# Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues and Others

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1016
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 11008 of 2025
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/saldanha-real-estate-private-limited-v-bishop-john-rodrigues-and-others-38604
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Issue arose as regards the validity of the acquisition of land
under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether the High Court rightly rejected
the Society's preliminary objection; whether the 2018 Amendment
impacts the law laid down in Tarabai's case; and whether the High
Court rightly set aside the public notice and the order approving
the acquisition proposal.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 - ss.3B, 3C(1) -
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - s.14 - Declaration of a slum
rehabilitation area - Rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum
Rehabilitation Area - Certain land owned by the Church Trust,
a public trust - Subject land was part of the larger plot, and
the same was encroached upon by hutment dwellers, and
a section of it was thereupon declared a Slum Area - Over
time, the hutment area (Subject Slum) expanded, and the
notification was amended - In the intervening period, the
dwellers of the subject slum formed the Cooperative Housing
Society - Communication regarding the redevelopment of the
Subject Slum between the Church Trust and the Society -
Society also entered into an agreement with the developer
for the development of the Subject Slum - On the proposal of
the Society, the Subject Slum declared a Slum Rehabilitation
Area (SR Area) in 2020 - Developer and the Church trust
filed proposals for redevelopment of the subject slum - Slum
Rehabilitation Authority-SRA rejected the Church Trust's
proposal for redevelopment - Society then submitted an
application for the acquisition of the Subject Land - SRA issued
* Author
1380
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a public notice calling for objections from all interested parties
to the proposal for acquisition - Church Trust submitted its
objection, however acquisition proceedings were initiated -
Church Trust then filed writ petition seeking quashing of the
public notice - During pendency, the CEO, SRA approved the
acquisition proposal on the premise that the Church Trust
had not filed an SR Scheme within 120 days - Amended writ
petition filed by Church Trust seeking setting aside of the
order approving the acquisition proposal - High Court set
aside the public notice order and the acquisition proposal
approval order, declaring the acquisition void; and holding
that the Church Trust had a preferential right to develop the
subject land, directed the SRA to consider the proposal of
the landowner for redevelopment - Correctness:
Held: On facts and the colourable conduct of the appellants, the
acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed to sustain - High Court
rightly set aside these proceedings, protecting the statutory rights and
interests of the Church Trust over the Subject Land and preventing
the appellants from illegally grabbing it - Preliminary objection by the
Society that the public notice was merely an invitation for objections
to the acquisition proposal, and the approval order was simply a
recommendation to the State fails - Where the solitary object of
the notice and order, to acquire the Subject Land, the High Court
was justified to intervene at a preliminary stage, in exercise of its
plenary jurisdiction u/Art.226 - Not doing so would have invited
more complications on account of creation of third-party rights by
the private builder and consequential multiplicity of litigation - Notice
and the order are traceable to the statutory framework of the Slums
Act, and having been issued in purported exercise of statutory
power were amenable to judicial review - On a bare perusal of
the 2018 Amendment, it seems that no attempt has been made to
remove or dilute the preferential right of the landowner to redevelop
an SR Area - Tarabai's case lead to only one conclusion, that the
owner has a primary right to undertake development, and none
of the provisions have been amended - s.3C(1) declaration is a
stage prior to redev

## Text

_Characters 0–39,808 of 72,610. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39808 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1379 : 2025 INSC 1016
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited
v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 11008 of 2025)
22 August 2025
[Surya Kant* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the validity of the acquisition of land
under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether the High Court rightly rejected
the Society's preliminary objection; whether the 2018 Amendment
impacts the law laid down in Tarabai's case; and whether the High
Court rightly set aside the public notice and the order approving
the acquisition proposal.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 - ss.3B, 3C(1) -
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - s.14 - Declaration of a slum
rehabilitation area - Rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum
Rehabilitation Area - Certain land owned by the Church Trust,
a public trust - Subject land was part of the larger plot, and
the same was encroached upon by hutment dwellers, and
a section of it was thereupon declared a Slum Area - Over
time, the hutment area (Subject Slum) expanded, and the
notification was amended - In the intervening period, the
dwellers of the subject slum formed the Cooperative Housing
Society - Communication regarding the redevelopment of the
Subject Slum between the Church Trust and the Society -
Society also entered into an agreement with the developer
for the development of the Subject Slum - On the proposal of
the Society, the Subject Slum declared a Slum Rehabilitation
Area (SR Area) in 2020 - Developer and the Church trust
filed proposals for redevelopment of the subject slum - Slum
Rehabilitation Authority-SRA rejected the Church Trust's
proposal for redevelopment - Society then submitted an
application for the acquisition of the Subject Land - SRA issued
* Author
1380
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a public notice calling for objections from all interested parties
to the proposal for acquisition - Church Trust submitted its
objection, however acquisition proceedings were initiated -
Church Trust then filed writ petition seeking quashing of the
public notice - During pendency, the CEO, SRA approved the
acquisition proposal on the premise that the Church Trust
had not filed an SR Scheme within 120 days - Amended writ
petition filed by Church Trust seeking setting aside of the
order approving the acquisition proposal - High Court set
aside the public notice order and the acquisition proposal
approval order, declaring the acquisition void; and holding
that the Church Trust had a preferential right to develop the
subject land, directed the SRA to consider the proposal of
the landowner for redevelopment - Correctness:
Held: On facts and the colourable conduct of the appellants, the
acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed to sustain - High Court
rightly set aside these proceedings, protecting the statutory rights and
interests of the Church Trust over the Subject Land and preventing
the appellants from illegally grabbing it - Preliminary objection by the
Society that the public notice was merely an invitation for objections
to the acquisition proposal, and the approval order was simply a
recommendation to the State fails - Where the solitary object of
the notice and order, to acquire the Subject Land, the High Court
was justified to intervene at a preliminary stage, in exercise of its
plenary jurisdiction u/Art.226 - Not doing so would have invited
more complications on account of creation of third-party rights by
the private builder and consequential multiplicity of litigation - Notice
and the order are traceable to the statutory framework of the Slums
Act, and having been issued in purported exercise of statutory
power were amenable to judicial review - On a bare perusal of
the 2018 Amendment, it seems that no attempt has been made to
remove or dilute the preferential right of the landowner to redevelop
an SR Area - Tarabai's case lead to only one conclusion, that the
owner has a primary right to undertake development, and none
of the provisions have been amended - s.3C(1) declaration is a
stage prior to redevelopment being initiated u/s.13, and issuance
of a notice u/s.3C is meant to accord hearing to a landowner and
invite objections, if any, against declaration as an SR Area - Thus,
it cannot be said that the new mechanism within s.3C no longer
necessitates a separate notice-cum-invitation on the landowner -
Claim of the appellants that the owner is expected to present an
SR Scheme within 120 days of the s.3C(1) Declaration without any
notice-cum-invitation wholly misconceived - On a conspectus of
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1381
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
the 2018 Amendment and the perceived resultant variation on the
pre-amendment legislative policy, the holistic interpretation of the
Slums Act made in Tarabai's case squarely applicable on post-2018
Amendment actions/events, barring the now legislatively stipulated
timeline within which a redevelopment scheme has to be submitted
by an interested landowner - As regards the validity of acquisition,
there vests a preferential right in favour of the Church Trust, over
and above the SRA, occupants, or other stakeholders, to develop
the Subject Land - Trust ought to have been invited by the SRA
to submit a proposal and undertake such redevelopment after
the declaration was issued - Thus, the SRA cannot proceed for
acquisition of the Subject Land unless such a notice-cum-invitation is
extended, and thereafter, the right of the Church Trust is extinguished
if it fails to submit a redevelopment scheme within the prescribed
period of 120 days - High Court rightly held that there was no
compliance of these preconditions by the SRA before initiating the
acquisition, and the entire process liable to be invalidated - High
Court also rightly found from the conduct of the appellants that the
acquisition proceedings arose from an exercise of power in bad
faith - Furthermore, no notice-cum-invitation for redevelopment
u/s.13 was issued to the Church Trust as such the Church Trust's
preferential right to redevelop the Subject Land remains intact and
in the absence of a valid notice or opportunity, there existed no legal
basis to extinguish this right, thus, the acquisition was, vitiated in
law, falling afoul of the prescribed procedure - There was no waiver
of preferential right to develop SR area - Adverse inferences drawn
from the appellants' disconcerting conduct throughout the acquisition
proceedings - Record reveals a concerted and motivated attempt by
the parties to acquire the Subject Land - SRA's actions expose its
attempts to thwart any possibility of the Church Trust exercising its
preferential right - SRA and its CEO appear to have abandoned their
public duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the rights of the
landowner - On the contrary, the facts reveal a prejudiced attempt
by the SRA to undermine legislative and judicial efforts and hand
over the Subject Land and the benefits of its rehabilitation to the
developer - Such actions of a public authority, marred by collusion
and connivance and motivated by extraneous profit interests of
private builders, are highly depreciable and underline the possibility
of bureaucratic misuse of statutory provisions - Impugned judgement
of the High Court upheld - Church Trust to submit an SR Scheme
for the redevelopment of the Subject Slum, within a period of 120
days - SRA and the State to process the Church Trust's proposal
within 60 days - Constitution of India - Art. 226. [Paras 17 - 53]
1382
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of
Maharashtra and Others, SLP (C) 19774 of 2018 - relied on.
