
scheme and thus was required to be acquired under
Section 14(1) of the Slum Act for the benefit of the Slum
Scheme of the appellant.
332
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(b) Events post Alchemi Developers - respondent No. 4 coming
into picture:-
30. According to Mr. Divan, the moment another builder i.e. respondent
No. 4 came into picture and started pursing its slum scheme on
the Subject Property, the office of SRA made a complete volte face
which can be seen from the following:
(i)
On 26th March, 2022 the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) sold the
Subject Property to the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers).
(ii)
Thereafter, in March-April 2022, the respondent No. 5 applied
for implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Subject Property
based on fraudulent list of slum dwellers (persons who were
already rehabilitated by the appellant). The true and correct
status of list of the slum dwellers submitted by the respondent
No. 5 in its scheme is set out by the appellant. This list, relied
upon by the appellant at every stage, from CEO-SRA to this
Court, has not been denied by the respondent No. 4.
(iii) After respondent No. 4 started pursuing its slum scheme, the
SRA made a complete volte face and started contending that
the Subject Property is excluded from the slum scheme and
2015 Order need not be implemented, and the Subject Property
should form part of the respondent No. 5's scheme, despite
holding that all the slum dwellers had already been rehabilitated.
(iv) After the new developer came into picture, the respondent No. 1
(SRA) has taken a stance which is contradictory to the order
dated 26th February, 2015 and the same amounts to review of
its own order i.e. order of his predecessor.
31. According to Mr. Divan, the CEO-SRA (respondent No. 1) could
not have taken the orders passed by his predecessor in review as
no such power is provided under the statute. He would submit that
the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the CEO-SRA holding that
acquisition of the Subject Property as per the 2015 Order need
not be undertaken amounts to review of the 2015 Order directing
acquisition of the Subject Property.
32. He would thereafter contend that the findings returned by the High
Court to the effect that the appellant had already availed the FSI
benefit insofar as rehabilitation of 34 slum dwellers is concerned
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
333
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
could be said to be perverse. In this regard, he submitted that a
perusal of the LOI would indicate that the entire FSI benefit arising
out of the Subject Property is kept in abeyance. He would submit that
the slum scheme is implemented by the developer under the Slum
Act. The developer gets dual benefit - first rehabilitating the slum
dwellers and secondly entitlement to FSI for implementation of slum
scheme. He strongly contended that the entire FSI for the Subject
Property has been kept in abeyance. He asserted that, on the other
hand, the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) seeks benefit of
the entire FSI without implementing the slum scheme or the clearing
slum. According to Mr. Divan, this is something absolutely illegal.
33. In the last, Mr. Divan contended that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5
respectively have misled this Court by submitting that 34 slum
dwellers on the subject property have been rehabilitated as Project
Affected Persons i.e. PAPs. According to him, the slum dwellers of
the subject property are part of Annexure II issued to the appellant
and therefore they have been rehabilitated in rehab component under
the slum scheme and cannot be rehabilitated as PAPs as per the
orders and directions of the respondent No. 1.
34. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Divan, the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein submitted
that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and
appropriate relief may be granted.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 and 2
35. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively vehemently submitted that no
error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been
committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment
and order.
36. It was submitted that the subject property does not form part of the
appellant's slum scheme. As per Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991 and
Guidelines issued in the year 1997, a slum scheme could have been
submitted only with the consent of the "owner" or after acquiring the
same in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.
37. It was argued that indisputably the true and correct position in tabular
format is as under:-
334
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr.
No.
Plot No.
Map
@ pg. 1004
Area
Sq. m.
Purpose
1.
CTS No. 620/A/1A/1A/3
Dark Green
2700
Owned by
appellant &
included in
Scheme.
Satisfies
the RG
requirement.
2.
CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/1
CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/2
Light Green
2005
Owned by R4
and excluded
from scheme
on 04.04.2000
on request of
predecessor
of appellant
38. It was argued that indisputably the respondent No. 5 namely Phuldai
was the owner of the subject property. According to the learned
counsel, the predecessor in title of the appellant had misrepresented
to have obtained the consent from the owner i.e. Phuldai on the
basis of an unregistered MOU between the appellant's predecessor
(Harishree Enterprises) and the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai). It was
pointed out that the records reveal that the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai)
had terminated the unregistered MOU in 1995 itself. Such termination
was challenged by Harishree Enterprises before the Civil Court by
filing Civil Suit No. 1514 of 1995 which later came to be dismissed.
39. In so far as obtaining occupation certificate for the Final Sale Building
in Slum Scheme is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that
the appellant is not required to hand over the subject property. It was
submitted that it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the appellant
to say that the appellant has been put to a specific condition to
acquire or hand over the Light Green portion i.e. subject property
(2005 sq. m.) for further compliance of Full Occupation Certificate.
40. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively that since the subject property
stood excluded from its Slum Scheme, the respondent No. 1 could
not have insisted on any such condition for the purpose of issuing
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
335
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the occupation certificate. However, it was clarified that the appellant
was liable to hand over the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. as Recreational Ground (RG).
41. It was argued that in accordance with the direction issued by the
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 26.02.2015 the appellant had
declared the 34 slum dwellers residing on the subject property as
Project Affected Persons (PAPs). In lieu of the appellant handing over
PAP's to SRA, the appellant has been compensated in accordance
with the policy with equivalent FSI for Sale Component. The appellant
had already utilised such FSI generated against PAP and had
constructed its Final Sale Building.
42. It was next submitted that the appellant had at no point of time ever
challenged the directions issued by the CEO-SRA to rehabilitate the
34 slum dwellers as PAPs. It was argued that the subject property has
now been purchased by the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
from the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) i.e. the original owner of the
subject property and thus, the respondent No. 4 has a vested right
to have the first choice to undertake a slum rehabilitation scheme
and only upon failure to do so, the State Government may acquire
the land. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) as the lawful owner had already exercised its
preferential right and was implementing the scheme by including
the subject property as part of its scheme. In such circumstances
referred to above, there is no question at this point of to acquire
the subject land.
43. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos.