G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. The judgment has been divided into the following sections to facilitate analysis:-
| SECTIONS | HEADING | PARA NOS. |
| A | Prologue | 2 to 7 |
| B | Conspectus of the concerns expressed by the Courts on the Slum Act | 8 to 29 |
| C | The Present Proceedings | 30 |
| D` | SUBMISSIONSSubmissions on behalf of Simpreet Singh, Hussain Indorewala, Ghar Haqq Sangharsh Samiti, Ms. Medha Patkar and Ms. Amita Bhide. * Issue No. I: Identification and Declaration of Land as Slum Land. * Issue No. II : Identification of Slum Dwellers * Issue No. V : Transit Accommodation – Project Affected Persons Scheme (PAPs) read with Issue VIII, i.e., Miscellaneous Issues | 31 to 34 |
| Submissions on behalf of Indira Nagar Slum, Prakash Kumbhar and Ekta CHS Association by Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate. | 35 to 37 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti – Intervenor:- (Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate | 38 to 50 | |
| Submissions on behalf of NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) in IA(L) 28730/2024 (Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Advocate) | 51 to 61 | |
| Submission on behalf of Mr. Vinay Hule and Mr. Ramesh Makhija in IA(L) No. 28730 of 2024 (Mr. Akash Rebello, Advocate) | 62 to 70 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Late Mr. Shirish Patel, Urban Planner: (Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate) | 71 to 74 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Nagardas Dharsi Bhuta Charities (land owner) (Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate) | 75 to 82 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Skycon Infrastructure, Private Landowner (Mr. Kirti Munshi, Senior Advocate) | 83 to 94 | |
| Submissions on behalf of NAREDCO West Foundation (Dr. Milind Sathe) | 95 & 96 | |
| Submissions on behalf of CREDAI-MCHI (Mr. Shardul Singh, Advocate) | 97 to 106 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. in IA/3024 of 2024 (Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate) | 107 to 111 | |
| Submissions on behalf of Shree Azad SRA CHS Ltd. (Mr. Altaf Khan, Advocate) | 112 to 121 | |
| Submissions of learned amiciSuggestions | 122 to 124125 | |
| Submissions on behalf of SRA (Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General) | 126 to 128 | |
| E | Discussion | 209 to 233 |
| F | Analysis/SuggestionsJourney of the Legislation Reasons for the Slums remaining as a dream on paper I. Lack of policy to protect lands from encroachments and prevent formation of slums. II. Vertical Slums III. Identification and demarcation of slum land IV. Role of the Slum Societies and their Controlling Authority V. Slum on Private Lands VI. Constitution of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) VII. Disputes on Annexure II VIII. Pool of Houses IX. Pool Public Housing X. Financing arrangement in regard to redevelopment of slum. XI. The requirement for a maximum density cap for rehabilitation to be fixed XII. Selection of Developers/Appointment of robust developer and quality of construction XIII. Apportionment of Slum Land XIV. Identification of slum dewellers and cut-off date freeze XV. Maintaining of town planning reservations | 234 to 236237 & 238 239 |
| Conclusion | 240-245 | |
| Epilogue | 246-247 | |
| Our Gratitude | 248-250 | |
| Appendix | From PageNo. 265 to 471 |
2. In several decisions of this Court, serious concerns were expressed on there being something drastically amiss in the implementation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Slum Act’), and more particularly considering the chaotic situation brought about by an avalanche of disputes reaching the Courts being generated under the Slum Act. The Courts were not mute spectators, as telling observations were made in several decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. These concerns stand succinctly captured in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers Vs. Harihar Krupa Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.((2024) 9 SCC 606). Their Lordships eminently felt that it was high time that there is a “performance audit” of the slum legislation expressing serious concerns on the implementation of the Slum Act. The Supreme Court, hence, intended that this Court, after hearing the stakeholders, make recommendations to the State Government on issues as underscored, and in terms of its observations made in paragraphs 59 to 66. Such observations read thus:
“59. The Executive branch has a constitutional duty to ensure that the purpose and object of a statute is accomplished while implementing it. It has the additional duty to closely monitor the working of a statute and must have a continuous and a real time assessment of the impact that the statute is having. As stated above, reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of Rule of Law. The purpose of such review is to ensure that a law is working out in practice as it was intended. If not, to understand the reason and address it quickly. It is in this perspective that this Court has, in a number of cases, directed the Executive to carry a performance/assessment audit of a statute or has suggested amendments to the provisions of a particular enactment so as to remove perceived infirmities in its working.
60. Constitutional courts are fully justified in giving such directions as they are in a unique position of perceiving the working of a statute while exercising judicial review, during which they could identify the fault-lines in the implementation of a statute. This extraordinary capacity to assess the working of a statute is available to the judicial institution because of its unique position where : (i) disputes, based on the statutory provisions unfold before it, (ii) claims of rights or allegations of dereliction of duties are raised with varied, and sometimes, contradictory interpretations of the same text of the statute, (iii) submissions of lawyers opens up a debate and as officers of the Court experienced lawyers would lay bare the fault-lines in the statutory scheme, (iv) many a times court silently witnesses the play of statutory power relegating the deserving to the backseat, and the undeserving taking away all the benefits.
61. Laws that are made by Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies create rights, entitlements, duties or liabilities. Application of such empowerments or disabilities gives rise to competing claims or conflicting interests. For resolution of these disputes, constitutional courts provide public law remedies [ Judicial control of administrative action in our country, the effective and the most prolific, has evolved from its classical scrutiny of ultra vires exercise of power, to a whole set of procedural and substantive principles, such as: legality, procedural propriety, reasonableness, legitimate expectation, proportionality, transparency, legal certainty, accountability, level playing field, consultation or participation, etc. These principles are now well entrenched in our judicial review processes and are part of our administrative law. In fact, bulk of judicial review proceedings initiated before the High Courts examine if the power exercised is within its bounds.] where claims and contestations are decided by the High Courts on a case-by-case basis. Judicial review is generally episodic, and is intended to resolve the lis on a case-to-case basis. Though cases are decided on their own merit and the lis disposed of, what is left behind is the institutional memory of the Court about the working of the statute and its interpretation preserved as precedents. Over a period of time, a critical mass of adjudicatory determinations on the working of the statute is built. This critical mass, coupled with the experiences gained by the Judges and the Court on the working of the statute, is of immense value for auditing the working of the legislation. It enables the court to assess whether the purpose and object of the Act is being achieved or not.
62. The traditional perception of the constitutional role of writ courts was confined to judicial review of executive and legislative action. In that role, the courts were to decide the vires of the legislative and executive actions based on constitutional parameters. Not only have the tools of judicial review been reinvented (the rise of the proportionality and arbitrariness doctrines) but also the breadth of the judicial power has substantially expanded to areas that were hitherto forbidden (review of policy decisions, constitutional amendments and continuing mandamus being prime examples). However, even this expansive reading of judicial review does not capture the essence of the judicial branch in its entirety.
63. There is yet another role which the judiciary can and ought to perform—that of facilitator of access to justice and effective functioning of constitutional bodies. In this role, the judiciary does not review executive and legislative actions, but only nudges and provides impetus to systemic reforms. The statute in question is one which was intended to benefit the marginalised and the impoverished. It is not easy for the intended beneficiaries of this legislation to carry their voice to legislative branch for effective reform. The exercise that this Court intends to direct presently is aimed at facilitating their access to legislative and executive reform, which this Court believes is an essential component of constitutional justice. That all justice is to be achieved only through courtroom debates is too myopic an understanding of constitutional justice. The facilitative role is not just inspired from the institutional role that the judiciary perceives for itself, but is also a directive of many of the fundamental rights in Part III and the cherished preambular vision of justice—social, economic and political.
64. A peculiar feature of how our legislative system works is that an overwhelming majority of legislations are introduced and carried through by the Government, with very few private member bills being introduced and debated. In such circumstances, the judicial role does encompass, in this Court's understanding, the power, nay the duty to direct the executive branch to review the working of statutes and audit the statutory impact. It is not possible to exhaustively enlist the circumstances and standards that will trigger such a judicial direction. One can only state that this direction must be predicated on a finding that the statute has through demonstrable judicial data or other cogent material failed to ameliorate the conditions of the beneficiaries. The courts will also do well, to arrive the very least, at a prima facie finding that much statutory schemes and procedures are gridlocked in bureaucratic or judicial quagmires that impede or delay statutory objectives. This facilitative role the judiciary compels audit of the legislation, promote debate and discussion but does not and cannot compel legislative reforms.
65. In light of the foregoing, considering that the Act is a State legislation, implementation of which lies with the State of Maharashtra, and till date no comprehensive statutory audit has been undertaken, we request the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to constitute a Bench to initiate suo motu proceedings for reviewing the working of the statute to identify the cause of the problems indicated in para 56. The Bench concerned will hear the Government, the statutory authorities, the necessary stakeholders including intended beneficiaries and perhaps take the assistance of some senior members of the Bar specialising in this area as Amici Curiae. We leave it to the High Court to devise such methods as it deems fit and appropriate.
66. Having examined the matter, the Bench may consider directing the Government to constitute a committee for performance audit of the Act. The court's jurisdiction extends only to that extent, and no further. The law-making, including amendments, is the exclusive domain of the legislature.”
(emphasis supplied)
3. In pursuance of such orders of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra), Hon’ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench to address the issue on the performance audit of the Slum Act, and more particularly in terms of the issues as set out in paragraph 56 of the said decision (supra).
4. The task, thus, assigned to this Bench is to identify the multitude of challenges and the problems in relation to the redevelopment of slums and more particularly the eight issues as flagged by the Supreme Court in paragraph 56 of the said judgment, so as to achieve the object of the legislation, which is to completely eradicate the slums by providing decent living to the slum dwellers and to achieve a vision of slum free cities.
5. It needs to be observed that the decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra) was rendered in the proceedings which were carried to the Supreme Court, from the orders passed by this Court in which this Court had made significant observations in regard to the infirmities in the implementation of the Slum Act derailing the object to be achieved by the legislation.
6. After the constitution of this Bench, we had requested Mr. Darius Khambata, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned Counsel, to assist the Court as Amici who have painstakingly assisted the Court on several issues which arise for consideration. We have also heard different stakeholders who are represented by learned Counsel Mr. Sukrit Parashar, Ms. Yashi Bhatt, Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Mr. Akash Rebello, Ms. Janvi Dutt, Mr. Joel Carlos, Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy), Mr. Arun Panickar, Ms. Sayali Apte with Ms. Anjali Maskar, Mr. Arjun Srivastava, Mr. Nitesh Acharya, Mr. Sandeep Dhangar, Mr. Ativ Patel and Mr. Y. R. Mishra.
7. The official respondents were represented with the lead submissions of Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General with Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. Government Pleader, Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. GP, Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP, Ms. Vrushali Kabre, AGP, Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP, Mr. Atul Vanarse, Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP for State.
B. Conspectus of the concerns expressed by the Courts on the Slum Act:
8. About four decades and six years back in State of Maharashtra v. Shri Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole(AIR 1980 Bom 348), the Division Bench of this Court made important observations concerning the purpose and functioning of the Slum Act. It was observed that in the years 1971 and 1973 Slum Acts were enacted as “intermediary remedial measures”, to address widespread slum conditions in Maharashtra. The other observations being : The objective of the legislation was to improve, regulate, clear, and redevelop slum areas, not to perpetuate them. Basic civic amenities provided to slum dwellers under the Acts are temporary arrangements and not permanent entitlements; they are meant only until slums are removed, and residents are shifted into proper housing. The Acts provide ad-hoc solutions necessitated by uncontrolled urban growth, making the complete absence of slums unrealistic in the immediate future. Without such legislation, slums could become a danger to public health, safety, and convenience, and a nuisance to surrounding areas. The State, as a welfare State, is obligated to regulate and control slums rather than accept them as permanent fixtures. The 1971 and 1973 Acts are consistent with and advance the objectives of the Town Planning Act, 1966, by facilitating orderly development and redevelopment. Achieving the goals of the Town Planning Act would be extremely difficult without the Slum Acts. These Acts must be read harmoniously as complementary modern solutions to urban problems. Though one may hope for a future where slum-related laws become unnecessary, that stage has not yet arrived. Authorities are therefore bound to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of these Acts until slums are fully eradicated. While considering the challenge to an order passed by the Tribunal constituted under the Slum Act on the issue of declaration of an area as a slum, the Division Bench made the following observations :-
“22. The two enactments viz., the 1971 and the 1973 Acts, are meant to provide for remedies of a nature basically intermediary in character. Taking cognizance of the large slum areas in certain parts of the State, the State Legislature thought it fit to pass legislation to make better provisions for the improvement and clearance of those areas as also for their re-development. The object of these two enactments is not to perpetuate slums but to regulate the same, clear the same and re-develop the property in question. The object also is to provide to the slum dwellers at large certain basic necessities such as water, sanitary arrangements, light etc. and these basic amenities are to be provided to the slum dwellers not as a matter of any permanent feature but indicated in the preamble to the 1973 Act:
"x x x until such time as these Slums are removed and the persons settled and housed in proper buildings.
23. The 1971 and the 1973 Acts are thus, to our mind, ad-hoc solutions to ad-hoc problems which problems have, to an extent, become inherent in the very growth, development and progress of modern towns and cities in the State. A dream situation would, of course, be total absence of any slums. But there seems to be a long way to go to realize the same. In the meanwhile, slums have arisen and do crop up. Necessity knows no law. But to accept these slums as they are would be the very negation of the duties of a modern welfare State. Since overnight clearance of slums appears to be a problem beyond the immediate reach of the State the State Legislature has rightly chosen the next rest step viz., to regulate and control the slums and to see to it that these do not become a source of danger to the health, safety and convenience not only of the slum dwellers but also the surrounding areas and to also see to it that these do not become a source of nuisance to the public. These are the very specific objects embodied in the preamble to the 1973 Act and for the fulfillment of which the said Act has been enacted.
24. The object of Town Planning Act is to make provision for planning the development and use of land, to make better provision for the preparation of development plan, to provide for the creation of new towns etc. The objects of the 1971 and the 1973 Acts is not, in our view, inconsistent with the object of the Town Planning Act, 1966. Indeed, the objects of the 1971 and the 1973 Acts are objects on steps in aid of the fulfillment of the objects and aims behind the Town Planning Act, 1966. The fulfillment of the objects and aims of the Town Planning Act, 1966, would become extremely difficult, if not well highly impossible, if laws such as the 1971 and the 1973 Acts are not passed and implemented. Absence of laws such as the 1971 and the 1973 Acts can itself result in frustrating or defeating at least some of the objects of the Town Planning Act, 1966. These three enactments have, therefore, to be read harmoniously and have to be construed accordingly. They are modern solutions and remedies to the ever-emerging new problems of modern times. Though one may hope for the times when Acts such as the Slum Areas Act, 1971, and the Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973, outlive their existence and are no longer round necessary for the purposes of fulfillment of the modern welfare activities of the State and though one may also hope for the times when slum areas would be a thing of the past, still till at least that stage arrives and is reached the community at large and citizens such as respondent No. 1 herein will have to accept and abide by the provisions of these laws.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
9. A Full Bench of this Court, in Sara Harry D’Mello Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors((2013) 4 Mah. L.J. 348), in the context of acquisition of land under Section 14(1) of the Slum Act, held that the acquisition of slum land under the Slum Act is not merely for the benefit of a larger number of persons residing in sub-human conditions in slums, but also to ensure that the improvement of their living conditions leads to an overall improvement in the urban economy, which is very much dependent on the labour force being supplied by the occupants of the hutments in the slums.
10. In Indian Cork Mills Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra(2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1214), the Court analyzed the legislative intent of the Slum Act and the rights of landowners in the context of compulsory acquisition. It was observed that the Court recognizes, the significant challenges, urban areas face in managing slums and balancing the rights of slum dwellers with the rights of private landowners whose lands are encroached. The central issue before the Court was whether private land could be compulsorily acquired for slum redevelopment, and whether landowners have a preferential right to redevelop their own property. The observations made by the Court are significant : Rapid industrialization led to mass migration to cities, creating overcrowding and large slum clusters on both public and private lands due to inadequate public housing and planning failures. Authorities often neglected to protect open lands from encroachment and also failed to utilize private lands appropriately, contributing to formation of slums and unhealthy living conditions. Slum-related problems were longstanding, with increasing complexity due to competing interests, monetary gains, and delays in slum rehabilitation projects. Article 21’s guarantee of the right to livelihood and dignity, along with Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39, 43 and 47), require the State to improve living conditions and public health. Slums posed dangers to health, safety, and morals, and existing municipal laws were insufficient; hence, a special comprehensive law (the Slum Act) was enacted for uniform management, improvement, and clearance of slums.
10.1 The Slum Act imposes onerous duties on authorities to improve slum conditions and facilitate redevelopment in a manner consistent with legislative intent. The Act creates statutory rights in favour of landowners and occupiers to undertake redevelopment, and such rights cannot be ignored merely because acquisition machinery exists. Acquisition must strictly follow Chapter I-A and cannot bypass or negate the statutory rights conferred on owners/occupants to undertake redevelopment themselves. The basic legislative objective includes participation of landowners in redevelopment, reflected in Sections 3B(4)(e) and 13(1) and (2); these rights cannot be overlooked is acquisition of land for redevelopment of the slums and rehabilitation of the slum dwellers on such land, under the Slum Act. Acquisition that ignores or overrides these participatory rights would be contrary to the legislative scheme and is not permissible. A harmonious interpretation is required so that land acquisition is used only when the statutory purpose of redevelopment cannot be achieved by any other method. The Court held that Section 14 acquisition powers must be exercised fairly and only when the owner/occupant fails to submit or execute a redevelopment scheme within a reasonable time after being called upon. There is no fixed statutory time frame for landowners/occupants to submit redevelopment proposals; what is reasonable depends on the facts and circumstances. Before acquisition, authorities must record reasons showing why redevelopment by the owner was not possible and how acquisition became necessary. The owner must always be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause before any order under Section 13(1) or Section 13(2) is passed. Acquisition without such procedural fairness violates Article 300-A (Right to Property) and cannot be sustained. The Court acknowledged that while FSI incentives under the Slum Act help eradicate slums, involving private developers, however this can introduce strong commercial interests which may dominate, making public accountability essential. Authorities need to strike a dual balance between public interest and legitimate private developer interests so that the scheme remains viable and fair. Many slum projects fail or stagnate because developers with insufficient expertise or wherewithal are appointed, Courts often encounter such cases. Where the landowner himself is willing and capable of redeveloping the slum on his land, the law recognizes his right to do so, and such right must be honoured before resorting to acquisition. There is nothing illegitimate in permitting the landowner to redevelop his own slum-affected land; only upon his persistent failure can compulsory acquisition be justified. In the context of the rights of owners of private land being peremptory which would override the interest of slum dwellers in relation to the acquisition of private land by the slum authority for redevelopment of slums, the Court made the following pertinent observations:
“3. In recent times in all urban areas we see large scale building activities, city of Mumbai is not an exception and in fact would be the epicenter of such activity, with skyscrapers being built wherever land is available and the city has to grow only vertically. Apart from slums on public lands there are as well slums on large private lands. Thus large part of the development activity is also the development of slums and slum rehabilitation areas. What would be the nature of the statutory rights of private owners of land, in re-development of such slum areas under the Slum Act? Whether the owner of the land would have a preferential right to undertake re-development or the only method to redevelop such areas would be to resort to compulsory acquisition of such private land are the question as posed in this petition.
.......
44. It would be apposite to consider the statutory background in which the controversy in the petition would fall. There are too many causes which are attributable for creation of slums in urban areas. Rapid growth of industries resulted in mass migration of population from rural areas to the urban centres. This for the reason that places outside the urban areas were not proving sufficient and fulfilling the requirements of the means of livelihood, which were primarily depending on agriculture and other allied activities. This resulted into overcrowding of the urban areas coupled with lack of housing facilities, which created development of large slums in the urban centers and heavily so in and around Greater Mumbai as also other urban areas in, Maharashtra. The development in urban activities and business did not find a corresponding development in the housing sector, much less a provision for a decent housing for such large migrant population. Also lack of planning by the concerned authorities to cater to the housing requirements, the neglect of the authorities to safeguard open public lands from encroachment as also the apathy of the private landlords to prevent encroachment and/or to neglect the appropriate use of land so as to prevent them being converted as slums by the occupants, added to the urban problems. Consequently in the absence of affordable public and private housing, large population was compelled to reside in slums in unhealthy and unhygienic conditions. It is difficult to visualize the number of slums which are created on public and private lands in the city of Mumbai, where land is limited. As the history unfolds the problems are not recent. They are further aggravated and have become complex and more particularly due to variety of interests playing active roles in slum projects, rehabilitation projects in anticipation of monetary gains. This has been the general scenario in such litigation, with which the Court is frequently confronted.
45. We have one of the most ideal Constitution providing for a variety of fundamental and other legal rights guaranteed to our citizens. Part III, of the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, under which Article 21 confers right to livelihood, which has been interpreted to mean, that a person is entitled to live a life of dignity and not just an animal life. Further the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Part IV of the Constitution, under Article 38 and 39 provide for the welfare of the people and the policy to be followed by the State. Article 43 and 47 are also relevant when it comes to the obligations of the State to secure adequate standard of living and improvement of public health.
46. Undoubtedly, slums had created menace to the safety, health and morals of the inhabitants. There were multiple municipal laws in operation, there was no uniformity in the provisions of these enactments as also the provisions were not sufficient to improve the situation. It is for this reason the legislature thought it appropriate to enact a special law to deal with the improvement clearance and development of slum areas. The Slum Act was accordingly enacted inter alia to make better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State, for redevelopment as also for the protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants. The Slum Act, was brought into force with effect from 11 August 1971. This legislation casts onerous duties on the authorities. How far the same are discharged and whether at all effectively to achieve the object of the legislation, are larger issues which all the concerned need to ponder.
67. In our opinion considering the in-built mechanism which is available under the clear provisions of section 3B(4)(c) and (e), Section 13(1) and (2) of the Slum Act, which empower the SRA to develop the land by entrusting it to any agency recognized by it, any interpretation of the compulsory acquisition provision (Section 14), oblivious to the due consideration of these specific provisions of the Act, which enable the SRA to bring about a re-development of the slum rehabilitation areas without acquisition of the land, would amount to defeating such specific provisions and creating unwarranted concentration of coercive and arbitrary power of acquisition with the SRA.
74. ……….The law nowhere provides an automatic mandatory obligation on any person to undertake a redevelopment scheme on the declaration of such area as a slum or a slum rehabilitation area and in our opinion rightly so. In the present case this issue would also go to the root of the matter as the decision to acquire has been taken by the State Government for the sole and the only reason that the petitioner had not submitted a scheme for the redevelopment of the land, which in fact is a reason available for the SRA to pass an order under section 13(1) of the Act (as falling under Chapter IA) to appoint an agency and entrust the re-development to such agency.
75. ……....Thus unless it is determined for reasons to be recorded in writing, as to how it is an unreasonable delay in submitting a scheme, this conclusion to be the basis of acquisition, cannot satisfy the test of fairness and reasonableness, and more particularly when the SRA/State Government is depriving the person of the valuable constitutional right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
79. No doubt the above rules conferring FSI benefits are a laudable piece of legislation which enables the authorities to eradicate the slums in urban areas, however when such redevelopment involves third parties to be appointed and approved by the authorities to undertake the redevelopment, commercial interest become dominant. Such interest are bound be varied depending on the quantum of the area and the location of the slums. Thus the authorities in discharging their public duties under the Slum Act are required to satisfy a dual test namely of balancing the public interest and at the same time taking care of the legitimate private interest so that the scheme becomes viable. This includes appointment of such private parties to undertake development who possess technical ability coupled with substantial ability to undertake such schemes. We can surely take judicial notice of the litigation which has reached this court where, slum projects are languishing for want of such parties not completing the projects or abandoning the projects and variety of complications arising from such half executed projects. We have felt the need to record this for the reason that, many of such projects may pertain to lands which are acquired under the Slum Act. Thus if the land owner is himself interested to develop the land and that law confers such rights on the landowner/landholder or the occupant then it would surely be in the fitness of things that such legal rights are first recognized before the other powers are invoked. There can be nothing illegitimate in the landowner himself being granted an opportunity of redeveloping his land under slums, instead of another developer doing it and only on his persistent failure the authority can certainly resort to acquire the land.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
11. In Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.((2018) 2 SCC 230), the Court interpreted the scope of SRA’s powers under Section 13(2) and related provisions. The Supreme Court rejected the submission that SRA has unlimited powers under Section 13(2); instead, it held that SRA may take over the project only in specific situations, namely: (i) Contravention of plans approved; (ii) Breach of restrictions/conditions imposed under Section 12(10); (iii) Failure to complete development within time. The requirement of timely completion flows from the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by SRA and from agreements between slum-dwellers and the developer; violation triggers Section 13(2). When there is a clearance order under Section 12(10), SRA’s power to act arises only if conditions in the clearance order are violated; otherwise, SRA cannot automatically invoke Section 13(2). Even assuming SRA had no express power under Section 13(2), it still possesses the authority to cancel the LOI because the LOI is issued by SRA itself; hence, SRA cannot be powerless to revoke it. SRA’s powers are also derived from Section 3-A(3)(c) & (d), which require SRA to ensure implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and take all necessary steps for achieving the objective of slum rehabilitation. These provisions show that SRA is not merely empowered but is duty-bound to intervene where needed, especially when slum-dwellers have suffered for decades because of delays by developers. In this case, Susme Builders had a dual role, first as the power-of-attorney holder of the owner and as a developer appointed by the society, which heightened the conflict. Since the redevelopment work could not proceed without SRA’s permission, SRA retained the power to revoke such permission due to the developer’s unjustified delay. The Court held that SRA’s action in removing Susme from the project after a 25-year delay was justified, as slum-dwellers had suffered enough and the statutory objective of rehabilitation demanded intervention. The observations made by the Supreme Court are as follows :-
45. We cannot accept such a wide submission. According to us, under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, the SRA has the authority to take action and hand over the development of land to some other recognised agency under three circumstances:
(i) When there is contravention of the plans duly approved;
(ii) When there is contravention of any restriction or condition imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12 of the Slum Act; and
(iii) When the development has not taken place within time, if any, specified.
46. The requirement to complete the development within time may be there in the letter of intent issued by the SRA or may be in the agreement entered into between the owner/developer with the slum-dwellers. Such condition, if violated, would attract the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. Over and above that, when a clearance order is passed, then in terms of sub-section (10) of Section 12, the competent authority can include a condition with regard to the time within which the development should be completed and, in that case, also Section 13(2) would be attracted. We are not, however, able to accept the very wide argument that in case of delay, the condition that is violated must be laid down under Section 12(10) of the Slum Act.
47. There may be cases where the slum-dwellers do not offer any resistance and willingly consent to move into transit accommodation provided by the owner/developer. Therefore, the conditions laid down under Section 12(10) will come into play only when there is a clearance order, but in case there is no clearance order, then under Section 13(2), the SRA would be empowered to take action when there is violation of any plan or when there is violation of any condition relating to developing the project within time. The time-limit can, some time, be provided in the letter of intent, in the agreement or even in the regulations.
48. Having held so, we are of the view that Shri Darius Khambata, learned Senior Counsel, is right in his submission that normally under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, action by the SRA has to be taken against the owner. Here, we may repeat that this is a unique case where the slum-dwellers are the members of the owner Society. The Society, in turn, has given power of attorney to the builder. The builder virtually has two roles—one as developer and the other as power-of-attorney holder of the owner. Both are closely interlinked and inextricably mixed with each other. Therefore, though normally we would have accepted the contention that under Section 13(2) action can only be taken against the owner, in the present case, we are unable to accept this contention in its totality. We may point out that even the SRA, in its order, has itself noted that since the Society is the owner of the plot of land, it is empowered and within its right to terminate the agreement executed with the said developer for breaches committed by the developer. It has, however, held that a private dispute between the Society and the developer cannot prevent the SRA from discharging its obligations. The SRA agreed with the submission made by the Society that Susme had not completed the project within time. It has taken action under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. The action taken by the SRA is to remove Susme as developer which amounts to cancelling the letter of intent issued in favour of Susme.
49. Otherwise, there would be an anomalous situation where the Society would have terminated its contract with Susme but the letter of intent issued by the SRA would continue to hold the field and it would be entitled to develop the land. The Society approached the SRA, in fact, asking it to take action against Susme. Since the SRA is the authority which issued the letter of intent, it will definitely have the power to cancel the letter of intent.
50. We are of the considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the slum-dwellers are virtually the owners of the land as members of the owner Society, the SRA had the power under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act to issue the order dated 24-2-2012.
Whether the SRA has any other power to remove the developer
51. Even if we were to assume that the SRA did not enjoy this power under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, we are of the considered view that since it was the SRA which issued this letter of intent, it necessarily must have the power to cancel the same. The SRA can also derive this power under clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Slum Act, which read as under:
“3-A. Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint an authority to be called the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification; and different authorities may be appointed for different areas.
***
(3) The powers, duties and functions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be—
***
(c) to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implemented;
(d) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation of slums.”
52. A bare reading of these provisions shows that in terms of clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 3-A of the Slum Act, the SRA not only has the power, but it is duty-bound to get the slum rehabilitation scheme implemented and to do all such other acts and things as will be necessary for achieving the object of rehabilitation of slums. In this case, the SRA was faced with a situation where the slum-dwellers were suffering for more than 25 years and, therefore the action taken by SRA to remove Susme for the unjustified delay was totally justified.
53. A perusal of the various provisions of the Slum Act would show that normally in a case falling under the Slum Act, it is the owner of the land, whether it be the Government, a statutory authority or a private person, who will be interested in the development work. Normally, the occupiers will be encroachers of slum land. Therefore, there will be a conflict of interest between the occupiers and the owner. The owner, in turn, will always engage a developer/builder to carry out the development work. In case the owner gives a power of attorney to the developer, as in the present case, the developer now has two identities — (i) the power-of-attorney holder of the owner, and (ii) the developer. As far as the present case is concerned, the Society is made up of the members who are occupiers and this Society has given power of attorney to the developer Susme. Therefore, the developer Susme is actually having a dual role of owner and developer. Both the letters of intent have been issued in favour of the Society, Susme and the architects of Susme. Susme could not have carried out the development work on the basis of its agreement with the Society. It needed the permission of the SRA. Therefore, SRA can obviously revoke such permission.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
12. In Galaxy Enterprises Vs. State of Maharashtra(2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897), this Court expressed serious systemic concerns about the functioning of slum rehabilitation in Mumbai. The Court noted that the Supreme Court and High Court decisions emphasized the need for expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers living in inhuman conditions, to fulfill the object of the Slum Act. Despite the long existence of the Slum Act (1971). It was observed that large number of disputes on such front still reaching was indication of the fact that slum eradication and rehabilitation efforts are not functioning with the required efficiency and direction. The observations of the Division Bench inter alia touched the following :
“12.1 Slum dwellers often lack knowledge of slum redevelopment schemes and are vulnerable to manipulation by so-called leaders and developers, leading to mistrust, disputes, and derailment of rehabilitation projects. Many slum schemes remain incomplete for years and are stuck in litigation or administrative delays, defeating the very purpose of speedy slum redevelopment. The Court questioned whether the SRA has a robust panel of genuine developers with the technical and financial capacity to undertake redevelopment, noting that the selection process must be open, fair, and transparent. The burden on slum dwellers to appoint developers and pursue redevelopment was unreasonable; the State and SRA must take a more proactive role to ensure professional, time-bound redevelopment. Redevelopment must be undertaken by honest, credible, and trustworthy developers appointed through the SRA or other statutory bodies and not left solely to the slum dwellers who lack capacity and resources. The Government and SRA must urgently examine systemic failures and devise a foolproof mechanism to resolve recurring issues and implement the beneficial objectives of the Slum Act.
12.2 The Court criticized the authorities for adopting a myopic approach, failing to enforce statutory obligations, and allowing slum schemes to remain stagnant for years without satisfactory explanation. The authorities must monitor schemes closely, ensure commencement and timely completion, and prevent delays that defeat the Slum Act’s objectives. Developers or agents who exploit slum projects for commercial gain must be reprimanded and prevented from treating redevelopment as a mere commodity. The SRA cannot continue with a developer when the society loses confidence in him; a developer appointment is not absolute and must serve the purpose and object of rehabilitation.
12.3 In cases where land belongs to MHADA or the State, it is the responsibility of these authorities to ensure prompt rehabilitation of slum dwellers, and their inaction or neglect cannot be justified. The record of the court proceedings showed that MHADA and State authorities failed to utilize the law effectively and allowed private developers to take over, leaving slum dwellers helpless. The Court stressed the need for a concrete government policy and a panel of reputed developers who can genuinely implement rehabilitation schemes efficiently. Dealing with government land requires responsible exercise of public power, and the State cannot abdicate its responsibility by leaving matters entirely to private developers. Effective guidance, strong policy direction, and timely action from the State are essential, especially in cities like Mumbai, where land scarcity makes slum redevelopment critically important. The State must urgently adopt such measures in Mumbai and other fast-developing cities before the situation becomes irreversible. Considering the volume of disputes reaching the Court under the Slum Acts, the Court made the following observations :-
“3. There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers, who live in inhuman conditions, so as to achieve in letter and spirit, the object and intention of a fairly old State legislation namely the "Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971". Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stake is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, being conferred on the holders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and skepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before Courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one form to another.
4. Can the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not have a robust panel of bonafide developers who have genuine business interest to redevelop slums, of course with commercial benefits as conferred under the rules, and who can be appointed by an open and fair scheme of selection and allotment of slum projects and who would be accountable to the Authority.
5. It is high time that, learning from the past experiences, the burden on the ill equipped slum dwellers to be responsible to appoint developers and pursue the redevelopment scheme is removed and to do away the ordeal of the slum dwellers to go on knocking the doors of different authorities for years together when the developers fail to perform. Redevelopment to be undertaken professionally and in a time bound manner is the need of the day, even to fulfill the ideals, which the Government intends to achieve. What is necessary is the initiative of a redevelopment, by genuine, honest and trustworthy developers appointed through the Slum Authority or any other Special Body created for the said purpose and not to leave it to the slum dwellers to re-develop the slums. This for the reason that the slum dwellers are supposed to be merely interested in their rehabilitation and can have no other interest. All these efforts are necessary, as a step forward to achieve an object of having an ideal city free of slums. It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to device a substantial, nay a foolproof mechanism, by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.
57. There cannot be a myopic approach to these issues of a delay in implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Things as they stand are required to be seen in their entirety. The only mantra for the slum schemes to be implemented is it's time bound completion and a machinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have effective measures in that direction to monitor the schemes as a part of their statutory obligation to avoid delays. Non-commencement of the slum scheme for long years and substantial delay in completion of the slum schemes should be a thing of the past. In the present case, looked from any apple there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the delay of so many years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum, steps to commence construction.
58. The authorities should weed away and reprimand persons who ate hot genuine developers and who are merely agents and dealers in slum schemes. These persons after get themselves appointed as I developers, yo ultimately deal/sell the slum schemes, as if it is a commodity. Any loopholes in the rules to this effect, therefore, are required to be sealed.
60. In any case, the developer cannot be said to possess a vested right which would mandate the SRA to continue it's appointment, for such delay and when the body appointing the said developer namely the society itself, in the given set of facts, bonafide and for an acceptable reasons, lacks confidence in the petitioner as appointed by Between the slum society and the developer, it is merely a contractual dispute, It cannot be said that the society in adverse circumstances would have no authority in a resolution so passed by the majority to remove a developer. The role of the S.R.A. under law is to further the interest of the slum scheme by exercise of it's powers in the best interest of the slum redevelopment and pass such appropriate orders to achieve the said object, in exercising its power inter alia under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act.
65. Before parting, it needs to be noted that the land in question is a land belonging to the State Government/MHADA and if the land is under slums and the occupants are suffering, whether it would also not be the responsibility of the MHADA considering the provisions of Chapter IX of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976, being a chapter on "Environmental Improvement of Slums", providing for Section 104 to Section 113 of the said Act, to take time to time actions and consider with utmost priority the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers?. It clearly appears that in the present case, the entire re-development of the slums is left in the hands of the developer by the slum dwellers, who are struggling to appoint one developer after another. The MHADA appears to be an absolute alien when all these actions are being taken by the society. Already, about three developers are appointed by the Society including the present developer M/s. Bindra, as noted above, despite this whether the slum dwellers will at all see the light of the day, is a factor which is required to be seriously considered by the slum rehabilitation authority and the MHADA by having a compliance and a follow up mechanism. It is high time that at least in regard to the slums on government lands or land belonging to a public bodies, the government needs to have a concrete and effective policy and which include a panel of reputed contractors/developers which would genuinely undertake and implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and bring a speedy and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers. This is required to be observed for the simple reason that the record in the present petition would clearly show that the MHADA or the State authorities have not utilised and/or have turned a blind eye to the provisions of the law to take effective steps in the larger interest of the society, instead things were completely left at the hands of a private developer and the helpless sum dwellers. Dealing with the Government land certainly involves dealing with the public largess. Surely the hands of the State and its authorities are not so weak. What is required is a willingness and an able and authoritative guidance from those who wield these powers for public good. As noted, it would be for the good wisdom of the State and its policy makers to deliberate on these issues which are "also" of immense importance to a city like Mumbai where large parts of the limited lands are under slums. Such approach also needs to be timely adopted for the other fast developing cities in Maharashtra, where the government land is scarce, before it is too late.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
13. In Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.((2022) 2 Mh. L.J. 382), the Division Bench of this Court addressed issues of encroachment on government land and the limits of rehabilitation rights. The Court held that encroachers on Government land do not acquire any right under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme merely because they have remained on such land for some time. The State’s policy to protect slum dwellers cannot be stretched to elevate their occupation of Government land into a protected or permanent right. Slum dwellers can only be rehabilitated on the same land if feasible, or else in nearby alternate accommodation; they cannot insist on retaining possession of Government land. Encroachment on public land cannot be tolerated, and prompt action is required to remove encroachments, especially where authorities knowingly allow such occupation for long periods. Long-standing encroachments create a false expectation in encroachers that they are entitled to rehabilitation at public cost, which is contrary to Government policies. Negligence of officers in failing to protect public lands forces the State to later acquire private lands for public projects, causing unnecessary financial burden and wastage of taxpayer money. The Court criticized Government policies that effectively reward encroachers by granting free rehabilitation benefits, describing such policies as contrary to public trust principles. The Court questioned whether any audit had been undertaken to assess the extent of Government land lost to encroachments and steps taken to prevent further loss. Loss of public land due to encroachments affects the availability of land for essential public institutions and utilities, undermining the functioning of the democratic system. The State must restore encroached Government lands and ensure they are used strictly for public purposes; genuine political will is required to protect public property. Encroachers on Government land cannot demand rehabilitation as a matter of right, nor can such a right be equated with ownership or compensation. The intention of the Slum Act and State policies is not to compensate encroachers for occupation of Government land but to rehabilitate slum dwellers in accordance with lawful policy. If the petitioners’ stand were accepted, it would become impossible for the State to undertake public projects on Government land for the larger public good. The Court in the said decision observed that encroachers on Government land have no right under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and made the following observations :-
“9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at the outset, we may observe that the petitioners, who initially encroached on the Government land and who had remained on the same for sometime so as to fall within the beneficial policy of the State Government of being protected slum dwellers, cannot elevate their protection to such an extent that such slum dwellers have to be rehabilitated either on the same land, if any remaining after the project work is completed or they be provided a permanent alternate accommodation within the vicinity. In our clear opinion, any encroachment on public land at the threshold ought not to be tolerated and prompt action is required to be taken to remove such encroachment, more particularly when those who are custodians of the public land are well aware that encroachments for long periods will clothe the encroachers with rights to seek rehabilitation at public costs under the prevalent Government policies. It is not new that valuable Government land on account of the negligent approach of the officers in charge by not protecting such lands from encroachment have stood extinguished from the Government's holding, causing a serious cascading effect, namely, that whenever land is required for any public purpose, the Government is required to acquire the same from private holdings, causing an unwarranted burden on the public exchequer and a sheer waste of the tax payers money. This for the reason that the Government despite its mighty machinery did not protect its valuable land and permitted to be encroached to be developed by the slum dwellers and their developer, with the Government nowhere in the picture. Such inaction, in our opinion, amounts to grossest violation of the public trust doctrine as a result of the patent abuse of the powers vested in such Government machinery in not protecting public property. We also have a grave doubt about the policy of the State Government which rewards the encroachers of the public land by a free of cost accommodation. In our opinion, such policies qua the Government land nor only violate the principles of equality but certainly fall foul of the doctrine of public trust. We wonder as to whether at any point of time an audit in regard to the encroached Government land or lands belonging to public authorities in the State of Maharashtra was undertaken. As to how many such lands have vanished due to encroachment and as to what steps have been taken to preserve such lands are questions which need to be answered to “we the people", and accountability fixed for negligence in this regard. We say so, as there can be no two opinions that even land for important public institutions and other government utilities is not available, which certainly has adversely affected the very functioning of such institutions in a democratic set up. We hope that the Government awakens on such issues before it is too late and restores all the encroached Government lands for the benefit of public and strictly to be used for public purposes. This would certainly require a genuine political will and consciousness towards larger public benefit.