Indian Cork Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC
OnLine Bom 1214 - referred to.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017;
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Slum Areas; Acquisition; Church Trust; Preferential right; Owner
has a primary right; Bad faith; Public trust; Plenary jurisdiction;
Executive overreach; Issuance of notice; Declaration under section
3C(1); Hearing to landowners; Validity of acquisition; Declaration
of a slum rehabilitation area; Rights of landowners to redevelop a
Slum Rehabilitation Area; Hutment dwellers; Cooperative Housing
Society; Redevelopment of the Subject Slum; Slum Rehabilitation
Area (SR Area); Slum Rehabilitation Authority-SRA; Acquisition
proposal.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11008
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 1212 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 11009 and 11010 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Shyam Divan, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Nikhil
Sakhardande, Sr. Advs., Sanjeev Singh, Arpit Rai, Sudipto Sircar,
Ms. Tushima, Aviral Kashyap, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi,
Ms. Gautami Yadav, Soura Subha Ghosh, Tavish Bhushan Prasad,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1383
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
Ms. Sanaya Patel, Shesh Raj Bharti, Soumya Dutta, Siddhant
Upmanyu, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Milind Sathe, Chander Uday Singh, Shyam Mehta, Shyam Divan,
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Neha Mehta, Bhushan
Deshmukh, Aditya Miskita, Ms. Harsh Lata, Umair Merchant, Ms.
Aayushi Gohil, Ms. Harsh Lata, Sunil Kumar Verma, Aman Raj
Gandhi, Parthasarathy Bose, Ms. Panchi Agarwal, Pranaya Goyal,,
Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
Varad Kilor, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse,
Adarsh Dubey, Sachin Patil, Ravi Tyagi, Mayank Mishra, Ms.
Manmilan Sidhu, Chirag Sharma, Ms. Sudiksha Saina, Ms. Saksha
Jha, Shikhar Misra, Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Ms. Ria Chanda, P.
V. Yogeswaran, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Sanjeev Singh,
Arpit Rai, Sudipto Sircar, Ms. Tushima, Aviral Kashyap.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The dispute under consideration in these Civil Appeals concerns
the validity of the acquisition of a portion of land located at CTS
No. B-960 in Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, measuring
1,596.40 sq. m. (Subject Land) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums
Act). The High Court of Judicature at Bombay (High Court), vide
the Impugned Judgement dated 11.06.2024, has: (i) allowed the writ
petition filed by the landowner, declaring the acquisition void; and
(ii) directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to consider the
proposal of the landowner for redevelopment. The instant appeals
have thus been preferred by the proposed housing society of slum
dwellers, the developer selected by the said society, and the SRA.
3.
The instant appeals involve an in-depth analysis of the text as well as
the legislative policy behind Chapter I-A of the Slums Act, specifically
regarding the rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation
Area (SR Area) and the corresponding duties of the SRA. At the
outset, we note that by a judgement of even date, titled Tarabai Nagar
1384
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra and
others,1 a 2-Judge Bench of this Court, including one of us (Surya
Kant, J.), has dealt with a substantial part of the arguments raised
in these appeals. The Bench, therein, upheld the decision of another
Division Bench of the High Court in Indian Cork Mills (P) Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra,2 laying down that: (i) the private owner of a
Slum Rehabilitation Area has a preferential right to develop it; (ii) as
part of this right, the owner must be notified and invited to undertake
such redevelopment; and (iii) without such notice being issued and
such right being extinguished, it would be untenable for the State or
the SRA to acquire the land under Section 14.
