The Supreme Court of India clarified that slums categorized as 'censused slums' are inherently considered slums for redevelopment purposes under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slum Act"). As a result, these slums do not require a separate notification under Section 4 of the Act for redevelopment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that “if a slum is a 'censused slum', it is already included in the definition of slums under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) and does not need a separate notification under the Slum Act.”
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, who delivered the judgment, reiterated that Section 4 of the Slum Act is meant for identifying and declaring slum areas. However, since censused slums are already documented and recognized under the DCR, requiring a separate notification under Section 4 would be redundant.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Assam Government's Decision to Cancel Recruitment List Due to Irregularities
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a dispute over the redevelopment of a slum area in Mumbai. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) had issued notices to the occupants to vacate their premises for redevelopment. The appellants challenged these notices, arguing that the slum should be redeveloped under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) instead of SRA.
Chronology of Events:
2019: SRA issued a notice under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, directing the occupants to vacate their premises.
2019: The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) upheld the notice, dismissing the appellants' objections.
2022: After continued resistance from the occupants, SRA issued another notice in December, asking them to vacate within 48 hours.
2023: The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice.
2025: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's ruling and dismissed the appeal.
Appellants' Arguments:
- They were tenants of MHADA and paid rent, thus making MHADA responsible for redevelopment.
- The redevelopment lacked the mandatory 70% consent of slum dwellers.
- The land in question fell under MHADA’s jurisdiction, not SRA’s.
Respondents' Counterarguments:
- The land was categorized as a censused slum and therefore fell under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR.
- MHADA had issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC), confirming that the area was not part of a MHADA layout.
- The redevelopment was progressing with the approval of more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clarifies: Agreement to Lease Does Not Create Leasehold Rights Without Execution
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' claim of being MHADA tenants, stating:
“The appellants were never tenants of MHADA but were transit camp occupants. What they paid to MHADA was not rent but transit fees and other service charges.”
The Court further remarked:
“The appellants have only been using dilatory tactics to delay the project, as they were found to be ineligible slum dwellers.”
The Court also dismissed the argument regarding the 70% consent requirement, ruling that the majority of slum dwellers had already agreed to the redevelopment.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Censused slums are automatically eligible for redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR without requiring a separate notification.
MHADA-issued NOCs allow SRA to carry out redevelopment projects, even if the land was originally under MHADA’s ownership.
Delaying tactics by ineligible slum dwellers will not be entertained, especially when the project is in an advanced stage.
Courts will prioritize the interest of the majority of slum dwellers who have consented to redevelopment over the objections of a few occupants.
Case Title: MANSOOR ALI FARIDA IRSHAD ALI & OTHERS vs. THE TAHSILDAR-I, SPECIAL CELL & OTHERS