10. The petitioners occupying Government land cannot take such an adamant stand as canvassed by them, when they are occupying Government land. Mere rights of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership or as if it is some compensation being offered to the slum dwellers for their encroachment and occupation of Government land. This is neither the intention nor the object even of the slum legislation and slum policies of the State Government. The insistence of the petitioners if accepted and that too in the context of the 'State' undertaking such public projects, it would be impossible to plan any such project using the Government land for the benefit of the public at large.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
14. In High Court on its own motion (In the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Ors.(2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386), the Division Bench of this Court, while exercising PIL jurisdiction, made extensive observations on illegal constructions, slum proliferation, and administrative failure. The Court reiterate that the main object of the Slum Act is the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers living in inhuman conditions, but the rising volume of disputes shows that this objective is not being achieved in practice. Persistent disputes arise because slum dwellers are unaware of redevelopment processes and are often misled by so-called “leaders” influenced by developers, resulting in loss of trust and prolonged litigation. Many slum redevelopment schemes remain incomplete for years, and the existing system fosters delays, lack of transparency, and exploitation of slum dwellers, defeating the very purpose of the Slum Act.
15. Appointment of developers must be based on fairness, transparency, and credibility, as unfit or dishonest developers derail schemes and cause immense hardship to slum dwellers. The burden cannot be placed entirely on slum dwellers to monitor developers; the State must adopt foolproof mechanisms, maintain strict oversight, and ensure timely completion. There must be no myopic approach; authorities are required to actively monitor progress, enforce statutory obligations, and prevent delays in commencement and completion of schemes. Authorities must reprimand and restrain non-genuine developers and middlemen who treat slum redevelopment as a commodity, thereby defeating public purpose. The Court emphasizes that the SRA must act in the larger interest of slum dwellers, including removing developers who fail to perform, even if societies initially appointed them.
16. Encroachers on government land cannot claim an equivalent right to rehabilitation; mere rehabilitation benefits cannot be elevated to ownership rights or be treated as compensation for encroachment. Government cannot be compelled to spare public land for encroachers in a manner that obstructs public projects; policies must not reward illegal occupation of valuable government land. Sustained encroachment on government land is often encouraged by authorities’ inaction, creating massive losses to the exchequer and incentivizing further encroachment. Such policies violate the public trust doctrine, as public land is diverted to private hands under the guise of slum rehabilitation, contrary to constitutional obligations. Long-standing failure to audit encroached public lands and fix accountability of negligent officers has allowed encroachments to proliferate and public land to vanish without trace. Illegal construction, unauthorized encroachments, and the collapse of structures reflect systemic lawlessness and administrative apathy, severely threatening public safety. Political influence, vested interests, and slumlords create an environment where enforcement is weak, illegal structures remain, and public land is continuously grabbed.
17. Numerous circulars issued by the State to remove encroachments and unauthorized constructions were never effectively implemented, turning official directives into “dead letters.” The municipal corporation and planning authorities have statutory duties to verify and remove unauthorized structures, including those in slum areas, but have consistently failed to act.
18. Section 47 of the Slum Act does not restrict the planning authority’s power to act against illegal structures in slum areas; authorities cannot use the Slum Act as an excuse for inaction. Dereliction of duty by municipal and government officers has aided the proliferation of slums, the grabbing of government land, and structural dangers, forcing citizens to seek refuge in slums. The MCGM, as planning authority, retains jurisdiction to take action against unauthorized and illegal structures across the entire Mumbai region, even in slum areas. Authorities must not succumb to external pressures or vested interests; they must enforce construction, planning, and slum laws rigorously to prevent future calamities.
19. Illegal encroachments and unauthorized constructions divide society into two classes, firstly of law-abiding citizens who suffer, and secondly, those who profit by violating the law with impunity, often with official support. Rewarding encroachers with free tenements encourages illegality and siphons public land for private gain, directly breaching constitutional governance norms.
20. Public officials who fail to discharge their duties or evade accountability undermine the rule of law and derail constitutional machinery; courts are compelled to intervene to restore public confidence. Anti-corruption mechanisms must be strengthened due to rampant corruption in municipal governance, where officers deliberately avoid action against illegalities. Exponential growth of slums and illegal constructions stems from the absence of long-term planning and failure to create adequate mass housing for the working population.
21. Migrant workforce needs legitimate housing, and unplanned slum growth cannot substitute for state’s failure; the right to housing is part of Article 21 and international human rights law. Mumbai’s severe housing burden and massive inequalities between luxury developments and surrounding slums reflect systemic planning failures and disregard for public needs. Despite large municipal budgets, the State and corporations fail to allocate adequate financial resources for affordable housing and proper urban planning. A dangerous nexus exists among politicians, developers, bureaucrats, and slumlords, enabling encroachment, regularization, and later redevelopment for private profit under the guise of helping slum dwellers. Laws designed to protect weaker sections are misused to facilitate commercial exploitation, betraying public trust and constitutional values. Governance has become driven by political motives rather than constitutional obligations, with the ultimate casualty being the compassionate Constitution and public welfare. The following are some of the significant observations made by the Court :-
“3. We are informed by the Corporation that a vast portion of the scarce land in the city is under slums, which includes all kinds of lands, namely, the State Government lands, land belonging to public bodies as also to a small extent, private lands. The percentage of population in Mumbai and outskirts is also too large. We wonder, that when slums are openly allowed to proliferate on scarce and valuable public land, whether the well established principles under the “rule of law” at all prevails in relation to the rules, to transfer ownership of such lands from the “State” to the private parties. Something which possibly does not happen elsewhere in the country, is what has pained us, namely, that sustained encroachment on valuable government land in this city is encouraged to the benefit of encroachers and developers and becomes available for commercial exploitation. It cannot be expected, that on executive instructions and subordinate legislation, the State’s ownership of land stands divested. The severity is such that when this land is being taken away by these forces, the owner of the land, namely, the Government or a public body and sometimes the private owner (if fails to assert his rights), has no say whatsoever. It becomes a situation of fait accompli. Is this the manner in which the law would require scarce public largesse or private land to be siphoned off, merely because it has the garb of a slum? Whether or not the doctrine of public trust applies when the government land is taken away in a manner not known to the Constitution? Whether the might of the unscrupulous forces is so strong that even the law makers would turn a blind eye to such Constitutional requirements ? These are some of the issues raising a deeper concern when we think about collapse of structures in the slum areas.
45. There can be no two opinions that the issues of encroachment on public land, mushrooming of slums on such lands and illegal constructions on such land, as also, on any open land in the city, and the total collapse of the machinery available in law to control these issues, adversely affecting the urban agglomeration, is a sad story of an invited misery and a massive failure on the part of the State Government and the municipal bodies. An overview of these adversities, depicts a sorry and painful state of affairs, having a harmful and an overbearing effect not only on those who are residing in the slums and unauthorized constructions, but also, the hard impact it creates on the infrastructure in cities and the continuous and successive damage to the limited resources. The consequence of all this, is ghastly and harmful. As to what is in store for the future generations cannot be imagined. Admittedly, these are larger issues to be effectively looked into by the policy makers before things further worsen, albeit there appears to be a stage of no return, unless aggressive planning and commitment to the constitutional principles is kept at the forefront by the policy makers. Happening of encroachments, unauthorized and illegal structures being put up and deliberate neglect to these issues, when all this is unpleasantly happening before the open eyes and to the knowledge of the authorities, is not without purpose. From the report of the learned Commissioner, it appears to be a deep rooted menace, perpetrated for years together, which has ruined the cities and its scare resources. There are vested interests as pointed out by the learned Commissioner, namely political interest, slumlords and ultimately the cancer of corruption, which is the primary cause, for the authorities not taking action to remove illegal structures which continue to exist for years together.
46. However, it clearly appears that the State Government being aware of the grabbing of Government lands at the hands of these unscrupulous elements, from time to time, issued directives to the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Authority and other Chief Officers of the local authorities. Such directives made it incumbent to take all steps to protect the Government lands, by preventing grabbing of lands by encroachment and to register criminal complaints of such encroachment and taking stern action of demolition of the unauthorized constructions and unauthorized hutments. However, it appears that the said directives at all material times have remained to be dead letters. Learned Commissioner has referred to some of the Circulars, which, if were to be implemented in its letter and spirit, the scenario would have been completely different, from what it prevails today. The city would have been a better place to live. Hundreds of Government lands could have been saved, to be utilized for public purposes. The circulars are certainly binding on the Government and its officers, provided the officers had an intention to look at them. The directives as contained in some of the Circulars are required to be noted with particular emphasis of their relevant contents. They read thus: (I) By Government Circular dated September 19, 2003 issued to the CEO, SRA, Additional Collector (Encroachment & Removal), Mumbai City, Eastern Suburb, Western Suburb and the Director, Mumbai Development Division, on removal of unauthorized constructions and unauthorized hutments on semi-Government and private lands, guidelines were issued stating that day by day encroachment, illegal constructions and illegal hutments are increasing on such category of lands and such activities are required to be controlled and which were sought to be controlled by various circulars as referred in the reference in the said circular. This circular stated that the respective divisions would be primarily responsible to protect such land, however, as the concerned division did not protect the lands, illegal constructions setting up of unauthorized hutments have taken place and have increased. It was directed that the concerned Division to take immediate steps to prepare a scheme to protect the lands. The circular records that all unauthorized hutments and illegal constructions in the hutment areas put up after 1 January 1995 should immediately be removed. It was also provided that if these instructions are not implemented by the concerned officer or there is negligence or delay in taking such action, in that event the proceedings would be initiated against him as per the provisions of the Slums Act. The officers were also instructed that in regard to the unauthorized constructions, the concerned officer shall meticulously and from time to time adhere to the different directives of the State Government. (II) By a further Circular dated September 7, 2010, the State Government again issued directives in regard to the prevention of encroachment, demolition of unauthorized construction/hutments and registering of complaints. The Circular stated that from time to time the directives were issued, however, there was no serious implementation of the said circular at the level of different divisions as noticed by the State Government. As a result of which the Government lands were encroached and are being grabbed. The Circular states that in some instances the persons in the adjoining areas and/or local people are opposing removal of encroachment and demolition of unauthorized structures and force is required to be used to resist such opposition which creates law and order problem. However, in this situation, considering the ownership of the Government in respect of its land, the Government machinery was required to register complaints, as for non-filing of such complaints, the police are not in a position to take action, as informed by the Home Department. Considering such situations, the Government issue the following directives:- (i) To notify all details of the Government land and which be displayed in the Revenue Office or in the office of the Local bodies at a prominent place alongwith which a clear notice be given that if the Government land is encroached, legal action would be taken in regard to such encroachment. (ii) If there is any encroachment on the Government land or the land belonging to the local bodies, immediate action be taken to remove the encroachment or to demolish the unauthorized construction. (iii) To prevent encroachment on the Government land is the responsibility of the respective Division in which the land is situated. For such reasons, the concerned Talathi, Circle Officer, and in respect of the forest land, the authorized officer, Gramsevak in respect of grazing lands and public lands and the Chief Officers of different municipal corporations, and in respect of other land where the Government land is in a particular division, the respective local officers, are under an obligation to immediately file a police complaint. In the event, there is any shifting of responsibilities to register a police complaint, the Senior Officers shall hold such officers responsible and take action. (III) On similar lines, a further circular dated 10 October 2013 was issued by the State Government in its Revenue and Forest Department, reiterating the directives as issued in the earlier circular dated 7 September 2010.”
47. The menace of continued encroachments on Government lands and thereafter, illegal and unauthorized constructions being undertaken post encroachment, are also a result of an unwarranted protection being conferred on the slum dwellers by the policies of the State Government, which protect the interest of the slum dwellers by awarding a premium on such illegality. This merely for the reason that the government machinery failed to take any action to remove such encroachments and with impunity continued these encroachers to remain on government land for years together. The encroacPer se, hments are of two categories, those who have encroached for commercial purpose (those who have grabbed public land for installing shops etc.) and those who have encroached for putting up structures for residential user. Under the government policies both these encroachers are recognized and rewarded by providing alternate tenements of the nature they were occupying. The government policies issued from time to time to protect such encroachers, if their names are found in the voters list on a cut-off date being fixed at the ipse dixit of the Government. In our opinion, fixing of such arbitrary dates to protect the illegality of encroachment and ultimately to reward the encroachers with a free of cost permanent structure on the same government land, is certainly not an exercise of power, the constitutional principles would permit. These situations have added to the alarming woes of the city. It is no more a secret that these policies, which appear to be innocuous and intended to primarily protect the slum dwellers, resulted to be also of a political concern, as these large slums also constituted potential vote banks.
48. What can be the logic and any legal sanctity to a policy which rewards encroachment on public land by granting free of cost tenements, on the very same land amounting to a bonanza for its private exploitation? By such modus operandi, public land, merely because of it being encroached, vanishes from the public holding and most astonishingly the basis for the allotment of tenements under the redevelopment process, is identification of an encroacher by his voters ID, on the basis of an arbitrary cut-off date fixed by the government. In fact, such policies create a mechanism being made available to the slum dwellers and thereafter private interest like that of the developers, to obtain a surreptitious allotment of public/government land for commercial exploitation, for profits by a backdoor method, completely contrary to the well settled principles of allotment of State largesse, known to the Constitution. This more particularly, when there is an allotment of a small piece of public land for a lawful purpose, many a times there is a hue and cry. However, when large tracts of public land are being gulped by encroachers, would the legal machinery remain a mute spectator?
51. On the above backdrop, it would be appropriate to recapitulate some of the significant and glaring findings as made by the learned Commissioner, in the above context, which are as under:
a. The cutoff date of unauthorized hutment has been extended from time to time based on the representation made by the elected representatives.
b. Although the municipal corporation is routinely taking action on the unauthorized structures including in the slum areas but due to continuous extending of the cut-off dates by giving protection to the slum dwellers, it is difficult for it to plan definite demolition programme in the slums.
c. Within the MCGM area, there are various Government lands as also and various planning authorities such as MMRDA, MHADA, MBPT etc.
d. Due to high real estate costs in Mumbai, land mafias are actively involved in unauthorized constructions. The land mafias use their muscle power/threats, political influences to stall actions against unauthorized structures by pressurizing the lower-level staff working under the Designated Officers.
e. Such members of the municipal staff remain under constant fear of assault/attacks by such unscrupulous elements since they do not have regular police protection.
f. There are criminal elements involved in the unauthorized development, hence, it is not possible for the civic staff to take action without proper support of the police department. It thus becomes difficult to take immediate action on the unauthorized structures once they are erected illegally.
g. A sympathetic view is always taken by the elected members and the Courts about the demolition action and to dislodge such affected persons during four months of monsoon. In cases where the Court finds that the action initiated by the authorities are faulty and directs the authorities to follow due process of law in initiating demolition action, it is seen that in these situations the organized mafia misuses the ad-interim/interim orders passed in such matters and carry out unauthorized constructions, so as to change status of the structure from being 'ongoing work and unoccupied' to 'completed and occupied' structure. As on date, approximately 10,000 cases are pending in various courts with ad-interim/interim orders passed by the Courts, as a result, the unauthorized structures continue to exist for long periods and consistent follow up becomes really difficult.
77. We are, thus, of the clear opinion that the MCGM being a Planning Authority for the entire Greater Mumbai area (excluding those areas in which by law other planning authorities are appointed), the MCGM has jurisdiction to exercise all powers under the MMC Act as also the MRTP Act and the Slums Act, to take action against illegal structures as permissible in law, not only in regard to all such areas within its jurisdiction, but also the slum areas falling under the Slums Act, except when a demolition order has been made under the Slums Act. We find that even Section 4 of the Slums Act would cast no embargo on the MCGM to take appropriate action in regard to any buildings which are unauthorized and/or dilapidated. Per se, Section 4 does not prohibit the planning authority to exercise any of its authority in regard to the structures of the nature Section 4 would contemplate either before the area is declared as a “slum area” or after it is declared as a “slum area”. It is nobody’s case that prior to an area being declared as slum, the planning authority namely the MCGM would not have any authority under the MMC Act and the MRTP Act to take action against unauthorized construction in such areas in regard to structures in these areas. From a holistic reading of the provisions of the Slums Act as discussed above, it is difficult to conceive that merely because an area is declared to be a slum under Section 4, the planning authority would lose its control and authority to regulate the structure by implementing the provisions of the MMC Act and the MRTP Act in the event the structures are dilapidated and/or in any manner unauthorized.
80. Be that as it may, it is never too late. It is high time that the concerned officials from the MCGM as also the Collectorate become conscious and immediately start taking action on illegal structures and restore a regime of only lawful construction prevailing in the city. In taking such action, the Municipal Officers ought to overcome any extraneous pressures and other obstructive considerations which may be created by certain undesirable elements preventing them from discharging public duties of taking action against such constructions. The iron hands of the Municipal Officers cannot be tied down by such pressures and they need to work relentlessly, as the law would mandate.
84. Illegal encroachments and unauthorized structures are a menace and a potential danger not only to the city of Mumbai, which is being ruined by encroachments and illegal constructions, but also to the other bigger cities. These factors also depict a picture of absolute lawlessness in implementation of the municipal laws. This for more than one reason. Firstly, as seen from the State policies, it creates two categories of citizens, the first category is of those citizens who are law abiding, who would put up lawful construction and possess buildings/structures which are lawfully constructed thereby enjoying only the legitimate and permissible benefits therefrom. The second category is of those persons who brazenly violate law and put up illegal and unlawful constructions and enjoy with impunity such illegal structures, under the blessings of municipal and government officers. There is yet another category of persons, who illegally enter and encroach on public lands, construct unauthorized structures, they continue to reside in such structures for long periods with the blessings of all the authorities, and yet get rewarded under the government policies which offer them a premium on such illegality of encroachment, in entitling them with a free of cost accommodation, under the garb of slum redevelopment as made permissible under the State policies as discussed above. There cannot be a bigger unconstitutionality and breach of the public trust doctrine in such mechanism, under which valuable public largess is siphoned off from the pool of public assets to reward encroachers as also for private benefits.
102. In the scheme of Constitutional governance, it is not possible for us to assume that a public official, howsoever high, or mighty or low, can remain without public accountability to “We the People”. Failure of accountability and discharge of public duties and responsibilities which the law would mandate them to discharge, in our opinion, are anathema not only to the expectations of lawful governance, but would also bring about a colossal case of derailment of the Constitutional and legal machinery, resulting into patent societal injustice and a civic regime opposed to the rule of law. The issues, which we have discussed above, certainly cast a serious doubt as to whether the above expectations of the rule of law are at all fulfilled and/or are followed in breach. It is for such reason, when there is a glaring and an apparent failure on the part of the statutory authorities to comply their lawful duties and Constitutional expectations, and/or when there is a dent or a breach in enforcement of the laws, the Courts unhesitantly are required to step in, so as to correct those who are failing in the discharge of their lawful duties, of not only to remind them of such duties and obligations but use the strong arm of law to set the same enforced and restore the confidence and expectations of the citizens, in the rule of law. This would also certainly require the Court to strictly deal with such officials, as the law would mandate the Court to so deal with them. They ought not to be under any impression that they can evade law with impunity. The famous quote of Lord Acton that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” ought to be realized to be untrue and something of the past, in its applicability in public governance. This, more particularly, when the aim is to compete with the other countries of the world where not only the building laws are stringently followed but also the aesthetics in relation to constructions and building designs are given a great impetus, so that the cities do not become eye sores of brick and mortar. This apart, as echoed in every public policy, corruption in municipal governance should be brought to the books by establishing multiple layers of anti-corruption mechanism within and outside the organization and achieve strict application of the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This ought to be implemented with immediate urgency by keeping a vigil on those officers who in the absence of any hurdles are deliberately not taking actions against illegal and unauthorized constructions. It is only then that there can be a ray of hope and sunshine for the future generations.
105. On our way towards conclusion, we may note that a chaotic state of affairs of mushrooming of slums and unauthorized and illegal constructions in every possible pocket of open land could have been avoided, provided there was a desire to have a proper vision and an effort to make an effective plan for mass public housing, which would cater to the housing needs, for a large percentage of population in a city like Mumbai. It cannot be overlooked that for a city as large as Mumbai or any other comparable city in the State, large work force and which may be migrant workforce is indispensable and perennially required, who cater to the various manpower requirements the city consumes. However, we find that in contemporary times, there is not much thought been given by the policy makers to such vital issues of affordable mass public housing, to be created to accommodate such large work force either temporarily or permanently. Moreover, the entire focus is on putting up skyscrapers on slum lands. It cannot be a situation that people from all parts of the country come to work in urban areas and there is no alternative to them but to encroach on government/public lands or private open lands and reside in filthy surroundings and in illegal structures. Such is the sorry state of affairs. Even such persons have a right to live with dignity and in appropriate humane and pleasant livable surroundings.
106. The policy makers appear to have turned a complete blind eye to these requirements of legitimate housing for such workforce, without whom the basic activities in the city would collapse. This is not only the requirement as would emerge from the constitutional guarantee as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, but also what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) would provide wherein housing rights are recognized, as a part of economic and socio-cultural rights, which would guarantee a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of citizens, and include the right to food, clothing, housing and medical care along with provisions for necessary social services etc. Further the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which is ratified by 160 States including our country also includes recognition of housing rights as a part of the broader right to adequate living conditions as seen from Article 11(1) thereof.