4.
The legislative interpretation we are tasked with undertaking in
these appeals has largely been addressed by the Bench in Tarabai
(supra). Having previously examined the law regarding the questions
answered therein, this Court does not need to revisit the analysis of
the Slums Act. The only remaining issue for us to consider through this
judgement is the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 (2018 Amendment).
A.
Legislative Scheme
5.
The legislative scheme of the Slums Act prior to the 2018 Amendment
has already been detailed extensively in Tarabai (supra).3 However,
before delving into the facts of this case, it would be apposite to first
explore the impact of the said Amendment on the slum rehabilitation
framework envisaged in Chapter I-A of the Slums Act.
6.
The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017, which came into force on
26.04.2018, was enacted to improve the practical implementation
of the Slums Act and to expand the scope of slum rehabilitation. It
introduced various improvements, both significant and minor, into the
legislative framework for slum rehabilitation.
7.
Section 3B is one of the key areas where such a change was
implemented.4
1
Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19774 of 2018,
judgement dated 22.08.2025.
2
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1214.
3
See Paragraphs 5 to 38 of Tarabai (supra).
4
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra).
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1385
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
7.1. In sub-section (1), the Legislature introduced the ability for the
SRA to amend an already operative General Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme (General SR Scheme).
7.2. Further, the provisions which, prior to the Amendment, were
included in sub-section (4),5 namely, the matters which shall
be provided for in the General SR Scheme, have now been
relocated to sub-section (5). While the scheme itself and its
tenor remain unchanged, the scope of these matters has been
broadened. For example, provisions for compensation in lieu of
transit accommodation, as well as for the grant of tenements
to non-protected occupiers, were introduced. Most notably,
the Legislature has amended the stakeholders specified in
Clauses (c) and (g) (which correspond to Clauses (c) and (e),
respectively, before the 2018 Amendment) from 'landholders
and occupants' to 'owners, landholders and occupants'. It is
worth noting that although the term 'owner' was already defined
in Section 2(f) of the Slums Act,6 it has been included in the
procedure for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes (SR Schemes)
only after the 2018 Amendment.
7.3. In its place, a new sub-section (4) has been added, stipulating
that the General SR Scheme shall be deemed to be 'Development
Control Regulations' under the Maharashtra Town Planning Act,
1966 for an SR Area and clarifying that the General SR Scheme
shall prevail over any other Development Control Regulations
in force, such as the Development Control and Promotion
Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR 2034).
7.4. For complete clarity, the relevant portion of the amended version
of Section 3B is reproduced below:
"3B. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. - (1) The Slum
Rehabilitation Authority concerned, with the previous
sanction of the State Government, shall prepare or
amend the general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
for the areas specified under sub-section (1) of
section 3A, for rehabilitation or relocation of protected
5
See Paragraph 19 of Tarabai (supra).
6
See Paragraph 7 of Tarabai (supra).
1386
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
occupiers and other occupiers of the building in such
areas.
[xxxx]
(4) The general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme published
under sub-section (3) shall be deemed Development
Control Regulations under the provisions of Chapter III
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (Mah. XXXVII of 1966), for the said area and
the provisions of the general Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme shall prevail over the Development Control
Regulations, published under the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Mah. XXXVII
of 1966).
(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified
under sub-section (3) shall, generally lay down the
parameters for declaration of any land as the Slum
Rehabilitation Area and indicate the manner in which
rehabilitation of the occupants of the area declared
as Slum Rehabilitation Area shall be carried out. In
particular, it shall provide for all or any of the following
matters, that is to say,-
[xxxx]
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the
owners, landholders and occupants of the land
declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area under
the approved Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in the
implementation of such Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation
or entitlement of compensation in lieu of transit
accommodation to the slum dwellers pending
development of the Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(e) provision relating to allotment of tenements
either in-situ or otherwise, on development free
of cost to the protected occupiers of the building
in such Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(f) provision relating to allotment of tenements
either in-situ or otherwise, on ownership or on
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1387
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
rent, to the other non-protected occupiers up to
the 1st January 2011, subject to the availability
of tenements as per the terms and conditions
and guidelines so notified in the Official Gazette,
by the Chief Executive Officer with the prior
approval of the State Government;
(g) scheme for development of the Slum
Rehabilitation Areas under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme by the landholders and occupants by
themselves or through a developer and the
terms and conditions of such development; and
the option available to the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority for taking up such development in the
event of non-participation of the landholders or
occupants;
[xxxx] "
8.