108. Considering the progressive steps being taken by many other countries, we feel that our policies also ought not to lag behind, so as to achieve the goals for creating ideal and slum free cities keeping in mind the interest of the generations to come. Can we have a myopic vision and forget that the generations to come would also need playgrounds, open spaces, gardens, clean and hygiene surroundings. This considering the scenario that people go on putting constructions and more so, at the behest of vested interest, wherever there are open lands. There is a need of a fundamental thinking on these vital issues of planning. A vision on these issues needs more attention in contemporary planning. If timely attention is not devoted to such issues, it is quite likely, that for the future years, things would worsen and may create insurmountable suffering, of every kind, affecting human lives who live in such cities. Thus, a serious endeavour of the policy makers, as an emergent need, ought to be, to have well-planned cities which would cater to every possible facet of human life and not merely to create unplanned and chaotic towns. Any lack of vision on these issues would be fatal for times to come.
109. We thus cannot expect citizens to languish in filthy and unhygienic slums. The right to livelihood includes a right of decent living and not an animal existence. It would include a right to live with dignity and implicit in it, is a right to live in decent houses, opposed to filthy living conditions. This ought to be an issue of prime concern for the State, so to device means to create mass housing facilities for the poor and for the economically weaker sections of the society, who are forced to live in slums in bigger cities so as to earn their livelihood and whose need for the city is perhaps indispensable. An endeavour ought to be made to bring about an era to have cities with no slums. If such ideals are achieved, it would be a pride and glory for the generations to come who would then would be the beneficiaries of dignified and ideal cities.
114. Erstwhile Bombay, now Mumbai, is home to people coming from across the country in search of livelihood. This migration has not only added to the dense population making Mumbai the most populous Indian city, it has immensely burdened the housing sector so much so that 41.3% of the population live in slums. Any one taking an aerial view of Mumbai, also called the city of dreams, would be fascinated by the swanky sky-scrapers but disheartened by the structures at the foot of such sky-scrapers covered mostly by blue tarpaulin covers. These are the densely populated single storey or double storied slums accommodating almost a half of the population, which co-exist as neighbours with real estate developments of extravagance. Despite these pronounced inequalities, people here seem to have accepted that this is the way life should go on. Mumbai happens to be the financial capital of this great nation and the extent of developments that one can see having taken place in Maharashtra, are significant. The annual budget of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is more than several midsized States of India. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to assume that sufficient financial resources are at its disposal, and one would have expected the Government and the Corporation, whoever was at their helm, to adequately plan development by making appropriate budgetary provisions for affordable housing projects for the not so fortunate working class of people living in slums. Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a planned and sustainable development, the successive Governments together with the Corporation seem to have unabashedly allowed mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by encouraging them not only to encroach more and more of public property but, simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized occupation. Enacting laws to further the interests of the weaker sections of the society is the obligation of every State in terms of Part IV of the Constitution and any move in that behalf ought to and must be welcomed. People living in slums do equally have a right of decent living conditions, which can be ensured by relocating them with proper housing facilities. However, a vicious nexus involving high profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords have created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance being provided by the law enforcing agency, followed by a declaration of slum gradually progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the “haves”. In the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the population including holders of public offices have continued to prosper by achieving their goals through impure means which are nothing short of betrayal of the trust that the people of this region have reposed in those responsible for an able governance. While it was the need of the hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to cater to the needs of the hapless coupled with a complete lack of sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek. Quite contrary to the ideals and values embodied in the Constitution which lay down the basic framework of the social and political structure of the country and sets out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavor to secure happiness and welfare of every member of the society and despite taking oath to uphold the laws, actions of those in power and authority are now invariably driven by political motivations or other oblique considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the compassionate Constitution of ours.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
22. In Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2933), the Court undertook a detailed examination of the structural failures in the SRA system. It was observed that encroachments on public/government lands are widespread and undeniable. Over decades, unauthorized encroachments have proliferated, and the assumption that every slum dweller is impoverished lacks basis. In law, all slum structures are unauthorized; even an authorized structure doesn’t become a “slum” merely because slum-like conditions surround it. Mixed settlements of authorized and unauthorized structures on one plot have created complex legal issues. Slums involve serious social, planning, engineering, and political problems; many people migrate to cities in search of livelihood, resulting in unplanned “informal settlements.” The Slum Act provides the procedure for slum redevelopment: slum identification, notification, survey, LOI to the developer, Annexure II eligibility, and provision of free rehab units with transit rent. Developers receive free-sale FSI as consideration; rehab construction triggers phased rights to build free-sale units. Three systemic failures were identified - (i) rehab tenements are the core of redevelopment; (ii) these are provided free of cost to slum dwellers, creating high-value assets at public cost; (iii) there is no robust system to verify eligibility or prevent fraudulent claims; biometric verification started only recently. The combination of free housing, no monitoring, and lack of verification forms a “trifecta” at the heart of today’s redevelopment crisis. Despite promises, slums have not reduced; they continue to expand, and conditions remain harsh. The Court reaffirmed the earlier rulings that the right to life includes the right to shelter, but there is no fundamental right to trespass, squat, or claim rehabilitation based on trespass. No constitutional principle gives a squatter a right to obtain a marketable asset free of cost. Public land is diverted to provide high-value real estate to encroachers while lawful home buyers pay mortgages for decades, creating deep injustice. Policies effectively reward illegal encroachment by guaranteeing free in-situ tenements at enormous public cost. Courts cannot ignore the injustice faced by honest citizens who lawfully purchase homes while encroachers receive free units. Evidence now shows large-scale trafficking and illicit dealing in free rehab units because they are high-value assets. The issue of whether redevelopment must always be in situ involves other complex considerations such as eviction, relocation, infrastructure, and transport which are beyond the Court's present scope. What is clear is the reaffirmation that State largesse cannot constitutionally be distributed to regularize trespass or reward unlawful occupation.
23. In Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(2023 SCC OnLine SC 1684), the Supreme Court analyzed the public law character of SRA schemes and the statutory obligations of authorities. It was observed that the slums in Mumbai reflect deep social and economic inequalities, driven largely by the migration of rural and marginalized populations seeking employment. Migrants, unable to afford formal housing, create informal settlements, which later become slums with extremely poor hygiene and temporary structures. Mumbai has the highest number of slum dwellers in India, which is nearly about 42% of its population (2011 census) and this is due to historic neglect of housing needs, dating back to colonial times.
23.1 Past public bodies such as BIT (1898) and BDD (1920) attempted low-cost housing but could not meet the massive demand. Post-independence, slum policy shifted from demolition to welfare-oriented redevelopment, culminating in the Slum Act, 1971, which aims at improvement, protection from eviction, and redevelopment. The 1971 Act created the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to plan and implement redevelopment schemes and ensure benefits for slum dwellers. SRA Schemes have a clear public law character, as the land involved is public or belongs to public authorities, and redevelopment must serve statutory welfare purposes. Private agreements cannot override SRA’s statutory mandate; redevelopment must conform strictly to the Slum Act and Development Control Regulations. The Municipal Corporation has a central role in – (i) certifying eligible occupants; (ii) verifying genuine slum dwellers; (iii) ensuring public land is used solely for public welfare. The purpose of the Slum Act is rehabilitation, “not the commercial exploitation of public land”; hence, State authorities must regulate every stage of the scheme, namely, the submission and evaluation of proposals, scrutiny, sanction, and implementation. Although disputes between a slum society and a developer have a private element, private remedies are not exclusive, because the SRA has overriding statutory authority to enforce the public purpose. The State and the SRA must ensure that schemes are not misused, that the public purpose is upheld, and that rehabilitation does not become subordinated to private contractual interests.
24. In Bishop John Rodrigues Vs. State of Maharashtra(2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632), a Division Bench of this Court examined compulsory acquisition of private land under the Slum Act and observed that the land in question was a small private plot of 1596.40 sq.m. with only 35 slum structures, owned by a Trust. The landowner consistently showed readiness and willingness to redevelop the slum structures by providing permanent alternate accommodation. Even a composite proposal covering both the Trust’s larger land and the slum-occupied portion was legally permissible, and there was no legal bar on the petitioner undertaking redevelopment. If redevelopment by the petitioner became impossible due to reasons beyond the landowner's control, compulsory acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act could not be forced on the petitioner. Forcing compulsory acquisition without giving the landowner a fair opportunity to redevelop would be arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 300A (Right to Property).
24.1 Encroachment removal in Mumbai is a near-impossible task, with encroachments often supported by slumlords, politicians, and criminal elements, making protection of private land extremely difficult. Private owners regularly struggle to safeguard their land, while developers with resources often misuse slum redevelopment as a tool to capture valuable private property. Declaring private land as a slum under the Act starts a nightmarish process, effectively depriving the owner of normal ownership rights and exposing them to unjust acquisition pressures. Many schemes are, in reality, developer-driven, where developers form or control the so-called “slum society” to push proposals for FSI benefits. It is unacceptable that a willing landowner knocking at SRA’s doors for redevelopment is instead issued a Section 14(1) notice of compulsory acquisition.
24.2 Before acquiring land, there must be insurmountable material on record showing that redevelopment by the landowner is impossible; only then can compulsory acquisition be justified. Authorities have an onerous duty to act fairly, objectively, and not privatize the process in favour of encroachers or developers under the guise of rehabilitation. Chapter I-A does not intend that once land is declared a slum and a cooperative slum society is formed, the owner gets no opportunity to redevelop. Section 13(1)’s requirement of giving 120 days’ notice to landowners must be strictly followed before any decision to compulsorily acquire is taken. The law requires giving the landowner a meaningful opportunity to propose a rehabilitation scheme; failure to do so would violate Article 300A. The Court, in dealing with the acquisition of the private land under Section 14 of the Slum Act in the absence of the right of the owners being recognized in regard to the preferential redevelopment of the slum, has made the following observations:
“99. The SRA and whosoever is concerned in regard to the slum redevelopment need to be conscious of the ground realities namely that it is an herculean task in a city like Mumbai to remove any encroachment on private and public land. It is equally difficult for a private owner of the land to safeguard its land and prevent encroachment. This is the sad story, as encroachment does not happen by such encroachers simplicitor squatting on the land, invariably the encroachment is backed inter alia by slumlords, criminals, social workers, politicians (as the squatters would be vote banks). For a bonafide landlord, it is impossible to fight with such forces and, keep litigating on removal of encroachment. Thus, to achieve removal of the encroachment, is seen to be impossible for the landlords and for public bodies like State Government and Municipal Corporation as also the Airport Authority, as major public lands in the City of Mumbai have vanished from the public pool and are subjected to private development by developers under the garb of slum re-development, as the rulings of this Court on several such issues would remind us of these woeful realities. In these circumstances, persons like the developers who are interested in commercial exploitation of any land under the slums may it be private or public, who are backed by other powerful forces and many times also by the government machinery, initiate proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act for declaring private land as a slum. The moment such a declaration takes place, a nightmare and one of the most difficult journeys any citizen who owns land, commences namely to pursue litigation on such a declaration. It is hence as good as a preliminary capital punishment in so far as the ownership rights qua the private land are concerned. The way forward is just to be imagined. This being the case immediately developers who keep track on such development potential purportedly at the behest of the slum society come forward on a purported appointment by a slum society. In reality it is seen that it is the developer who actually forms the slum society. He is the one who is taking steps to enter into a development agreement with the society and the slum dwellers and put up a proposal before the SRA through his architect, everything in the name of the slum society. This for the reason that there is a bonanza of FSI of a free sale component available to be developed by the developer (The question is why should the developers have such bonanza on a land of somebody's ownership or of a private ownership. Thereafter, the SRA purporting to exercise some pious obligation would, under a label of social sympathy and purportedly to forward the object of the Slum Act, commence a process to permit development at the hands of such developer and in a given situation, start proceedings to acquire the land. To say the least, we can certainly take a judicial notice that this has been a sad reality, replete on this branch of slum jurisprudence, as majority of these cases are asserted by the developers with resources and legal ammunition they could have.
101. In these circumstances, when valuable private rights as guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution to an owner of the land are being deprived under the garb of slum rehabilitation, there has to be an insurmountable situation on record of the SRA or for any reasonable body of persons to come to an unimpeachable conclusion that the only and only remedy and/or avenue in a given case is to acquire the private land and not permit the owner of the land to undertake the development. The CEOSRA has an onerous obligation to reasonably, non-arbitrarily, and objectively deal with the valuable property rights of private citizens who are dragged in such situation that the monsters of encroachment and persons supporting them take the rule of law in their hands in depriving the land owner of his right to property. They forget that there is a rule of law and there are Courts and any such attempt to dent the rule of law can be dealt with iron hands. We may also add that if the official machinery was to act as per law, today we would not have been confronted with the situation of an international city like Mumbai being also known for its slums on private and public lands [See the observation of the Court in High Court on its own motion (In the matter of) Jilani Building at Bhiwandi v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation).”
(“emphasis supplied”)
25. The decision of this Court in Indian Cork Mills Private Ltd. (supra) was upheld by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions in Tarabai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Vs. State of Maharashtra(2025 INSC 1015) and Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs. Bishop John Rodrigues and Ors.(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794). In Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it was observed that the SRA and its CEO failed in their public duty, acting with bias to undermine the landowner’s rights and favour a private builder (Saldanha). The Supreme Court found collusion, connivance, and misuse of authority, revealing a deliberate attempt to bypass statutory protections and hand over the land for private benefit. It was observed that Saldanha’s influence over the SRA appeared so strong that the developer could push the project even during the COVID-19 lockdown, when public administration was otherwise paralysed. The Slum Act protects slum dwellers, but offers no explicit statutory protection to landowners; this gap creates a vacuum that opportunistic developers exploit. Developers manipulate slum dwellers and work “hand-in-glove” with authorities to illegally dispossess landowners and enrich themselves. The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings, tainted by a colourable exercise of power, could not be allowed to continue. The High Court was correct in stopping the acquisition early, thereby protecting the statutory rights of the Church / Trust and preventing an illegal land grab by the developer. In the said decision, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
“49. Throughout this case, the 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 Saldanha. 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.
50. The facts of the instant case compel us to infer that Saldanha's overreaching influence went beyond the slum-dwellers' proposed society. In its attempt to take over the Subject Land, the developer appears to have gotten the typically slow-moving bureaucratic wheels of the SRA to run at full speed. Moreover, Saldanha was able to achieve this manoeuvre at a time when the entire country was under lockdown and the machinery of governance was overwhelmed by the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
51. These circumstances underpin the need for practical and actionable safeguards in a legal system involving competing interests among private parties. The Slums Act, while providing wholesome protection to slum dwellers and their homes and livelihood, does not give such express protection to the interests of the owner of the land. The ensuing vacuum, as we have seen in these appeals, allows opportunistic developers to swoop in, exploit the circumstances of the poor slum dwellers, manipulate the hand-in-glove authorities, and enrich themselves off the helpless owner's land.
52. Keeping the facts of this case and the obviously colourable conduct of the Appellants in mind, the acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed to sustain. As such, the High Court has rightly nipped these proceedings in the bud, protecting the statutory rights and interests of the Church Trust over the Subject Land and preventing the Appellants from illegally grabbing it.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
26. A Nine Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Property Owners Association and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others((2024 SCC OnLine SC 3122)), was dealing with a reference raising significant questions about the applicability of Articles 39(b) and 31(c) of the Constitution. The issue arose from a decision of the Division Bench of this Court which upheld the Constitutionality of the provisions of Chapter VIIIA of the The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. The High Court had held that the said provisions of the Chapter VIIIA were saved by the Article 31C, as they were enacted to give effect to the principles laid down in Article 39(b). The High Court held that the same principles applied to Chapter VIII-A as well while holding that the provisions of the said Chapter did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the importance of the issues involved, a reference was made for the matter to be placed before a Nine-Judge Bench, as set out in paragraph 16 of the reference order. Although the scope of the reference pertained specifically to the interpretation of Article 39(b), and not to the continued validity or survival of Article 31C, it was contended by the parties that the determination should be confined to Article 39(b) and more particularly, only to the question of whether “material resources of the community” include privately owned resources. The observations made by the Supreme Court as relied upon by Mr. Khambata learned Amicus require to be noted –
“257. An interpretation of Article 39(b) which places all private property within the net the phrase "material resources of the community" only satisfies one of the three requirements of the phrase, i.e. that the goods in question must be a 'resource'. However, it ignores the qualifiers that they must be "material" and "of the community". The use of the words "material" and "community" are not meaningless superfluities. We cannot adopt a construction of the provision which renders these terms otiose. The words "of the community" must be understood as distinct from the "individual". If Article 39(b) was meant to include all resources owned by an individual, it would state the "ownership and control of resources is so distributed as best to subserve the common good". Similarly, if the provision were to exclude privately owned resources, it would state"ownership and control of resources of the state..." instead of its current phrasing. The use of the word "of the community" rather than "of the state" indicates a specific intention to include some privately owned resources.
258. In essence, the text of the provision indicates that not all privately owned resources fall within the ambit of the phrase. However, privately owned resources are not excluded as a class and some private resources may be covered. The resource in question must meet the two qualifiers, i.e. it must be a "material" resources and it must be "of the community". Thus, the judgments doubted in the reference before us are incorrect to the extent that they hold that "all resources" of an individual are part of the community and thus, all private property is covered by the phrase "material resources of the community".
263. The right to property was included in the Constitution as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(f) and Article 31. Subsequently, the right to property was deleted from Part, Ill of the Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. However, a modified version was inserted and the right to property continues to be constitutionally protected under Article 300A. Although no longer in the nature of a fundamental right, the provision has been characterised as a constitutional and human right.
264. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & v. Bimal Kumar Shah, speaking through Justice PS Narasimha, had occasion to discuss the scope and content of Article 300-A and the constitutional vision in relation to private property. This Court held that merely providing compensation does not justify compulsory acquisition by the state unless procedural safeguards are followed. It was observed that a "post-colonial reading" of the constitutional right to property cannot be limited to the twin conditions of (a) the acquisition being for a public purpose; and (b) payment of compensation, and must give way to morel meaningful renditions This Court observed:
"28. While it is true that after the 44th Constitutional Amendment, the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution, there continues to be a potent safety net against arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms. [...] To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.
29. The constitutional discourse on compulsory acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the 'power of eminent domain'. Even within that articulation, the twin conditions of the acquisition being for a public purpose and subjecting the divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition were mandated. [...]
A post-colonial reading of the Constitution cannot limit itself to these components alone. The binary reading of the constitutional right to property must give way to more meaningful renditions, where the larger right to property is seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each with a distinct character but interconnected to constitute the whole. These sub-rights weave themselves into each other, and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands".
265. The right to property under Article 300-A, this Court observed, may be seen as comprising of the following sub-rights which ensure that the procedure followed is just, fair and reasonable:
"27. [...] i) duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property - the right to notice, ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition - the right to be heard, ill) the duty of the State to inform the person fits decision to acquire - the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose - the duty to acquire only for public purpose, v) the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate - the right of restitution or fair compensation, vi) the duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings - the right to an efficient and expeditious process, and vii) final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting - the right of conclusion."
(“emphasis supplied”)
27. In Mujibur Rehman Chaudhary Vs. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 579), the issue for consideration before this Court was whether an unauthorized vertical extension, namely, the construction of a Mezzanine/first floor to the existing structure of the appellant used as hotel (which itself was unauthorized), can receive a protection from an action of its removal by the municipal corporation, merely because the structure is situated in a notified slum. In rejecting the appeal and by not recognizing any protection, the Court has made the following observations:
“31. It also needs to be stated that a photo-pass cannot be accepted to be a carta blanca or a blanket licence to put up an unauthorised, illegal construction. It is certainly within the jurisdiction and powers of the MCGM to take action against the structure, if any structure is put up illegally. If unauthorized and uncontrolled illegal constructions are permitted in slum areas, the ghastly consequences are not too far to be seen. In such context, the Division Bench of this Court in Jilani Building’s Case (b) (supra) considering the provisions of Chapter I-B of the Slums Act has held that the protection which has been conferred by Section 3Z of the Slums Act to the protected occupiers, cannot be confused or interpreted to mean that the protected occupier enjoys and can be granted a complete immunity from putting up unauthorized construction or structure and/or can make illegal additions or alterations.
…...
34. In the absence of specific provisions under the Slums Act for inclusion of commercial premises being recognized in the photo-pass under the provisions of the Slums Act, it would be difficult to accept that the Slums Act would recognize a commercial structure, in respect of which under the Slums Act a photo-pass can be issued. Moreover, the definition of ‘dwelling structure’ as defined under Section 3X(a) of the Slums Act, as rightly contended by Mr. Jagtiani, in my opinion, would be required to be interpreted in the context of the object, the Slums Act intends to achieve. The said definition reads thus:-
“3X. Definitions: In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) "dwelling structure" means a structure used as a dwelling or otherwise and includes an out-house, shed, hut or other enclosure or structure, whether of bricks, masonry, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever;”
35. When the words ‘dwelling or otherwise’ are used in the definition of a “dwelling structure”, and when the definition provides to include outhouse, shed, hut or other enclosure or structure, necessarily in my opinion, it would not include commercial premises which do not fit into any of the ingredients of such provision namely a structure used for dwelling or outhouse, shed, hut, as used in the said provision. In such context Mr. Jagatiani’s reliance on the decision in Ramesh Appa Rao (supra) which has considered the Government policy under the Government Resolution dated 16 May 1996 that the commercial structure is not protected, would be apposite, however, subject to caveat that the subsequent Government Policies have deviated from the Government Resolution dated 16 May 1996 so as to grant protection to commercial structures.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
28. In Priya Construction Company Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3202), the Division Bench of this Court referring to Shree Sai Pawan SRA Chs Ltd Vs. CEO SRA & Ors(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2964), the SRA made the following observations :-
“4. This is not an isolated pronouncement. In any case, it has not been disturbed. It is a finding on a principle of law by a bench of coordinate strength; and it is therefore a binding precedent. On 27th February 2023, in (OS) Writ Petition No 9291 of 2022, Shree Sai Pawan SRA Chs Ltd v CEO SRA & Ors, and connected matters, we said:
4. The reason is self-evident and we have repeated it again and again in series of judgments and orders. The fundamental point is this: This city is not for developers. The Slum Rehabilitation Act 1995 (“SRA”) is not for developers. The Act is intended to serve a public welfare purpose. Developers are a means to that end. They are entitled to a free sale component provided by the incentive Floor Space Index (“FSI”) but this is a consideration for their fulfilling their obligations under the contract (for there is always a development agreement) and under law, in the form of Letter of Intent issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Those obligations include not only the rebuilding or building of rehabilitation structures and tenements both commercial and residential, but also the payment of transit rent in the meantime or the providing of habitable transit accommodation. A developer who does not pay transit rent, does not provide habitable transit accommodation or otherwise is in default of his obligations, all of which have to be performed on a schedule and within a time frame, is not entitled to any of the benefits of the slum rehabilitation project, i.e., the free sale component. This is the overall architecture of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. As regards slum dwellers, only those who are found to be eligible are entitled to these benefits.
5. But this means that where there is a demonstrated default by the developers or by the co developers, then the privileges and entitlements are liable to be taken away for there is a complete failure of consideration. A party in default cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and failure. That would be profiteering and that too at public expense because many of these slum projects are on public lands — such as this one — and the developer is not being made to pay the cost of land.
6. Or, to put it differently, the developer can always be changed. The beneficiaries of a SRA project cannot.
(Emphasis added)
5. This is equally true of re-development of tenanted/cessed structures, and in every case where a re-development of home for existing occupiers or tenants are involved.
6. Thus, under SRA law, the obligations of the developer in whose name the Letter of Intent or LoI is issued are, inter alia, payment of transit rent and the construction of rehab homes for those entitled to rehabilitation according to sanctioned specifications. If these obligations are not met, then, as a matter of law, there is a failure of consideration and there is no right to any free sale unit. The sequencing is clear. The rights of the Developer recognised by SRA to free sale units are contingent and dependent on the performance by that Developer of obligations to the Society. If that LoI-holding Developer fails to perform the obligations, then no rights accrue to it.”
(“emphasis supplied”)
29. In Yash Developers (supra) the Supreme Court considering the large amount of cases being filed under the Slum Act as noticed from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), it was observed that the Slum Act is a beneficial legislation, intended to materialize the Constitutional assurance of dignity of the individual by providing basic housing, so integral to human life. However, the propensity and proclivity of the statute to generate litigation were observed to be worrisome. The Supreme Court observed that there seems to be a problem with the statutory framework for realizing the purpose and object of the statute. The relevant observations as made by the Court are required to be noted which read thus:-
“51. Though we have disposed of this civil appeal by dismissing it, we must record that this case has provoked us to reflect on the working of this Act.
52. The Act came into being in 1971 and since then, for over five decades, the High Court has been exercising judicial review jurisdiction, disposing of writ petitions raising claims or challenges to the exercise of powers or dereliction of duties by authorities under the Act. Data fetched from National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reveals that a total of 1612 cases involving disputes arising under the Act are pending before the Bombay High Court. Of these, 135 cases are more than 10 years old. In the last 20 years, 4488 cases have been filed and disposed of under the said Act.
53. Latest data from the Bombay High Court reveals that about 923 cases on the Appellate Side and 738 on the Original Side are pending adjudication. The Act is a beneficial legislation, intended to materialise the constitutional assurance of dignity of the individual by providing basic housing, so integral to human life. However, the propensity and the proclivity of the statute to generate litigation are worrisome. There seems to be a problem with the statutory framework for realising the purpose and object of the statute.
54. In Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra [Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897] the Bombay High Court has remarked that : (SCC OnLine Bom para 3)
“3. … Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stakeholders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a slum rehabilitation scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so-called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and scepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.”
55. Further, referring to the statutory scheme, as per which development is possible only when the slum dwellers feel the need and seek development, the High Court pointed out yet another problem about the statutory framework in the following terms : (Galaxy Enterprises case [Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897] , SCC OnLine Bom para 5)
“5. … It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to devise a substantial, nay a foolproof mechanism, by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.”
56. The exasperation of the High Court about working of the Act is understandable. The present appeal is a classic example of why the High Court's concern is genuine. It has been noticed that the statutory scheme is problematic with respect to:
56.1. Identification and declaration of land as a slum. This problem involves an examination of the role of authorities in giving such recognition, insidious intervention of builders in the said process cast doubts on the independence and integrity in the decision-making process;
56.2. Identification of slum dwellers : This involves a complicated process of proof of such a status, the attendant problem of groupism, giving rise to competing claims inevitably leading to litigation;
56.3. Selection of a developer : The Act leaves this decision to the cooperative society of slum dwellers and the majority decision is manipulated by competing and rival developers;
56.4. Apportionment of the slum land between redevelopment area and sale area : This is yet another area where court has witnessed developers seeking to increase the proportion of the sale area, leading to contestation;
56.5. Obligation to provide transit accommodation for the slum dwellers pending redevelopment : Invariably, we see instances where the developer does not provide transit accommodation within time or provides an inadequate alternative in the form of a quantified amount towards rent. On the other hand, there are instances where some slum dwellers refuse to vacate the premises on the ground that the transit accommodation is either inconvenient or the amount offered is insufficient;
56.6. There are also issues of lack of independence and objectivity in the functioning of statutory authorities : This is a matter of serious concern. Courts have witnesses that the authorities have no independence and, their tenure is also short. Additionally, the functioning of these statutory authorities gives an indication that there could be a regulatory capture;
56.7. Another concern which exists is about the effectiveness of statutory remedies : Statutory remedies are ineffective and at the same time, lacking in accountability; and
56.8. Judicial review proceedings under Article 226 cannot be a long-term solution : We have given details of the number of writ petitions pending before the High Court in paras 52 to 54.
57. The abovereferred problems arising out of the statutory scheme and policy framework should have come under review by the State of Maharashtra. Assessment of the working of the statute to realise if its purpose and objective is achieved or not is the implied duty of the executive government. Reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of Rule of Law. It is in recognition of this obligation of the executive government that the constitutional courts have directed Governments to carry performance audit of statutes.
……….
64. A peculiar feature of how our legislative system works is that an overwhelming majority of legislations are introduced and carried through by the Government, with very few private member bills being introduced and debated. In such circumstances, the judicial role does encompass, in this Court's understanding, the power, nay the duty to direct the executive branch to review the working of statutes and audit the statutory impact. It is not possible to exhaustively enlist the circumstances and standards that will trigger such a judicial direction. One can only state that this direction must be predicated on a finding that the statute has through demonstrable judicial data or other cogent material failed to ameliorate the conditions of the beneficiaries. The courts will also do well, to arrive the very least, at a prima facie finding that much statutory schemes and procedures are gridlocked in bureaucratic or judicial quagmires that impede or delay statutory objectives. This facilitative role the judiciary compels audit of the legislation, promote debate and discussion but does not and cannot compel legislative reforms.
65. In light of the foregoing, considering that the Act is a State legislation, implementation of which lies with the State of Maharashtra, and till date no comprehensive statutory audit has been undertaken, we request the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to constitute a Bench to initiate suo motu proceedings for reviewing the working of the statute to identify the cause of the problems indicated in para 56. The Bench concerned will hear the Government, the statutory authorities, the necessary stakeholders including intended beneficiaries and perhaps take the assistance of some senior members of the Bar specialising in this area as Amici Curiae. We leave it to the High Court to devise such methods as it deems fit and appropriate.
66. Having examined the matter, the Bench may consider directing the Government to constitute a committee for performance audit of the Act. The court's jurisdiction extends only to that extent, and no further. The law-making, including amendments, is the exclusive domain of the legislature.”
C. The Present Proceedings:
30. On the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court, the present Bench was constituted. The first hearing of the present proceedings was held on 16 August 2024, when, after broadly discussing the issues, the Court appointed Mr. Darius Khambata and Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned senior advocates, as also Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, advocate, as the Amici Curiae. By a further order dated 20 September 2024, we also appointed a nodal advocate, Mr. Samit Shukla, to coordinate in respect of the pleadings to be filed by all stakeholders. By subsequent orders, all the stakeholders were permitted to file their respective applications/affidavits to place before the Court their perspectives on the issues. Although, the members of this Bench were sitting in different assignments, we heard the respective counsel extensively various dates of the listing of the present proceedings.
D. SUBMISSIONS:-
Submissions on behalf of Simpreet Singh, Hussain Indorewala, Ghar Haqq Sangharsh Samiti, Ms. Medha Patkar and Ms. Amita Bhide, Dean, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS): (Ms. Gayatri Singh, learned senior counsel)
31. Ms. Gayatri Singh on behalf of these parties has made extensive submissions. She has divided her submissions into two parts.
32. Firstly, Ms. Singh would focus on the issue of Identification and Declaration of Slum Lands, Identification of Slum Dwellers, Transit Accommodation for Project Affected Persons (“PAPs”) being the core issues as identified by the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra). Ms. Singh would, in the first part of her submissions, refers to various International Treaties and Conventions. She has also referred to case studies from Countries like South Africa and the United Nations. She has made detailed submissions on ‘Right to Life’ being a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as also the positive role of the State to provide affordable housing.
33. Ms. Singh has also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sudama Singh vs. Government of Delhi(2010 SCC OnLine Del 612), to highlight the deprivation of Human Rights caused by forced eviction, which must be carried out after following due process of law. She would also refer to the decision in Ajay Maken vs. Union of India(2019 SCC OnLine 7618) where the Delhi High Court referring to the decision of Sudama Singh (supra) held that forced eviction of settlement dwellers is illegal if carried out without due compliance with the principles of natural justice to include adequate notice and the duty of the State to ensure adequate rehabilitation plans are in place.
34. Ms. Singh on the second leg of her contentions encompassing some of the core issues as identified by the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra), has also relied upon the affidavits submitted by the aforementioned slum dwellers, which are placed on record before this Court. Her submissions are summarized as under:-
Issue No.I :- Identification and Declaration of Land as Slum Land.
(a) In this context, she would refer to paragraph 33 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (Supra) read with the Slum Act, which envisages different levels of state intervention. This would include declaration of slum areas; protection of occupiers from eviction; improvement of work in slum areas; land acquisition and Slum Redevelopment.
(b) Despite efforts, only a fraction of the housing required for the slum population has been constructed with over 12 lakh units needed, but fewer than 3 lakh units constructed in the past 25 years. Despite the initial intention of the SRA to rehabilitate 800,000 families, progress has been slow as data from the SRA indicates that only a fraction of families have been rehabilitated under the scheme, reflecting a significant gap between the need and the actual rehabilitation outcome.
Ms. Singh has made the following suggestions:-
(i) As stipulated under Section 4 of the Slum Act, all the declared “Slum Areas” must be considered collectively irrespective whether they are or they are not a part of the slum rehabilitation scheme. Such declared ‘Slum Areas’ must be considered and reserved exclusively for low-income housing.
(ii) Non-declaration of slum land blocks improvement of living conditions, as no action can be taken until the redevelopment is approved. In areas like Govandi and Mankhurd, in Mumbai, where the real estate prices are low, it would be necessary to incentivize disinterested developers with increased FSI.
(iii) The Slum Act should be implemented to include minimum standards of living conditions through provision of civic amenities i.e. water, electricity, drainage, access to streetlights, sewer lines to be implemented in a time-bound manner, in the interest of the slum dwellers.
(iv) The slum dwellers be conferred with option of voluntary in-situ rehabilitation by providing two alternatives i.e. redevelopment through a voluntary organisation, or developer or redevelopment through a public authority i.e. SRA or MHADA.
Issue No.II: Identification of Slum Dwellers:-
Ms. Singh would, in this regard refer to the Afzalpurkar Committee Report, which declared the objective of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme to usher in better health, a cleaner environment, renewed self-respect for people and last but not the least social justice for the downtrodden. There is no independent body entrusted with the task of monitoring, evaluating or reviewing the slum rehabilitation scheme. Thus, an independent body is quintessential to conduct periodic and relevant studies which can be considered by the SRA for implementation. Ms. Singh would make the following suggestions:-
(A) The procedure for conducting the General Body Meeting for the appointment of developer must strictly follow the State Government Resolution dated 4 July 2019.
(B) The eligibility of slum dwellers is to be determined based on the date of survey. Individuals residing after the year 2000 may be considered for housing under alternate schemes such Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana or Adarsh Colony Scheme to offer housing either at construction cost or through rental basis.
(C) Once the scheme is notified, the society is formed and eligibility is determined, the slum dwellers may initiate the process of appointing a developer or undertaking the rehabilitation themselves as per prescribed procedure. The guidelines prescribed under Section 79(A) of the Co-operative Societies Act can be enforced for the redevelopment of slum areas.
(D) The actual FSI plus TDR granted to developer for a slum rehabilitation scheme should be based on some profit capping. FSI of 1.5, for instance, would be adequate for rehabilitation.
(E) For redevelopment schemes, in respect of both alternatives i.e. slum areas or low income housing areas should remain under the ownership of a public authority or a community land reserved, exclusively for the purpose of low income housing. If the slum is on private land the ownership ought to be transferred to such public authority.
(F) As suggested in the Afzalpurkar Committee Report a comprehensive review of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme should be seriously undertaken after 10 years of its formation, to evaluate both physical as well as socio-economic outcomes of the scheme.
Issue V - Transit Accommodation – Project Affected Persons Scheme (PAPs) read with Issue VIII i.e. Miscellaneous Issues.
Ms. Singh in this regard, would refer to clause 3.11 of Regulation 33 (10) of DCPR – 2034 which deals with Project Affected Persons (PAPs) and essentially permits involuntary relocation of protected slum residents. The PAPs fall under Appendix – IV of DCPR 33(10) of 2034. In the above context, after flagging certain issues concerning the scheme relating to PAPs, Ms. Singh has made the following suggestions:-
(A) For slum areas where in-situ rehabilitation cannot be undertaken due to the site being in an uninhabitable areas or being required for development of essential public infrastructure, the State Government ought to take guidance in preparing a resettlement policy based on World Bank’s Operational Directives 4.0. This provides guidelines as to how rehabilitation process can be planned and managed.
(B) The resettlement sites are to be located within the same ward or within two kilometres of the slum area being cleared. The relocation sites may not be situated on polluted land or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the physical and mental health of the inhabitants.
(C) For the existing PAP tenements, all planning/development authorities ought to submit data on the number of tenements built and allotted thus far, vacant tenements in their possession, location of the tenements, condition of the tenements i.e. usable/unusable, usable after repairs, number of tenements required by each authority for various projects, etc. Such information to be made publicly available and accessible on the Corporation’s website.
(D) Until residents are transferred to permanent tenements, the MMRDA/Planning Authority to be held responsible for maintaining the building and for providing necessary facilities. In this regard, the URDPFI guidelines should be followed with regard to open spaces, pre-primary and primary schools, health centres and other amenities. The MCGM to take initiatives to redevelop slums located on its own land and construct PAP tenements on the excess land to address the significant shortfall in the availability of PAP tenements.
(E) MHADA to play a proactive role in the creation of affordable housing on its land which could be used for creation of rehabilitation homes for current dwellers, as also for affordable housing.
Submissions on behalf of Indira Nagar Slum, Prakash Kumbhar and Ekta CHS Association by Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate:
35. Mr. Desai in the course of his arguments by placing reliance on the affidavits of the above-mentioned parties, followed by detailed written submissions has delved into aspects such as achieving the goal of a Slum-free Mumbai, the dire need to empower the statutory authorities in enforcing the provisions of the Slum Act to meet such objective, issues relating to illegal eviction and demolitions under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slums Act. He has also taken the Court through certain suggestions inter alia touching upon independent monitoring and reviewing of the Slum Act, the reason for not having the SRA to be the sole repository/body undertaking redevelopment works.
36. Mr. Desai, at the threshold, would submit that the core objective behind the Slum Act is the improvement, clearance and redevelopment of slum areas including protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants. The 1996 Amendment, based on the Afzalpurkar Committee recommendations introduced Chapter I – A for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, drifting away from merely declaring slum areas for improvement works so as to help actualize the larger goal of transforming Mumbai into ‘Slum Free’ city. Mr. Desai would emphasize that lack of affordable housing forces incoming migrant populations into informal settlements causing slums to proliferate faster than their redevelopment. He would then stress upon the legal duty/obligation of the authorities to improve slums. In this context, he has referred to several provisions, inter alia, section 61AA, 61D, 63(a), 354B and 354C of the MCGM Act, 1888, read with section 5A of the Slum Act.
37. Mr. Desai would then make the following suggestions in support of his submissions, which are as follows :-
(a) He would urge that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) are composed of serving bureaucrats who have diverse responsibilities however, due to absence of judicial mind these statutory bodies are not able to function and perform in the manner required to subserve the avowed objective of a slum free city. He refers to the decisions of this Court in Jijabhai Dashrath Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra(Writ Petition (L) No. 5671 of 2024) and Aslam Hasimali Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra(Writ Petition No.5600 of 2019) wherein this Court expressed shock and displeasure that thousands of cases were pending as the AGRC sat only once a week and also condemned the practice of giving slum dwellers only 7 days notice to vacate, as also the alarming situation of its unavailability for urgent matters, forcing citizens to rush to Constitutional Courts. In this regard, he would submit that the composition of AGRC should be revised to include a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of a District Judge. The jurisdiction over Appeals should be vested in a Single, full-time dedicated Appellate Authority to ensure timely justice, which is the need of the hour.
(b) Suggestions were made regarding following mandatory procedural safeguards before initiation of eviction proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. This would include a mechanism to ensure strict compliance with the principles of natural justice. This is to ensure that the eviction notices are properly served to the concerned slum dwellers well in advance and critical documents such as notice register, demolition register should be available upon request, to the slum dwellers.
(c) Mr. Desai would urge that the SRA is already overburdened. In such view of the matter, both MHADA and MCGM on whose land rehabilitation schemes are announced should carry out the slum rehabilitation schemes independently.
(d) Mr. Desai would stress on independent monitoring and periodic review of the Slum Act. This should embrace the aspect of reviewing progress and offer recommendations aimed at achieving good quality, affordable and accessible housing to all income groups by a body of independent and interdisciplinary group of individuals tasked with such functions.
(e) Lastly, he would refer to the judgment of this Court in Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra(2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 469). This is to emphasize that the Court held that the execution of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is inherently laden with a public character. The authorities exercising power under the Slum Act ought to ensure that the scheme is not misused and is utilized to subserve public purposes which is not trammeled by private contractual arrangements/agreements.
Submissions on behalf of Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti – Intervenor:- (Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate
38. Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti” is stated to be a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, which is stated to be an organization founded in 1981that stands for people’s right to housing and right to a life and dignity.
39. Mr. Seervai has addressed the Court, more particularly, on the specific issue of apportionment of slum land between the “redevelopment area” and the “sale area”. In such context, Mr. Seervai has taken us through the various issues related to such apportionment, along with the adverse health, social and environmental impact of the rehab buildings on their occupants. He has also focused on the conditions prevailing in such buildings, poor environmental conditions, poor maintenance, lack of amenities and fire safety as well as the need for open spaces for holistic developments of such rehab buildings, and suggested proposed measures which would assist in mitigating such problems and arriving at a feasible solution.
40. Mr. Seervai would at the threshold submit that 50% of the city’s population i.e. about 7 million people live in congested slums which occupy 14% of the total developable area of 268 sq. kilometres. Under the slum rehabilitation schemes led by builders/developers the slum dwellers are rehabilitated in 1/4th to 1/3rd of the land area (constituting 5% of the city’s developable land area), thereby increasing the congestion to three-fold. Also, the density of the buildings has serious human and environmental consequences. The balance 3/4th to 2/3rd land area is capitalized for high cost real estate development, turning the scheme to a slum land grab game, the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers being incidental.