The process for declaring land as an SR Area under Section 3C(1)
was also augmented.7 Following the amendment, the CEO must
provide the owners and other stakeholders a 30-day notice and
an opportunity to be heard before issuing a reasoned order. Only
then can the CEO declare the land an SR Area (Section 3C(1)
Declaration). However, the method of publication/publicity of the
Section 3C(1) Declaration remains unchanged. For reference, the
text of the amended Section 3C(1) is provided below.
"3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area. -
(1) As soon as may be, after the publication of any Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief Executive Officer on
being satisfied about the circumstances in respect of any
land, whether or not previously declared as slum area,
justifying its declaration as the Slum Rehabilitation Area
which may include community economic activity area, for
implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, shall after
giving the land owners, including any public authorities
or local bodies under the State Government constituted
under any law enacted by the State Legislature, thirty days
notice and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, by an order published in the Official Gazette, and
7
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraph 20 of Tarabai (supra).
1388
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
thereafter within forty-five days, declare such land to be a
"Slum Rehabilitation Area". The order declaring the Slum
Rehabilitation Area (hereinafter referred to as "the slum
rehabilitation order"), shall also be given wide publicity in
such manner as may be specified by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Thereafter,
notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, in such Slum Rehabilitation Area, the
permission or the No Objection Certificate of the land
owning authority or agency shall not be required:
Provided that, only in respect of any land which is required
for Vital Public Project purpose, as per orders of the State
Government and where the State Government either
directly or through any public authority has undertaken
the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the
protected and other occupiers of the building, then the
Chief Executive Officer shall, exclude the land required
for Vital Public Project from the Slum Rehabilitation Area
and issue an order to omit such land from the Slum
Rehabilitation Area. Where the State Government either
directly or through any public authority has undertaken
the responsibility of relocation and rehabilitation of the
protected and other occupiers of the building, such public
authority shall prepare the Scheme of such rehabilitation
or relocation and get it approved by the Chief Executive
Officer within the period specified in the Scheme which
shall not be more than ninety days.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Chief Executive
Officer may, within thirty days of the publication of such slum
rehabilitation order, prefer an appeal to the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee. The decision of the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee in such appeal shall be final.
(3) On the completion of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,
the Slum Rehabilitation Area shall cease to be such area."
9.
Substantial changes were also made to Section 3D, which, inter alia,
modifies Sections 13 and 14 for their applicability to Chapter I-A of
the Slums Act.8
8
For pre-2018 Amendment version, see Paragraphs 27 and 28 of Tarabai (supra).
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1389
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
9.1. Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (c) of this Section describes the
applicability of Section 13 to an SR Area. Through the 2018
Amendment, significant changes have been made to the text of
the provision. For reference, Section 13, as it would apply under
Chapter I-A after the amendment, reads as follows:
"13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority
to develop Slum Rehabilitation Area. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (10) of section 12, the Chief Executive Officer
shall, after any land has been declared as the Slum
Rehabilitation Area, including community economic
activity area, if the owners, landholders or occupants
of such land do not come forward within a reasonable
time, which shall not be more than one hundred and
twenty days, required for relocation and rehabilitation
of protected and other occupiers justifying with the
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for redevelopment of
such land, by order, determine to redevelop such land
by entrusting into any agency or other developer for
the purpose.
(2) Where on declaration of any land as Slum
Rehabilitation Area, the Chief Executive Officer is
satisfied that, the land in the Slum Rehabilitation
Area has been or is being developed by the
owners, landholders or occupants or developers in
contravention of the plans duly approved, or any
restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section
(10) of section 12, or in contravention of any provision
of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or any condition
specified in the approval or has not been developed
within the time, as specified under such conditions
of approval, he may, by order, determine to develop
the land declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area by
entrusting it to any agency or the other developer
recognized by him for the purpose.