41. Mr. Seervai would refer to paragraph 34 of the decision of Supreme Court in Yash Developers(supra) to submit that the arbitrary trend of land apportionment, in the absence of policy guidelines by the SRA is the root cause of a host of problems. In most instances, the land apportionment for rehab and sale is on a 1:4 to 1:3 basis whereas, the FSI share as per the policy is equal i.e. 1:1 in the city area and 1:0.75 in the suburbs for rehab and sale components. As a result, the tenement and population density for rehab and sales is 3:1. Slum on an average have tenement density of 300-350 tenements per hectare (based on population as per 2011 census). This figure is arrived at on the basis of slum occupied land in Mumbai being 3000 hectares and having a population of approximately 50 lakh i.e. 10 lakh slum tenements, thereby making the slums overcrowded and congested.
42. Typically, in SRA projects, the rehab buildings are segregated on 25% to 30% of the total slum land. The remaining 75% to 70% of the slum land is apportioned towards the free sale component. Since the prevailing tenement density in rehab areas is on an average 1200 to 1300 tenements per hectare, the density of population inhabiting such tenements would be 6000 to 6500 persons per hectare. According to Mr. Seervai, such a situation has occurred inter alia, because there are no statutory regulations for apportionment of land between rehab areas and the free sale component and there is no prescribed maximum tenement density for rehab buildings in slum projects.
43. Mr. Seervai would next submit that since a much smaller land area than what would ordinarily be required is apportioned to rehab buildings, it would result in the following:-
(a) Rehabilitation buildings are constructed as high rise towers sometimes having 15-20-30 storeys. Because of the large number of tenements these buildings have a very high tenement density leading to overcrowding.
(b) There is a mere paltry 6 metre distance prescribed between two rehab buildings. Moreover, even thereafter, developers are given concessions and relaxations in relation to open spaces that are provided for rehab buildings.
(c) Barely any open spaces are provided to rehab buildings which do not comply with the minimum requirements stipulated by the DCPR 2034 for other non-SRA buildings in the city. Hence, the manner in which the rehab buildings are planned, designed and then constructed has caused significant misery forcing the slum dwellers being tightly packed in a virtually uninhabitable manner, in the smallest possible section – in about 25% to 30% of the land area that they occupied prior to the implementation of the project.
44. Mr. Seervai has painstakingly urged the adverse health conditions of the occupants in the rehab buildings; relying on a research paper published online dated 16 March 2020 where scholars have in a systematic manner explained the nexus between the poor planning of the rehab buildings in slum projects and the burden of tuberculosis faced by the occupants of these buildings. The study was undertaken on the basis of a survey conducted in respect of three resettlement colonies i.e. (Lallubhai Compound, Natwar Parekh Compound and PMG Colony, Mumbai). The research paper is entitled “Association between architectural parameters and burden of tuberculosis in three resettlement colonies of M-East Ward, Mumbai”(Pardeshi, P., Jadhav, B., Singh, R., Kapoor, N., Bardhan, R., Jana, A., … Roy, N. (2020). Association between architectural parameters and burden of tuberculosis in three resettlement colonies of M-East Ward, Mumbai, India. Cities & Health, 4(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/). This delves into the issue of land apportionment as it links the various medical and health problems faced by the occupants of the rehab buildings in slum project to lack of natural ventilation and light.
45. Mr. Seervai has elaborated on the precarious condition of women residing in the slums. He would submit that the utter lack of privacy in rehab building puts women at high risk from abuse. Poorly lit and maintained common passages and staircases in rehab buildings, where lifts do not often work, contribute to women being unsafe and insecure, leading to serious privacy issues for the women.
46. Mr. Seervai would then refer to the poor environmental conditions, more particularly, lack of ventilation/air circulation. This contributes to a difficult and unhealthy environment for the occupants of rehabs buildings. He would then refer to the aspect of the poor maintenance of such rehab buildings. In this context, he would illustratively state that a deposit of Rs.20,000/- per family (now raised to Rs.40,000/- per family) made by the developer to the SRA, which is transferred to the rehab society is wholly inadequate for the high maintenance overheads, making it difficult for the occupants, especially the aged and handicapped to reach their homes on upper floors.
47. Mr. Seervai has highlighted that small rehabilitation areas having a high population density, ought to have access to amenities such as markets, playgrounds, etc. which are completely missing. In fact, even in instances where there are plans for such amenities, the same are not provided and instead such spaces are infested with hawkers. It is because of the relaxation on requirements of minimum open spaces that the occupants, specially children, who grow up in such rehab buildings are deprived of the basic minimum space for their social development.
48. Mr. Seervai then flags the issue of lack of fire safety, much less no fire safety in the rehab buildings, which are constructed in a manner that makes it impossible for a fire engine to enter in case of a fire. He has relied on some photographs in this regard. This issue, as Mr. Seervai would submit is directly linked with skewed land apportionment which requires urgent attention in the context of a performance audit.
49. Mr. Seervai would submit that the root cause behind the problem of unscientific and inequitable apportionment of slum land between rehab and free sale area is attributable to the ambiguity and lack of clarity in the extant statutory framework. In this regard, he would refer to Regulation 3.12(A) of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034 which prescribes a minimum tenement density of 650 tenements per net hectare. According to Mr. Seervai, there is ex-facie discrimination in the Regulations considering that Regulation 30 prescribes a maximum tenement density of 450 per hectare where the FSI is 1. The real outcome of the DCPR 2034 does not stipulate any maximum tenement density, which has led to rehab buildings having unacceptable high tenement density in the range of 1200 to 1300 and above. Further, referring to Sub-regulations 3.14 to 3.16 of Regulation 33(10) read with Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 15A of the Slum Act. Mr. Seervai would submit that it is the conscious legislative omission to not prescribe any criteria for the basis of apportionment which has led to discriminatory apportionment of slum land to the free sale area and consequent deprivation of the rehab area. Mr. Seervai, in the context of Regulation 33(10), Sub-regulation (6) has highlighted on various relaxations prescribed in relation to construction of buildings and other requirements in the rehab area, which augments the problem in this regard. Thus, he would submit that the net effect of the present statutory regime brings with it unsustainable consequence of there being no FSI limit for rehab components/ buildings which is in the teeth of the provisions of the MRTP Act read with the DCPR 2034, as also Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
50. In the above backdrop, Mr. Seervai has made the following suggestions:-
(a) Firstly, there ought to be a maximum density cap as opposed to a minimum as provided under the extant statutory framework. It is proposed that a maximum density for rehab be fixed at 600 tenements per hectare. This would be consistent with the maximum density of 450 t/ha as specified in the DCPR 2034 for general housing projects.
(b) As regards the inadequate amenities/lack of basic amenities in the rehab areas, it is proposed that the standards specified in the DCPR 2034 and Town Planning Schemes, based on development area in population, for any other development be implemented in slum redevelopment projects.
(c) The Slums TDR also ought to be utilized in slum redevelopment contrary to the prevalent practice of utilizing it in any other project. It is proposed that TDR sale and purchase be restricted for use in other slum redevelopment projects to maintain uniform density across various slum pockets that are currently unequal. There is a suggestion that the SRA could operate a Slum TDR Bank for ease of TDR encashment, sale and regulate its pricing.
(d) It is proposed that the practice of concessions and premiums granted under the discretionary power of the CEO- SRA should be immediately stopped, so as to facilitate in alienating the vexed issue of apportionment, as discussed above.
Submissions on behalf of NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) in IA(L) 28730/2024 (Ms. Gulnar Mistry, Advocate)
51. The Applicant is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and a public charitable trust under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950, established in the year 2000. It is stated to be working in the areas of preservation of public open spaces, solid waste management, improvement in air quality, preservation of water bodies, beaches, mangroves, built and natural heritage features, efficient road space management, and water conservation.
52. Ms. Gulnar Mistry, on behalf of these Applicants, would rely on I. A. No. 2409 of 2025 to support the applicant’s case. She has made suggestions pertaining to the first of the seven issues flagged by the Supreme Court in paragraph 34 of its judgment in Yash Developers (Supra). The first issue brought forth by the Supreme Court is “i) Identification and declaration of land as a slum. This problem involves an examination of the role of authorities in giving such recognition, insidious intervention of builders in the said process casts doubts on the independence and integrity in the decision-making process;”.
53. Ms. Mistry, addressing the Court on issues pertaining to identification of slums on open spaces would submit that slums have encroached upon open spaces and, under the existing policy, in situ rehabilitation of such slums areas is being undertaken. The current process for identifying slums does not distinguish between slums on regular land and those encroaching on reserved public open spaces. Ms. Mistry further submits that this failure exacerbates overcrowding at the local level and in the city at large, because areas that are designated for recreational use are diverted and no longer remain available, including to slum dwellers who live in cramped quarters and for whom this civic amenity is even more important.
54. Ms. Mistry would urge that open space reservations are seen as essential public amenities, and can neither be encroached upon nor diverted for other uses. She places reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation((1985)3 SCC 545), (para 57 page 589), MCGM V. Hiraman Deorukhar & Ors.((2019)14 SCC 411) (para 7 to 9, 12 at page 419- 420) to affirm the same.
55. Ms. Mistry further places reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Lal Bahadur Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors((2018) 15 SCC 407), (para’s 14-16 at pages 415 to 417, para’s 24, 26 at page 427) wherein, it was held that altering the use of green belts for residential use violates the public trust doctrine and Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Mudappa & Ors.(1991 4 SCC 54) (para 24 page 75) which held that open spaces for recreation are amenities of great public concern and vital interest to be preserved in a development scheme.
56. Ms. Mistry would further draw the Court’s attention to this Court’s decision in NAGAR Vs. State of Maharashtra((Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002)), which observes that the Court is deeply aware of the serious shortage of open spaces in the city of Mumbai, as the data presented, sourced from official surveys and civic reports clearly demonstrates. Ms. Mistry further states that the per capita open space available in Mumbai is much lower than international and even national planning standards, and highlights that 35% open space is a minimum requirement, not an average or flexible figure and observes that if any project manages to retain more than 35% through better planning, it should be appreciated and encouraged.
57. Ms. Mistry further highlights that through this Court’s decision in NAGAR V. State of Maharashtra (supra) that the State Government has been directed to undertake a “comprehensive policy review” of Regulation 17 (3)(D)(2) within a period of 24 months, including an evaluation of whether the 35:65 ratio serves the goal of sustainable development. Additionally, it has been directed that if necessary, the state shall frame revised regulations ensuring a higher retention of open space, enhanced civic safeguards and exclusion of fresh encroachments from rehabilitation benefits.
58. In the above backdrop, Ms. Mistry has made the following two-fold suggestions:-
(a) Allowing the amalgamation of slum rehab projects on open lands with other slum schemes in the same ward which are not on open spaces, and allow the utilization of FSI/ TDR from the area of open space designation with the view of incentivizing the clearing and maintenance of open spaces by all;
(b) To treat public open spaces on par with vital public projects under clauses 1.3- 1.4 and 3.11 of DCR 33 (10).
59. Ms. Mistry further underscores that SRA has suggested that it is considering a “cluster redevelopment approach” to slums as measure to free up amenity space by shifting a slum on one plot onto another plot and undertaking a joint/cluster redevelopment. This would further safeguard the amount of open or designated reservations to which such a cluster redevelopment scheme applied would be retained as is and not be reduced and the open space should be preserved and retained in a continuous manner, so as to allow for larger public open spaces.
60. Ms. Mistry further highlights that slum rehabilitation projects have been implemented without reducing open spaces, she refers to a time when this Court had stayed a 1992 notification that allowed 67% of land for rehabilitation and sale while retaining 33% for open spaces. Around 45 Acres of open spaces were preserved by adjusting adjoining lands. However, the measure was limited to contiguous plots, restricting its wider application.
61. In the above backdrop, Ms. Mistry would suggest on prioritizing public spaces on par with public projects and providing incentives for clearing and maintaining open spaces via different methods like amalgamation of slum rehab projects on open lands with other slum schemes.
Submissions on behalf of Mr. Vinay Hule and Mr. Ramesh Makhija in IA(L)/28730 of 2024 (Mr. Akash Rebello, Advocate)
62. Mr. Akash Rebello, learned counsel for the above Applicant/Intervenor in the course of his submissions has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by these applicants which states that the Applicants i.e. Mr. Hule is a member of one Om Siddhivinayak (SRA) CHS and is a slum dweller, whereas the other Applicant Mr. Makhija, is the owner of a factory premises which has been designated as a slum area.
63. Mr. Rebello on behalf of these Applicants has advanced contentions along with suggestions on four main issues viz. :-
(i) Identification of slum dwellers;
(ii) Selection of developers;
(iii) Provisions relating to transit rent;
iv) Effectiveness of statutory remedies;
64. On the first and second issues, Mr. Rebello would submit that they are closely intertwined and interconnected. The identification of slum dwellers and the appointment of the developer is the first step in the rehabilitation process. Accordingly, if the slum dwellers who are beneficiaries of the scheme are not properly identified, it would lead to various challenges and protracted litigation which would in turn affect the entire slum rehabilitation scheme. In this context, Mr. Rebello would refer to the judgment of this Court in Awdesh Tiwari and Ors. vs. Chief Executive Officer, SRA and Ors.29. This is to submit that this Court in the said decision observed that the unregulated process particularly when there are instances of overlapping slum schemes, which are rival societies, leads to unhealthy competition by rival developers, which often results in delay to the scheme.
65. Mr. Rebello would submit that there are circulars of 15 February 2008, 02 February 2015 and 23 April 2024 which apply after the appointment of a developer and at the stage of acceptance of the slum rehabilitation scheme. However, for the first stage of appointment of a developer by the slum dwellers there is no circular or process to regulate the same.
66. Addressing the above issues, Mr. Rebello would submit that the SRA ought to devise a mechanism to regulate the process and get involved much prior to the submission of the proposal by the developer so as to mitigate the challenges referred to above.
67. Mr. Rebello addressing the Court on the provisions relating to transit rent would submit that the circulars of the SRA have, to a large extent, dealt with the issue of non-payment of transit rent. However, experience reveals that SRA has passed orders refusing to compute such transit rent, which have more often than not been set aside by the High Court. This leads to an anomalous situation where, even at the interim stage, there is a long drawn process to determine what the transit rent is. Often it involves appeals and compels the slum dwellers to run from pillar to post to get such rent even after vacating their premises.
68. It is urged in such context, that while the slum dweller and the developer may be free to agree upon a higher rent, at the very least, the basic rent must be ascertained/fixed. This would avoid a situation where disputes arise as to the quantum of such rent payable to a slum dweller which is prolonged and not decided over long period of time. However, if a base rent is fixed, at least that amount can be paid to the slum dweller pending final adjudication.
69. On the issue of effectiveness of statutory remedies, Mr. Rebello has referred to the decision of this Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman CHS vs. State of Maharashtra(2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1000). The Court in the said case observed that in a situation where disputes of a technical nature could be sorted out and disposed of before the Committee, which would lessen the burden on the High Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction. In this regard, Mr. Rebello would strenuously urge that it is the absence of a legal mind on the part of the AGRC that leads to remand of its orders, ultimately causing inordinate delay.
70. Mr. Rebello would in the above backdrop suggest that to ensure transparency in the process, it would be just and expedient that the AGRC is chaired by a retired High Court Judge. This would reduce the burden of this Court in deciding matters and examining the issue of application of mind by the AGRC, when petitions are filed in this Court, challenging such decisions.
Submissions on behalf of Late Mr. Shirish Patel, Urban Planner: (Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate)
71. Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee learned Senior Counsel, has represented this Applicant who passed away during the pendency of this proceeding on 20 December, 2024. He is now represented by Justice Gautam Patel (Retd.). His son and one of the legal heir have sought to intervene on his behalf, vide IA dated 28 January 2025. The late applicant was a public-spirited person, having a distinguished and exemplary record of working in the areas of urban planning, public spaces, and housing including having personally designed the Kemp’s Corner Flyover in Mumbai in 1965. The applicant is desirous of placing before this Court his views and suggestions to assist in its endeavour to review the working and effectiveness of the Slum Act.
72. Mr. Rustomjee, at the very outset, would refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra) dated 30 July 2024 and more particularly paragraphs 32 to 42 thereof, wherein the Supreme Court has made observations regarding the issues in the working of the Slum Act and the need for “reviewing” the Slum Act to identify the cause of the problems indicated inter alia in paragraph 34. The said para reads thus :-
“34. The exasperation of the High Court about working of the Act is understandable. The present appeal is a classic example of why the High Court’s concern is genuine. It has been noticed that the statutory scheme is problematic with respect to: i) Identification and declaration of land as a slum. This problem involves an examination of the role of authorities in giving such recognition, insidious intervention of builders in the said process cast doubts on the independence and integrity in the decision-making process; ii) Identification of slum dwellers: This involves a complicated process of proof of such a status, the attendant problem of groupism, giving rise to competing claims inevitably leading to litigation; iii) Selection of a developer: The Act leaves this decision to the cooperative society of slum dwellers and the majority decision is manipulated by competing and rival developers; iv) Apportionment of the slum land between redevelopment area and sale area: This is yet another area where court has witnessed developers seeking to increase the proportion of the sale area, leading to contestation; v) Obligation to provide transit accommodation for the slum dwellers pending redevelopment: Invariably, we see instances where the developer does not provide transit accommodation within time or provides an inadequate alternative in the form of a quantified amount towards rent, On the other hand, there are instances where some slum dwellers refuse to vacate the premises on the ground that the transit accommodation is either inconvenient or the amount offered is insufficient; vi) There are also issues of lack of independence and objectivity in the functioning of statutory authorities: This is a matter of serious concern. Courts have witnesses that the authorities have no independence and, their tenure is also short. Additionally, the functioning of these statutory authorities gives an indication that there could be a regulatory capture; vii) Another concern which exists is about the effectiveness of statutory remedies: Statutory remedies are ineffective and at the same time, lacking in accountability and vii) Judicial review proceedings under Art. 226 cannot be a long-term solution: We have given details of the number of writ petitions pending before the High Court in Para 33.”
73. In the above backdrop, Mr. Rustomjee has made the following suggestions:-
(i) The primary step should be to disregard the notion that a poor family should be provided with “free housing” as it lives in an urban area, highlighting that everyone should pay for their own house, construction cost. Hence, subsidies, housing loans may be made available for the same. Furthermore, for families who cannot afford EMIs for the construction cost, housing should be provided on “leave and licence” basis by the SRA.
(ii) Mr. Rustomjee would refer to the Afzulpurkar Report, wherein he would stress upon the importance of availability of finance at economical rates which would include viable schemes for facilitating alternate housing in favour of notified slum dwellers. He would in this context highlight the importance of this constitutional imperative, which is imminent so as to address the issues under the Slum Act, as far as rehabilitation of the slum dwellers is concerned.
(iii) The ownership of land must be separated from ownership of the structure standing on it. On selling his premises, the occupant may recover his cost of construction and the same should be done at the prevailing market rates, less any appropriate amount for the deterioration of the construction. The occupant should not be allowed to claim any appreciation of the land value, emphasizing that owner of the structure should be permitted to sell it only to owner of the land, as the appreciation belongs to the owner of the land. This should be done at prevailing construction cost less adjustment for deterioration.
(iv) The government should part ways with the idea of monetizing the value of the land that has been kept aside for the sale component. Instead, such land should be used to provide the rehab building with proper light and ventilation, and amenities such as health-care clinics, public toilets, pocket parks, etc., that are accessible within a walking distance.
(v) Where the land is owned by the government, such ownership be transferred to a Community Land Reserve (CLR) which is similar to Forest Reserves and Wildlife Reserves, where land is reserved for specific purpose. The said CLRs will be required to keep their land for exclusive use for low-income housing, barring sale of such land and any charge for its use must not exceed maintenance costs. The CLRs should be non-profit companies under the Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the hallmark of these should be that of achieving the utmost transparency, with the specified style of management, as set out in their Memoranda and Articles of Association.
(vi) The National Building Code, 2016, (NBC 2016) (Part 3, Section C-2.4.2) specifies 500 dwelling units per hectare (du/ha) as the maximum density on a plot for 15 sq. metre apartments in four storey walk-ups. The NBC 2016 does not specify which amenities have to be within a walking distance of the 500 du/ha as an essential aspect of the housing construction.
(vii) The essential amenities to be provided on site must be first defined for the size of the population to be rehabilitated on that site and under no account should the same be compromised. Adequate natural light and ventilation, particularly to the lower floors, and the space between buildings for facades that have windows shall not be compromised. In this regard, NBC 2016 (Part 3, Section 8) which provides for clear guidelines, must be adhered to.
(viii) If the conditions spelt out above in regard to adequate social amenities, density, light and ventilation are not feasible, then in such case some families shall be relocated to adjacent vacant land or in neighboring redevelopment sites that are less over-crowded.
74. Mr. Rustomjee underscores the importance of quality construction lasting more than 100 years, stating that regardless of the hurdles/ obstacles and the pressures, acceptable living conditions should not be compromised at any cost. In this context, he would lay emphasis on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Submissions on behalf of Nagardas Dharsi Bhuta Charities (land owner) (Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate)
75. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has represented the applicants. Reliance is placed on the Affidavit of one Mr. Kamlesh Jaysukhlal Bhuta.
76. At the outset, Mr. Rajiv Kumar would state that the Applicant is a trust having ownership of land which is notified as a slum area. The applicant-Trust had filed proposals/ schemes to develop and rehabilitate its land hence this applicant is aware of the functions and challenges that crop up in relation to redevelopment of slums.
77. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, at the outset would referring to the judgment dated 20th September 2024, of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (Supra) and highlight the issues framed therein, as also to the decision(s) of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Indian Cork Mills (supra) and Bishop John Rodrigues vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) to submit that the Court has recognised a preferential right is conferred on the owner to undertake redevelopment under the provisions of Section 3B (4)(e) and Section 13(1) and (2) of the Slum Act. His contentions is to the effect that while recognising such right it must be given realistic effect to enable a landowner to develop its own land in a bona fide manner, in interest of all stakeholders.
78. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, outlines the process of redevelopment to be followed by a landowner upon the land being declared as a slum rehabilitation area under Section 3(C)(1) of the Slums Act. His concern is that after spending atleast 6 to 12 months and incurring large scale expenses, the landowner is expected to get consent of 51% of slum dwellers. In such context, it is submitted that, the landowner is exposed to unforeseen obstacles such as: slum dwellers begin to assert rights superior to those of the actual landowners by forming proposed co-operative housing societies and appointing their own developers to seek approval for redevelopment under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. These societies are often influenced or supported by undisclosed third parties who later emerge as developers. As a result, genuine landowners frequently find themselves entangled in frivolous and vexatious litigation initiated by slum dwellers or such hidden agencies. Consequently, despite having invested substantial time and money, landowners may ultimately find their proposals rejected at the Letter of Intent (LOI) stage.
79. Mr. Rajiv Kumar further highlights that in the situations as described above, there have been large scale encroachments on private lands, followed by long drawn litigation, which ultimately leads to the failure of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. As per the Slum Rehabilitation Authority's (SRA) slum cluster list of 2015, up to 35,67,12,299 sq. ft. of land in Mumbai is slum encroached as per reports available on the internet, 15,76,87,200 sq. ft. of this is private land.
80. Mr. Rajiv Kumar expresses concern with regard to circular No. 144 dated 31st August 2013, Circular No. 144A dated 9th November 2015, and Section 13(1) of the Slum Act. He submits that it is the consent of slum dwellers which acts as a stumbling block to several SRA projects.
81. Mr. Kumar would urge that upon the SRA declaring a particular property as a slum under Section 3 (C)(1), the landowner is given an opportunity to justify why the said land ought not to be acquired. In responding to any acquisition notice, the landowner may show his inclination to rehabilitate and redevelop the said property. However, the land owner is not kept informed about any decision that the SRA and/or the State Government takes on such hearing/cause shown by the owners of the land. It is only when the notice is published that the landowner becomes aware that the land has been acquired. There is an absence of transparency in the manner in which the acquisition process is undertaken, which leads to further litigation and delays the process of redevelopment of slums properties.
82. Mr. Rajiv Kumar underscores that the Slum Act is a beneficial legislation with provisions meant to ameliorate the poor condition of slum dwellers, who should not be jettisoned only on technical grounds or procedural infirmities. These should not be given undue importance once the Statutory Authorities have performed their task. He further submits that the Slum Act is used as a land grabbing tool by third party developers at the behest of societies, which ought to be stopped/ nipped in the bud.
Submissions on behalf of Skycon Infrastructure, Private Landowner (Mr. Kirti Munshi, Senior Advocate)
83. Mr. Kirti Munshi, learned Senior Counsel, has appeared on behalf of Skycon Infrastructure, private landowner. He has placed reliance on the contentions of the applicant as raised in the affidavit dated 18 September 2024.
84. Mr. Munshi at the outset submits the issue of the compensation received by private slum owners for their private land being acquired is inexplicably low. He has drawn the Court’s attention to the statutory provisions and the First Schedule of the Slum Act that governs the procedure for the computation of compensation payable to private land owners. It is submitted that there is no uniformity between the compensation which is payable under various statues wherein the private landowner is deprived of his land for a public purpose and the compensation payable under the Slum Act is not commensurate with the other acts, but in fact substantially lower than even the compensation which is awarded under other acts to private landowners for being deprived of their private land.
85. To highlight such aspects, Mr. Munshi has presented before the court computation of compensation under other acts, such as Right to Fair compensation Act, 2013, National Highways Act, 1956, Maharashtra Regional Towns Planning Act, 1966, Development Control Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034 Mumbai, Unified Development Control Promotion Regulation (UDCPR), 2020, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, 1961, Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976. Mr. Munshi then would emphasize that the new legislations are either guided by the principles of Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, which contemplates market value or comparable sales instances or the new DCPR 2034 and the UDPCR 2020 which contemplate compensating the landowner in the form of incentives which if monetized would be of greater value than even what would be awarded to a landowner under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
86. Mr. Munshi places a hypothetical illustration of a comparative calculation of compensation on the basis of various statutory provisions noted above in respect of the above landowner’s plot of land, in order to illustratively demonstrate the disparity in compensation which would have been awarded in respect of his plot under the various acts mentioned above. After perusing the above comparative chart, the compensation awarded under the Slum Act is found to be abysmally lower than the compensation awarded to the landowner for the same plot if the land was acquired under other acts.
87. Thus, Mr. Munshi submits that not awarding the private landowner a realistic compensation, would amount to penalizing the private landowners for the inability and lack of will on the part of the state machinery to protect private land from being unauthorizedly encroached or the inability to remove such encroachments.
88. Mr. Munshi has referred to the Circular No. 167 dated 30th December, 2015, which mandates that once certified Annexure – II is received and 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers is verified and granted to the developer/society, the scheme shall not be stopped due to pending litigation over title or development rights unless specific injunction is issued by a competent court of law. It is submitted that individuals approach Civil Courts or other authorities to obtain interim or ad-interim orders staying Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) implementation and certain plaints ingeniously drafted to set up a case of fraud of some nature to invoke the assistance of these for a to delay the implementation of the SRS.
89. Mr. Munshi would urge on the issue of interference by the Civil Courts despite statutory provisions creating a bar/ouster of jurisdiction under Section 42 of the Slum Act as well the Section 149 of the MRTP Act, where the Civil Courts are debarred from exercising jurisdiction in respect of matters mentioned therein. It is observed that despite the bar/ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in respect of a certain category of disputes, there is interference by the Civil Courts in various slum redevelopment projects which has resulted in inordinate delays being caused for the implementation of these projects.
90. In the aforesaid context, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in M/S Patel Construction v. Himasnhu Dwarkadas Ruparelia and others(2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2175) (First Appeal No. 27 of 2014 by a unreported judgment dated 7th May 2025), wherein a private landowner’s 2005 Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was stalled for more than seventeen years by Civil Court’s injunction. Despite no fraud, the status quo orders persisted, thereby highlighting the plight of the private landowners which is occasioned by due to a lackadaisical adherence to the mandate of Section 42 of the Slum Act and Section 149 of MRTP Act.
91. Mr. Munshi, further submits that there is now judicial recognition of the preferential right which a landowner has to redevelop his own property in the scheme of the Slum Act. He submits that this position has been given due recognition in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Cork Mills (supra) and subsequently Bishop John Rodriques v. State of Maharashtra (Supra). Both the said decisions have been now upheld by the Supreme Court vide judgments dated 22 August 2025, respectively.
92. Mr. Munshi urges that in order to avoid any conflict in the smooth functioning of the redevelopment in respect of private lands, it is necessary to clarify that since the preferential right of the private landowner to redevelop his own property has legal sanction, that, ispo facto, would entail curtailing of rights which the society of slum dwellers or occupants presently exercise.
93. Further, Mr. Munshi places reliance on the Application of late Intervenor/Applicant, Mr. Shirish Patel, to endorses twofold reform:
(i) To separate ownership of land from structure, limiting occupants to possession rights only and the owner should be permitted to sell the structure only to the owner of the land at prevailing construction cost less adjustment for deterioration.
(ii) On selling one’s premises, the occupant may recover only his cost of construction at prevailing market rates less any appropriate amount for deterioration of the construction.
94. In order to curb the above issues, Mr. Munshi makes the following two fold suggestion:
(i) There should be clear and explicit, succinct guidelines either to be notified by the SRA/ State or the Court in terms of a judicial pronouncement, in order to act as an impediment to the smooth implementation of Slum Rehab Schemes and should be followed by all Courts and fora in the State of Maharashtra.
(ii) In a genuine case, if the Civil court or any fora under the Slum Act does grant an injunction order, then there must be a provision whereby there is finality accorded to that interim order within a specified stipulated period which cannot be extended, so that any such actions which are filed merely with a view to procrastinate do not achieve the objective of delaying the implementation of Slum Rehab Schemes for unduly long.
(iii) That the body/society of slum dwellers/occupants should not have a say in the appointment of a developer, if the private landowner is desirous of undertaking the redevelopment of his own land by himself, either, directly or indirectly.
Submissions on behalf of NAREDCO West Foundation (Dr. Milind Sathe)
95. Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel have advanced submissions on behalf of NAREDCO West Foundation, which is stated to be an apex national body for the real estate industry.
96. The learned counsel have, at the outset, highlighted the problems and issues faced by the developers who are forced to pay retrospective rents to newly eligible occupants, adversely impacting the cash flow of the project. It is because of the delay in deciding the eligibility that becomes a ground for opposing eviction by the slum dwellers, thereby causing delay in implementation of the project. In this context, they would urge that such problems are further aggravated at the level of the AGRC which is not able to hold regular sittings causing significant delays. There are no timelines for certifying the eligibility of slum dwellers or deciding appeals, which adds to the delay. The learned counsel have relied on the affidavit filed by NAREDCO West Foundation and have made the following suggestions:-
(i) The SRA should entrust development projects to the developers depending upon their past experience as well as success in implementation of projects of similar size. Some basic criteria ought to be formulated to bid for slum scheme depending upon the size of the slum, built up area, project cost and density in terms of clause 3.1.2 (a) of the DCPR.
(ii) Only such developers ought to be selected to be permitted who have completed such projects of similar scale and minimum net worth of the developer also to be duly considered.
(iii) There should be no further extension in the cut-off for the eligibility of slum dwellers over and above that which is statutorily provided.
(iv) SRA ought to adopt a digitized platform like that of MCGM for sanctioning proposals for redevelopment including establishing procedure for a single window clearance.
(v) With regard to the vexed issue of apportionment of slum land between rehabilitation area and sale area, there is no statutory formula or percentage stipulated for bifurcation of land and area between the rehab and sale area under the Slum Act. Any fixed ratio of apportionment will create inflexibility in making the slum rehabilitation scheme further unviable. To overcome this and the situations where the developer has to provide buildable reservations and shifting of reservations under Regulation 17(3)(d) of the DCPR 2034 read with regulation 9 of the DCPR, freedom of planning is the need of the hour to ensure smooth implementation of slum projects.
(vi) Notice under Section 13(1) of the Slum Act must be issued within a prescribed timeline for the landowners to act within such time frame, failing which acquisition proceedings can be initiated against the landowners who is causing hurdles against implementation of the slum schemes.
(vii) Certification of Annexure - II ought to be completed by the competent authority in a time-bound manner.
(viii) Appeals under Section 35 of the Slum Act should be decided in a time-bound manner. SRA must endeavour to implement eviction/demolition within three months from passing an order under Section 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.
(i) A comprehensive policy may be formulated between the Central Government and the State Government in areas declared as slums or slum rehabilitation area, along with SOPs in the context of grant of consent by the State Government and its instrumentalities under clause 2.8 of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034. This provides for NOC for building permission within 60 days after intimation of such approval to the project is communicated by the instrumentality of the State Government such as MCGM or MHADA.
Submissions on behalf of CREDAI-MCHI (Mr. Shardul Singh, Advocate)
97. Mr. Shardul Singh appearing for CREDAI–MCHI (Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India – Mumbai) has addressed the Court on the following aspects by placing reliance on an affidavit dated 30 September 2024 submitted by CREDAI-MCHI and made certain suggestions which are summarized as under:-
Mr. Singh would submit that eligibility disputes are one of the largest causes of delay. This is because Annexure – II is issued after prolonged scrutiny, is amended repeatedly, and is often misused. Ghost entries and multiple entitlements persist due to absence of cross verification. In this regard Mr. Singh would urge that Annexure – II should be issued only by SRA Deputy Collectors using the GIS/biometric Auto Annexure System integrated with Aadhar, Voter Roll, and Utility Records. Such draft Annexure – II should be published online within a fixed objection window (45 days + limited condonation), after which eligibility must be frozen. No resurveys should be permitted.
98. Mr. Singh has urged that despite Regulation 33(10) prescribing 60 days for finalization of Annexure-II, this often exceeds 6 months to years, with repeated amendments. Mr. Singh would suggest that Annexure-II must exclusively rest with the SRA and Auto Annexure database should be relied upon for seamless issuance.
99. Mr. Singh has flagged the issue of a developer securing a General Body Resolution without financial or technical scrutiny. He would submit that speculative players procure consents, trade in FSI, and abandon project midway. In this context, he would suggest that SRA to prescribe basic eligibility criteria for developers undertaking slum schemes. Such criteria should consider past experience of the developers, while prescribing the eligibility rules.
100. Mr. Singh would then submit that rival societies on the same parcel/CTS plot having splinter consent, triggering disputes or overlapping proposals and since there are more than one developers/proposal, the fall-out is resultant disputes which stalls the project. In this regard, Mr. Singh would suggest that a Managing Committee should be appointed by a majority of not less than 51% of the total population of the slum pocket, in the General Body Meeting, to be overseen by the SRA authority. SRA should blacklist such society members who are not elected in the General Body meeting and no further complaints/allegations should be entertained from such society.
101. Mr. Singh would then refer to the issue of consent often being uninformed, coerced or disputed. Slum dwellers face language and literacy barriers. A slum scheme can be initiated by minimum 51% consent, to mean 49% would dissent. He would in this regard suggest that the developers in the presence of the SRA officers should give complete disclosure to ensure informed consent, which should be AV recorded e-consent, with insertion of biometric verification and cool-off period. No individual complaints should be entertained unless it is signed/supported by 1/3rd slum dwellers out of the entire slum dwellers, in the slum scheme.
102. Mr. Singh would submit that appeal remains pending for years, as the AGRC, GRC sit fortnightly, face quorum issues and are manned by overburdened bureaucrats. In this regard, he would reiterate suggestions made earlier of having a full-time tribunal with judicial members and a dedicated registry. Mere filing of appeal ought not to operate as an automatic stay unless a reasoned order is passed with conditions.
103. Mr. Singh would then flag the issue of a small minority often stalling projects despite 95% consent and rent being offered. Eviction under Section 33 read with 38 of the Slum Act are extremely slow. To alleviate such problem Mr. Singh would suggest that errant slum dwellers should face deferral of Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements and the SRA should be held responsible for undertaking the eviction.
104. Mr. Singh would then submit that developers are compelled to pay outstanding water and electricity dues of slum dwellers before granting permission to the developers, which runs contrary to clause 1.13 of DCPR in Regulation 33(10). Such dues according to Mr. Singh ought to be treated as arrears recoverable from beneficiaries, post rehabilitation. Auto Annexure Data could be used for cross-verification.
105. Mr. Singh has drawn this Court’s attention to relocation of religious structures within schemes which presently requires approvals from different department like Home, Urban Development, Police Department, causing 6 to 12 period delay. To mitigate this Mr. Singh has suggested that lawful religious structures within slum rehabilitation schemes ought to be treated like rehabilitation structures. There could be a single window clearance by the SRA instead of going to multiple authorities to obviate the delays.
106. Mr. Singh has flagged another issue of rehabilitation building not being properly managed, funds not used judiciously an infrastructure charges diverted. In this regard Mr. Singh has proposed certain suggestions as below ;-
a) A portion of infrastructure charges must be ring-fenced for rehabilitation upkeep and the corpus funds, must be audited periodically.
b) Once the slum dwellers are handed over possession of the respective units the onus of maintenance of the building should be with the slum society itself.
c) The infrastructure charges collected under Regulation 33(10)-clause 9.2 from the developers should be utilized solely for maintenance of rehab buildings, specifically the charges collected on the rehab built up area for maintaining such rehab buildings.
d) To address the issue of re-encroachment, it is suggested that re-encroachers must be disqualified from being a part of any scheme or future eligibility in any other scheme, for which the State Government and SRA should frame stringent guidelines.
e) Environmental Clearance (EC) approvals are cumbersome which delay the projects. It is suggested to establish a single window cell with SOPs, stringent timelines and fast-track clearances for slum schemes.
Submissions on behalf of Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. in IA/3024 of 2024 (Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate)
107. Mr. Pravin Samdani, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for the above Applicant/Intervenor and advanced submissions on their behalf. Firstly, as background of the applicant, Mr. Samdani would state that the Applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the development of real estate projects in Mumbai, having vast experience in rehabilitation schemes. Mr. Samdani would refer to and rely on the Interim Application which is on record, in the course of his submissions.
108. The Applicant is undertaking a slum rehabilitation scheme on lands situate in Goregaon (West) and Malad (West), Mumbai the details of which are set out in IA, admeasuring 4417.96 sq. meters (approx.). In this regard, SRA issued a Letter of Intent dated 11 April 2022 in favour of the Applicant to carry out a slum rehabilitation scheme on the said land. It is during the course of the said slum rehabilitation scheme that the SRA issued Circular No. 210 dated 1 August 2023. Mr. Samdani, placing reliance on the said circular would contend that vide the said circular, the housing department Government of Maharashtra has inter alia directed the SRA to ensure that the developers shall deposit two years’ advance rent and post-dated cheques for rent of one year. Also, that the Executive Engineer/SRA shall process the proposal of the developer for issuance of LOI only upon the deposit of advance rent by the developer. The Commencement Certificate for sale the component shall be issued in proportion to the amount deposited by the developer.
109. Mr. Samdani would submit that the circular is to be applied retrospectively by the SRA. It imposes unreasonable conditions on the developers which would render most of the slums schemes unviable, resulting in horizontal and vertical expansion of slums. Mr. Samdani, in this context, would submit that unless the slum is vacated within a specific and definite time period from the date of deposit, the project will become unviable.
110. Mr. Samdani would refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra), more particularly, paragraph 56(v) of the said decision. He would contend that the first portion of the said paragraph which deals with the obligation to provide transit accommodation to slum dwellers pending redevelopment is something that has been covered by the said Circular No.210 (supra). However, the second portion of paragraph 56(v) of the said decision which deals with the refusal of the slum dwellers to vacate has not been addressed.
111. In the above backdrop, Mr. Samdani makes the following suggestions:-
(a) There ought to be some definite timeline/time period within which the slum is vacated from the date of deposit of rent as prescribed in Circular No.210 dated 1 August 2023, failing which the project will be rendered unviable. This is also necessary to facilitate swift implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme.
(b) When the developer/s comply with the provisions and mandate of the said circular dated 1 August 2023 and deposit of rent in compliance thereof, there ought to be some safeguards in place so that the developer/s are reasonably secured. Further, the SRA ought to provide some incentives in terms of issuing the Commencement Certificate and/or other permissions qua the sale component in slum rehab schemes, in a timely manner. Revised Letters of Intent may be issued whereby these conditions or safeguards are included so as to balance and protect the interest of developers, as well.
(c) The SRA ought to devise a mechanism to deal with the issue of reluctance on part of the slum dwellers to vacate the premises on the ground that the transit accommodation is either inconvenient or the amount offered is insufficient. This is to facilitate speedy and effective clearance of a site where such a scheme is undertaken and to ensure due compliance with the second part of paragraph 56(v) of the decision in Yash Developers (supra). In this regard, the plea of inheritable tenancy which is often raised, ought to be done away with, to make sure that the slum rehab schemes are implemented in an effective and timely manner and taken to its logical conclusion.
Submissions on behalf of Shree Azad SRA CHS. Ltd. (Mr. Altaf Khan, Advocate:
112. Mr. Altaf Khan, learned counsel has made submissions on behalf of Shree Azad SRA CHS Ltd. (Society). Mr. Khan submits that there are several glaring deficiencies in the existing framework of SRA, which have led to persistent delays, disputes, and hardships to the stakeholders, including slum dwellers and developers.
113. The Court’s attention is drawn to various issues faced by the slum dwellers and developers which, according to the applicant, are not being addressed under the existing mechanism of the SRA. It is submitted that the scheme does not prescribe the uniform method for fixation of transit rent to be paid to slum dwellers, leaving the matter entirely to the developers resulting in disputes, and multiplicity of litigation before SRA and this court.
114. It is next submitted that there are drawbacks in quality control and accountability mechanisms, post-construction of rehabilitation buildings. Poor construction quality, absence of technical audits, and lack of maintenance oversight threaten to convert vertical slums into future hazards.
115. Also the existing process of formation of societies and appointment of developers is largely developer-driven. The initial Special General Body Meetings (SGBMs) are frequently organized and influenced by developers themselves, often without the supervision of SRA officers allowing manipulation of records and consent forms.