(3) The agency or the other developer so appointed
shall within a period of forty-five days of the order of
the Chief Executive Officer, be required to deposit
1390
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
an amount of compensation payable to the outgoing
landowners or occupants or developers, as the case
may be, for expenditure incurred by them on payment
made to any public authority, local bodies for receiving
approvals for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and
construction of rehabilitation tenements as determined
by the Chief Executive Officer:
Provided that, such compensation shall not be payable
by the agency appointed by the Chief Executive Officer,
for any expenditure incurred towards construction to
meet conditional obligations made to any third party by
the landowners or occupants or previous developers,
as the case may be. The Chief Executive Officer before
passing such order shall obtain report from approved
valuer independently appointed on his behalf and by
the concerned parties to the proceeding before the
Chief Executive Officer:
Provided further that, before passing such order by
the Chief Executive Officer, the concerned landowner
or occupant or developer, as the case may be, shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard
and time which shall not be more than thirty days of
showing cause why the order should not be passed:
Provided also that, an appeal, if any, against the order
of the Chief Executive Officer shall be filed before the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and order of
the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee shall be
final and binding on all the parties."
9.2. With this amendment, the notion of 'reasonable time' in subsection (1) has been qualified with the phrase, "which shall not
be more than one hundred and twenty days." Previously, no
such qualification was provided for. Additionally, the pre-condition
under sub-section (1) has changed from 'come forward ...
with a scheme for redevelopment' to 'come forward ... for
redevelopment of such land'.
9.3. Notably, when the 2018 Amendment was originally introduced, the
final proviso in Section 13 referred to the Grievance Redressal
Committee (GRC). However, in 2023, with a retrospective
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1391
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
amendment, this body was renamed as the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee (AGRC).9
9.4. Although the amendment has kept the procedure for land
acquisition under Chapter I-A untouched, it would be prudent
for us to reproduce Section 14, as it applies to the said Chapter:
"14. Power of State Government to acquire land. -
(1) Where on any representation from the Chief
Executive Officer it appears to the State Government
that, in order to enable the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority to carry out development under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme in any Slum Rehabilitation
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 has 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 within the period specified
in the notice; and 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.
Provided further that, the State Government may
delegate its powers under this sub-section to any
officer not below the rank of Commissioner.
(1A) The acquisition of land for any purpose
mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be
a public purpose.
9
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment, Re-enactment of
Rules and Notification of Apex and other Grievance Redressal Committees and Validation) Act, 2023, s 4.
1392
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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."
10. As in Tarabai (supra), the instant case also pertains to an SR Area
under Chapter I-A. It is, thus, clarified that wherever the provisions of
Chapters IV and V are referred to in this Judgement, the reference
is to the modified provisions which are now encapsulated in
Section 3D.
B.
Facts
11. Having considered the changes introduced through the 2018
Amendment, we now proceed to observe the facts in detail, as
portrayed below.
11.1. The plot bearing CTS No. B-960 in Village Bandra, Taluka
Andheri, Mumbai, admeasuring a total area of 9,371.30 sq. m.,
is owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church
Trust), a Public Trust based in Mumbai. The Church Trust
operates the Mount Mary Church in Bandra, Mumbai, where,
at the relevant time, Bishop John Rodrigues served as the
Rector and the sole trustee. The Subject Land, measuring
1,596.40 sq. m., is part of this larger plot.
11.2. The Subject Land has reportedly been encroached upon by
hutment dwellers since the 1930s, and a section admeasuring
1,334 sq. m. was thereupon declared a Slum Area under
Section 4 of the Slums Act on 30.11.1978. Over time, the
hutment area (Subject Slum) expanded, and the notification
dated 30.11.1978 was accordingly amended on 12.06.2002,
increasing the declared Slum Area to 1,532 sq. m. Subsequently,
through further expansion, the Subject Slum extended into
an adjoining plot bearing CTS No. B-967, owned by the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).
11.3. In the intervening period, the dwellers of the Subject Slum
formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd. (Proposed) (Kadeshwari Society). It appears from the
records that there were 35 identified tenements in the Subject
Slum, prior to 01.01.2000, who are all members of Kadeshwari
Society.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1393
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
11.4. Since 2012, Kadeshwari Society and the Church Trust (through
its sole trustee) have been in communication regarding the
redevelopment of the Subject Slum. The record indicates
that the parties had initially met for this purpose, but it was
subsequently identified that the land fell within the Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ), which impacted the feasibility of any
attempted redevelopment project.
11.5. In due course, however, the Government sought to relax
restrictions on the redevelopment of slums in CRZ areas,
making rehabilitation on the Subject Land feasible. This sparked
a fresh round of communication among the parties.
11.6. In this context, vide letter dated 13.06.2013, the Church Trust
called on Kadeshwari Society to: (i) submit written consent of
all the 35 slum dwellers eligible for rehabilitation; (ii) procure a
resolution passed by the General Body of Kadeshwari Society
authorising redevelopment; and (iii) to permit the Society's
chosen developer to submit a tentative offer for redevelopment,
subject to the outcome of a tender process.
11.7. Kadeshwari Society initially appointed M/s Accord Estates as its
preferred developer and notified the Church Trust accordingly.
The Society also appears to have entered into development
agreements, individual agreements, and tripartite agreements
with this developer. However, no further steps were taken in
the following years until 2017.
11.8. Citing inaction on the part of M/s Accord Estates, Kadeshwari
Society terminated all agreements with this firm and its
promoter. It, instead, resolved to enter into an agreement with
another developer, namely, M/s Saldanha Real Estates Pvt.
Ltd. (Saldanha), for the redevelopment of the Subject Slum.
Consequently, on 28.12.2017, Kadeshwari Society entered
into a Development Agreement with and executed a Power of
Attorney in favour of Saldanha. The developer also entered into
individual Development Agreements with the slum dwellers.
11.9. Having crystallised this relationship, Kadeshwari Society then
besought the Church Trust to grant a No-Objection Certificate
to Saldanha, allowing it to redevelop the Subject Land and to
rehabilitate the slum dwellers on it.
1394
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11.10. Meanwhile, Saldanha also approached the Church Trust with
a proposal to purchase the Subject Land on an 'as-is-whereis' basis. Saldanha and the sole trustee of the Church Trust
deliberated on this issue on 21.03.2018, pursuant to which
the developer forwarded an offer of INR 2.5 crores for the
Subject Land. The offer was later revised to INR 3 crores,
but the parties did not proceed with this deal.
11.11. It is pertinent to highlight at this stage that the Church Trust
intended to develop the Subject Land along with the rest of
its land in CTS No. B-960, as well as some other adjoining
plots, totalling approximately 10,709 sq. m. in land area. The
plan was to redevelop 'Nirmala Colony', including the Subject
Land, as a contiguous project.
11.12. However, when this proposal was presented to the slum
dwellers, Kadeshwari Society sent a communication dated
04.02.2019 to the Church Trust, opposing a composite project
and requesting the Trust to allow independent redevelopment
of the Subject Land by Saldanha.
11.13. This was followed by a series of communications between
Kadeshwari Society and the Church Trust, where the former
sought an NOC for redevelopment by Saldanha, while the
latter attempted to obtain consent from the slum dwellers for
combined development.
11.14. In this backdrop, Kadeshwari Society submitted a proposal
dated 24.09.2019 before the SRA for the declaration of the
entire Subject Slum, now covering 1,976.60 sq. m. (1,596.40
sq. m. being the Subject Land and 380.20 sq. m. being BMC's
land), as an SR Area under Section 3C(1).10
11.15. Parallelly, the Church Trust sent a letter dated 07.02.2020 to
the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA (CEO), informing that
it was in communication with the slum dwellers. It stated that
the representatives of the Trust had met with the members
of Kadeshwari Society, and the dwellers had accepted the
feasibility of the composite development. The Church Trust
10
Reproduced in Paragraph 8.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1395
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
also submitted a feasibility report prepared by its architect
for the redevelopment of the area.
11.16. The SRA, however, disregarded the Church Trust's
communication and, instead, acted on the proposal of the
Kadeshwari Society. It issued public notices as well as a
specific notice to the Trust on 30.09.2020, calling for objections
to the proposal for a Section 3C(1) Declaration.
11.17. The Church Trust filed its written objections and attended
the subsequent hearing on the proposal. It conveyed its
intention to redevelop the Subject Property on its own,
without the interference of a third-party. The Trust also
averred that the Subject Land was not densely populated,
and the structures thereon had sufficient ventilation, light,
sanitation, and facilities, considering which it should not be
designated as a slum.
11.18. The CEO after the hearing the parties, vide order dated
29.12.2020, rejected the objections of the Church Trust and
declared the Subject Slum as an SR Area. The Section 3C(1)
Declaration dated 29.12.2020 was published in the Official
Gazette on 31.12.2020, and the order and the declaration
were also forwarded by the SRA to the Church Trust on
05.01.2021.
11.19. Aggrieved, the Church Trust challenged the order dated
29.12.2020 through statutory appeal under Section 3C(2)11
bearing Application No. 20 of 2021 before the AGRC on
01.02.2021. The AGRC does not appear to have heard the
appeal even a single time, and it has remained pending to
date.
11.20. Following the declaration dated 29.12.2020, Saldanha
and the Church Trust filed their respective proposals for
redevelopment.
11.21. Saldanha filed its proposal dated 23.04.2021 in accordance
with SRA's Circular No. 14412 and Regulation 33(10) of the
11
Reproduced in Paragraph 8.
12
See Paragraph 38 of Tarabai (supra).
1396
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
DCPR 203413 for redevelopment of the Subject Slum. This
proposal was filed with support from Kadeshwari Society.
11.22. On the other hand, the Church Trust filed its proposal through
a letter dated 04.05.2021, sent by its architect to the SRA.
It envisaged the rehabilitation of the Subject Slum through
the aforementioned composite development of the Nirmala
Colony and included relevant maps and design plans. It was
clarified in the communication that the proposal was made
without prejudice to and subject to the outcome of Application
No. 20 of 2021. The Church Trust also submitted its composite
proposal before the BMC.
11.23. The record reveals that the SRA only took steps to consider
Saldanha's proposal, completing various internal processes
by July 2021. However, faced with the objection of the Church
Trust to this proposal, Kadeshwari Society submitted an
application on 09.09.2021 for the acquisition of the Subject
Land under Section 14.14
11.24. The SRA, in response to the above-stated application, issued
a public notice dated 29.10.2021, calling for objections from all
interested parties to the proposal for acquisition. The Church
Trust submitted its written objections, and in the course of
the acquisition proceedings, the representatives of the Trust
were also heard on 14.12.2021. Thereafter, another hearing
was set for 31.12.2021.
11.25. Before the second hearing could be conducted, the Executive
Engineer, SRA, vide order dated 22.12.2021, rejected the
Church Trust's proposal dated 04.05.2021. The reasons
given in the order were that: (i) the proposal was not within
the prescribed format; (ii) it was not submitted to the correct
authority/officer; and (iii) the proposal filed by Saldanha was
already being processed.
11.26. After the second hearing on 31.12.2021, anticipating
irreversible consequences of the acquisition, the Church Trust
moved the AGRC for an urgent interim stay on the Section
13
See Paragraph 35 of Tarabai (supra).
14
Reproduced in Paragraph 9.4.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
1397
Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v.
Bishop John Rodrigues and Others
3C(1) Declaration dated 29.12.2020, but it was promptly
declined on 07.01.2022.
11.27. The Church Trust, thus, aggrieved by the initiation of
acquisition proceedings, approached the High Court through
Writ Petition No. 1212 of 2022, seeking quashing of the
notice dated 29.10.2021.
11.28. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the SRA completed
the scrutiny of Saldanha's SR Scheme and granted an inprinciple approval on 28.03.2022. This acceptance was,
however, restricted to that area of the Subject Slum which
was on the BMC's land. It was clarified that consideration
for the proposal qua the Subject Land would be taken up
only after its acquisition was completed.
11.29. On the very next day, the CEO, vide order dated 29.03.2022,
approved the acquisition proposal on the premise that the
Church Trust had not filed an SR Scheme within 120 days.
The proposal for acquisition was, as such, directed to be
forwarded to the State Government for approval.
11.30. Consequently, the Church Trust sought to amend its Writ
Petition, which was allowed by the High Court, vide order
dated 08.04.2022, so as to enable the Church Trust to bring
these subsequent events on record. In the amended Writ
Petition, an additional prayer to set aside the order dated
29.03.2022 was also incorporated. The High Court, while
entertaining the amended Writ Petition, directed as an interim
measure that no further steps towards the acquisition would
be taken till the next date of hearing.