116. On the issue regarding the qualification of the developers, it is submitted that, developers with inadequate financial capacity or experience are often appointed for large scale projects without genuine verification of their solvency or expertise.
117. Mr. Khan further emphasizes on the issue of protection and rehabilitation of slum dwellers. He further submits that, the actual occupier of dwelling structures, in existence on or prior to 1 January 1995 were protected and were entitled for rehabilitation/relocation. Mr. Khan has placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Janhit Manch Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) in which it was held that the cut of date 01.01.1995 shall not be extended further, although this remained only on paper.
118. According to Mr. Khan the grievance redressal mechanism under the SRA Act including the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) is currently ineffective. The Committees assemble on an average 12 to 13 times a year resulting in huge backlog of cases and urgent matters are not listed promptly, resulting in pendency and multiplicity of litigation.
119. It is next submitted that the construction and planning of rehab buildings and that rehab buildings are not constructed in time, for instance in some cases the delay exceeds 20 years. Slum Act and DC Regulation are silent on the equal distribution of the plot between the rehab component and the sale component, which confers an advantage to the developer for using major/larger portion of the land for his sale component, which is not in the larger public interest.
120. It is submitted that, under the original DCR, 1991 there was no provision for parking with respect to Rehab Buildings in the Reg – 33(10). The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme having residential entitlement of carpet area 20.90 sq. metre, was introduced in DCR, 1991 vide amendment dated 12/08/2009 wherein one parking space for every eight tenements having carpet area up to 36 sq. metre each was provided. The Court’s attention is drawn to SRA Circular no. 104 (no. SRA/ENG/7313/Gen) dated 10/11/2009 to submit that, the said circular prescribing parking guidelines lacks the backing of law and runs contrary to the intent of the delegated legislation. Mr. Khan further submits that, the existing model of parking provision under DCPR, 2034 has widened the socio-economic gap and has failed to meet future needs of slum dwellers who are potential vehicle owners.
121. In the above backdrop, Mr. Khan has made the following suggestions:-
a. A Special General Body Meeting for the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme should be called by the slum dwellers for the appointment of the developer. In the event that SRA fails to appoint a developer by the tender process, the society on basis of the Special General Body Meeting should immediately communicate to the SRA. The SRA shall then scrutinize the tenders and call for a Special General Body Meeting in presence of an authorized officer who shall explain the S.R. Scheme to the slum dwellers and further appoint a developer on basis of majority decision as, per extant laws.
b. To fix the minimum transit rent based on location and other factors in consultation with stakeholders, minimum 5%, with a year wise increase to be implemented strictly and such condition should be recorded in LOI. The registered Tri-partite Agreement between the Developer, the Society and the Slum Dwellers should be executed at the time of appointment of developer.
c. At least four dedicated SRA officers should handle rent and lottery issues to ensure timely disposal of complaints. Any complaint/grievance of rent should be decided on priority and if any default is found on part of Developer it should be followed with ‘Stop Work Notice’. Interest of 12% per annum should be made payable on delayed payment of transit rent and that expeditious adjudication of applications of transit rent within a time bound manner, preferably within 30 days.
d. A squad team consisting of three officers must be formed for quality assessment of construction. Such team must also grant quality certificates. Upon confirmation of low quality construction, the developers / builders must be held accountable and compensation must be paid to either to SRA for Rehab Building or to Society.
e. The eligibility criteria of the developer shall be only those who have had a minimum experience in the field of redevelopment for 3 years having a financial capacity that is verified by the SRA. Developers should be prohibited from entering into any Joint Venture without the prior approval of the SRA and the society.
f. Retired High Court judges should chair the AGRC and retired District Court judges the GRC. Regular sittings and hybrid hearings should be ensured. A digital dashboard should be created to display the pending and disposed of cases.
g. SRA shall ensure an equal 50% - 50% distribution of land between the rehab and sale components.
h. Developer shall deposit a corpus fund, share fungible FSI benefits equally between rehab and sale portions, and execute leases or deemed conveyances before issuance of occupation certificates.
i. Before eviction, SRA shall ensure payment of 22 months of advance transit rent in addition to 11 months post-dated cheques to those eligible and 11 months rent to non-eligible slum dwellers.
Submissions of learned amici :-
122. Mr. Khambata, along with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, learned senior counsel, and Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned counsel appointed as amici, have taken strenuous efforts to present the issues before the Court in an appropriate perspective, in the light of what has been held by the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra).
123. At the outset, Mr. Khambata, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra) as also the decisions in Galaxy Enterprises (supra), Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Bishop John Rodrigues (supra), Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Tarabai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society (supra), State of Maharashtra vs. Shri Mahadev Pandharinath Dhole (supra) and Jilani Building at Bhiwandi vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Ors.(supra), submitted that in all these decisions, the Court has expressed multitudes of concerns in regard to the implementation of the Slums Act and the lacunaes, which are required to be redressed by the State Government. Mr. Khambata’s concern would be although the Slums Act was envisaged as legislation providing ad-hoc solutions to ad-hoc problems, as observed in State of Maharashtra vs. Shri Mahadev Pandharinath Dhole (supra), however, the dream as envisaged in the said decision as far remained to be fulfilled. It is submitted that there are several issues concerning the classification of slums and the effective and efficient management of their rehabilitation. Although the expansion of large slum areas could be restricted, they have now reached alarming proportions. Mr. Khambata has placed on record suggestions in a tabular form identifying specific issues, the causes of such problems, the relevant statutory framework/guidelines or decisions, the proposed measure/ solution and whether such solution would require amendment by legislature. In such event, the question arises as to what proposals may be made to address legislative flaws and what the views of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) are on these issues. At the outset, it may be noted that the following specific issues/problems have been identified:-
i. Suggestions on identification and declaration of land as slum;
ii. suggestions for identification of slum dwellers;
iii. Suggestion for selection of developers;
iv. Suggestions for apportionment of slum land between redevelopment and sale area;
v. Suggestions regarding obligation to provide transit accommodation to the Slum dwellers pending redevelopment.
vi. Suggestions regarding lack of independence and objectivity in functioning of statutory authorities;
vii. Suggestions regarding effectiveness of statutory remedies;
viii. Suggestions pertaining to miscellaneous issues.”
124. In relation to the aforesaid issues, Mr. Khambata has also submitted, in tabular form, the causes of the problems, the relevant existing statutory sections, regulations, rules, circulars, guidelines and/or judgments, proposed measure/solution, whether proposed measure/solution requires amendment of law by legislature, proposal for legislative reforms and the comments on views and suggestions of the SRA. We must appreciate that the information, as placed on record in tabular form ought not to be disturbed in any manner, as it gives a complete view of such issues and the valuable suggestions made on the proposed course of action. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the suggestions should form part of this judgment.
Suggestions:
125. The following are the suggestions as made by the learned amici:-
“I. DECLARATION OF SLUMS AND RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS
A. Balancing of Rights of owner with that of reasonable public housing for slum dwellers:
1. No ownership rights to slum dwellers: Suggestion to form a ‘community land reserve’ may be adopted(Pg. 393, Annexure A, Item 8, Affidavit on behalf of Shirish Bhailal Patel, Compilation of Affidavits-1.) with a few modifications as suggested herein. Ownership rights need not be transferred to slum dwellers. Allotment can be permanent but should not translate to ownership. The DCPR provisions conferring ownership rights on hutment dwellers in rehab tenements should be amended.
2. Housing arrangements: Identified slum dwellers should be given housing in rehab tenements for the duration while working in the City either free (for protected occupants) or on rent (for other cases). Any non protected occupants should be made to contribute financially for alternate accommodation as envisaged by the Maharashtra Slum Act.
3. Succession rights: After death of original occupants, heirs should be entitled to continue subject to payment of rent at similar rates as non-protected occupants.
4. Reversion mechanism: If slum dwellers or their heirs wish to give up the tenement, it should be transferred back to the community land reserve.
5. Implementation: These provisions should be implemented by way of Rules under Section 46 of the Maharashtra Slum Act and through amendments to DCPR.
B. Private Lands - Protecting Landowner Rights(Despite judicial recognition of landowners' preferential rights to redevelop slum-declared land, there are repeated instances of improper acquisition without adequate notice under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slums Act. See section 3B(4)(c) and (e) and section 13(1) falling under Chapter I-A of the Maharashtra Slums Act; See also Bishop John Rodrigues v State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 1212 of 2022, the Court (G.S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ.) which cites Gulabdas Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) Mh. L. J, and Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd v The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.,2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1214. (Paras 84, 85, 97 and 130)):
To make Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Act meaningful, the following suggestions are made:
6. Specific notice to private landowner: The current scheme of publishing a stakeholder-wide notice must be modified to include specific notice furnished to the private land owner(See recommendations of Nagardas Dharsi Bhuta Charities, Table VIII, Pg. 137, Sr. 7). The SRA policy of pasting a notice on site, publishing a notice in newspapers as per Circular No.198 dated 26.04.2021 (Table I, Pg. 17, Sr. 13) ought to also continue.
7. No Clubbing of Notices: There should not be any clubbing of the notice under Section 13 with that under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slums Act or any deemed notice. In case Section 14 process has begun, it must be stayed until proper notice is given under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Act.(See Suggestions by Bright Ability and Awareness Foundation (T-1), page 109 of Consolidated Table)
8. Standardized notice format: A standardized format of notice must be prescribed by the SRA and published on its website, including the date by which the owner's proposal should be submitted.
9. Commencement of 120-day period: The stipulated 120 day period must begin from proof of service given to the owner.
10. Title disputes: In case of title disputes, if the SRA cannot determine the real owner, the owner whose name is stated on the property card must be served with notice.
11. Priority of owner's rights: In case of competing claims, owner's right must be given priority over the right of occupants, unless the owner does not have any bona fide interest in redeveloping the land.(Therefore, the Court ought to consider the conduct of the landowner to assess the same. [see Deena Pramod Baldota v State Of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5102].)
12. Time-Bound Implementation: In the event that the owner, who has exercised his preferential right, does not adhere to the prescribed time frame, Section 13(2) should automatically follow, followed by the procedure prescribed under Sections 14 to 17 for acquisition of the land for a public purpose from the owner.
C. Government-Owned Lands:
In light of the public trust doctrine enumerating that Government lands are public resources held in trust by the State, it is suggested that:
13. Accountability and prevention of further encroachment: A list should be prepared marking free/open land as on date and State authorities should be held accountable for ensuring no encroachment takes place.
14. No veto power for occupants: In case of redevelopment on public land, no veto power should be given to occupants.
15. Transparent tendering: When private-public partnerships are resorted to, the government must adopt a fully transparent process by publishing public tenders.
16. Community housing stock: The State should benefit from the development potential of the land by having part of the redevelopment potential used to create community housing stock, over and above the rehabilitation of occupants.
17. Best deal for State: The tender should be awarded to a Developer who is not only technically and commercially sound but is able to provide the best deal for the State.
18. Community land reserve on public land: The DCPR may be amended to provide that even public land should be used for creation of a community land reserve instead of leasing the land to the Society of slum dwellers and reversion of tenements to the pool of public housing.
II. DELAYS AND AUTOMATIC TERMINATION PROVISIONS(Despite statutory provisions and judicial precedents, delays in implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes by owners and developers are not being adequately addressed. Of 578 applications received under Section 13(2), 372 remain pending. See Susme Builders Pvt Ltd v Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (2018) 2 SCC 230, para 45; Galaxy Enterprises v State of Maharashtra – 2019 SCC Online Bom 897, para 60)
19. Mandatory Time-Bound Completion: All letters of intent and agreements must mandate timely stage-wise completion of slum rehabilitation schemes.
20. Automatic Application of Section 13(2): In the event of default in adhering to stipulated timelines (unless extended by court order), the SRA should take action under Section 13(2) as an absolute rule to substitute the developer. To leave room for some unforeseen circumstances, it would be open to the developer to approach the CEO, SRA to extend the relevant milestone after passing a reasoned order. However, such an application should only be entertained in case the CEO, SRA is approached prior to the deadline of the milestone.
III. DENSITY AND APPORTIONMENT(Despite statutory provisions and judicial precedents, delays in implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes by owners and developers are not being adequately addressed. Of 578 applications received under Section 13(2), 372 remain pending. See Susme Builders Pvt Ltd v Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (2018) 2 SCC 230, para 45; Galaxy Enterprises v State of Maharashtra – 2019 SCC Online Bom 897, para 60)(This Hon’ble Court in State of Maharashtra v Shri Mahadeo Padnharinath Dhole AIR 1980 Bom 348, para 22 has held that the objective of the Maharashtra Slum Act “22...also is to provide to the slum dwellers at large certain basic necessities such as water, sanitary arrangements, light etc” and rehabilitation in proper buildings. However, the current scheme for redevelopment of slum areas does not achieve the avowed objective of rehabilitation of slum dwellers in proper buildings. Notably, the proviso to Regulation 33(10)(6.15) and Regulation 33(10)(6.16) and (6.17) enables relaxations in building requirements that may be provided by the CEO, SRA. The lack of apportionment of FSI between the rehabilitation component and the free sale component, has enabled disproportionate apportionment of slum land to the free sale area and consequent deprivation to the rehabilitation component.)
21. Maximum Tenement Density(The current framework does not achieve the objective of providing slum dwellers with proper buildings and basic necessities. Regulation 33(10)(3.12A) only prescribes a minimum tenement density without prescribing a maximum density, leading to heavy congestion. Rehabilitation tenements are often squeezed into 25 to 35 percent of slum land in buildings hosting up to 6,000 to 6,500 tenements per hectare.): DCPR 33(10) should be suitably amended to insert a maximum tenement density in keeping with sustainable development principles and to ensure rehabilitated slum dwellers are provided access to basic amenities. The regulation should prescribe a maximum density in line with DCPR 30[B] and the National Building Code of India, 2016 rather than prescribing a minimum tenement density.
22. Building Safety Standards and Fire Protection: Slum rehabilitation schemes must enforce the safety measures prescribed by the National Building Code (NBC)(The Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra v Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 398 applied Article 21 and 21A to direct State Governments to ensure that all government and private schools were constructed according to the safety norms incorporated in the NBC. This constitutional logic must extend with equal force to slum rehabilitation housing.) The CEO SRA cannot be permitted to grant relaxations in building norms that compromise the safety of the rehab components(The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors v Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Pvt Ltd (2014) 4 SCC 538, has expressly found that relaxations in building permissions cannot be permitted at the cost of providing the required public amenities and at the cost of safety to be afforded to inhabitants of Mumbai.). Accordingly, it is suggested that:
a. No relaxations to the minimum distance of 6m between two rehab buildings under Regulation 33(10)(6.8) should be permitted
b. Fire protection requirements as per DCPR 47 should be mandatory.
c. Lighting and ventilation requirements provided under Regulation 40 of the DCPR should be made mandatory to slum rehabilitation projects.
d. The open space requirement under Regulation 33(10) should be at par with the requirements under the DCPR as applicable to general building constructions(The DCPR demands open space requirements of 15 to 25 percent depending upon the plot area. However, Regulation 33(10)(6) reduces this requirement to 8 percent without any justification, which may be further relaxed by the CEO SRA under Regulation 33(10)(6.17).)
e. No relaxation should be granted where it adversely affects safety, fire safety and public safety, and planning norms established for safety cannot be compromised.
f. Any relaxations as to building constructions should be made only as per Clause 6.17 of DCPR 33(10), which are provided only to make the scheme feasible with reasons to be recorded in writing.
23. Apportionment of Land between Rehab and Sale Components: Specific norms for apportionment of FSI between the rehab component and sale component ought to be provided for(See The Aflzarpurkar Report contained recommendations as to appointment at para 15.9 (pg.44 of the Report)):
a. Either a fixed ratio be provided for under the DCPR or the factors relevant for determination of this ratio be defined in either the Maharashtra Slum Act or DCPR 33(10).
b. The apportionment between rehab component and free sale component ought to be made in such a way that the rehab component complies with suggestions as to maximum density and non-waiver of basic amenities, fire safety etc.
24. Developer’s Entitlement – Conditional on Compliance: Under the Maharashtra Slum Act read with Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, the developers' entitlement to FSI and the free sale component should be expressly recognized as conditional upon fulfillment of obligations to eligible slum dwellers. A failure to fulfill those obligations should be treated as a failure of consideration. Developers are a means to serve public welfare purposes, not ends in themselves.
25. Adequate checks and balances to protect bona fide third party purchasers: Developers should be granted right to free sale area proportionate to the stage of completion of the project and should not be permitted to sell any part of the free sale area in excess thereof.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF SLUM DWELLERS
26. Cut-Off Date Freeze(The cut off for giving status of protected occupier for a dwelling structure who will eventually be eligible for rehabilitation was initially 1985 and was subsequently revised to 01.01.1995 and thereafter to 01.01.2000 and recently to 01.01.2011 by the State government under the sub-regulation VIII (3.12) (C) of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034. The Afzulpulkar Committee Report categorically emphasized the need for freezing the cut-off date without any extension (Chapter 2, Pg. 14-15 of Afzulpulkar Committee Report).):
a. The cut-off date cannot be extended by way of a circular and should not be further extended.
b. Instead of extending the cut-off date, a procedure providing for rehabilitation of non-protected occupants at nominal cost should be implemented.
27. Time-Bound & Streamlined Process for Annexure II(SRA vide its Circular No.217 dated 12th February 2024 directed all Competent Authorities to generate Annexure II only by using Auto Annexure II application and further Deputy Collector / SRA / Engineering Department of SRA shall not accept and act upon any manually prepared Annexure II. However, the aforesaid Circular however does not provide for completion of issuance of Auto Annexure II in a time bound period.):
a. Time bound preparation: The procedure for preparation of Auto Annexure II should be initiated and completed at the stage of Section 3(C)(1) itself by the SRA/Deputy Collector to enable simultaneous preparation at the time of declaration of land as slum area.
b. Time bound Appeals: A time period of 30 days should be prescribed for filing Appeals and these should be disposed of within 60 days.
c. Mobile linking: Mobile numbers of slum dwellers should be linked to send draft and final Annexure II to them so they are aware of their eligibility status.
d. No undecided eligibility: In Annexure II, eligibility should not be kept undecided (sometimes kept pending for decades).
e. Spouse and occupants: Names of spouse (husband and wife) and all actual occupants should be mentioned in Annexure II.
f. Subsequent purchasers: Subsequent purchasers after issuance of Annexure II who have actually occupied/resided in slum structure should be considered for eligibility (as per G.R. dated 16.05.2015 and 16.05.2018).
g. Professional management agency: SRA can appoint a professional agency to guide slum dwellers, and fees for the same can be partly recovered as scrutiny charges for eligibility.
28. Satellite survey of Slum Plots: should be done periodic, to prevent further encroachment. Subsequent purchaser after issuance of Ann – II who have actually ‘occupied / resided’ in slum structure, should be considered for eligibility.
29. Definition of "Dwelling Structure": The State government should clarify under the definition of "dwelling structure" u/s. 3X(a) of the Slum Act whether structures above ground floors are "dwelling structures" or not.
30. Centralized Master List: Information should not only be centralized but consolidated into a Master List of beneficiaries that is publicly available like the Electoral Roll to help weed out duplications in different slum pockets and eliminate bogus slum dwellers from taking benefit under multiple schemes.
31. Biometrics and Identity Card:
a. Biometric survey for identification of number of exact slum dwellers of particular plot and integration of the same with central data base is required irrespective of the Authority preparing Annexure II. Disciplinary action should be initiated against the officer not following the law
b. After issuance of letter of Allotment to the slum dwellers, SRA should also issue ‘Identity Card’, to the allottee having photograph and biometric data of Husband, Wife and other family members of allottee.
IV. SELECTION OF DEVELOPERS
32. Constituting a Pre-Identified Panel of Developers: The Bombay High Court suggested replacing the existing scheme with a system of having a pre-identified panel of bona fide and reputed developers(Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2019)5 Bom CR 43, paras 3-5,65), which the SRA is implementing and should be followed so that there is a pre-identified list of developers from which slum dwellers can choose a developer. This would also streamline debarring/blacklisting defaulting developers.
33. Selection on objective criteria: The final decision on the Developer should not be left with the CHS. There should be objective criteria on the basis of which the Developer should be appointed by the SRA after taking into consideration the views of the CHS and keeping in mind the public trust doctrine. The selection of Developer should be completed in a time bound manner.
34. SRA-Facilitated Tendering: The SRA has indicated it will formulate and publish guidelines on floating tenders and criteria to consider in selection of a developer.(Item 19, Point 2, Suggestions of the SRA, Pg. 72, Table summarising suggestions of the SRA)
35. Financial and Technical Scrutiny of Developers(In Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa CHS 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3712 it was suggested that the SRA rigorously scrutinizes the selection of a developer on its financial and technical capacities through a scientific mechanism, in order to identify a bonafide developer with fullest abilities.):
a. SRA has already suggested and implemented measures in this regard. A graded scheme should be implemented requiring greater experience, minimum net-worth and cash in hand as the RERA carpet area of the project increases. All empanelled developers should be in the real estate development business for more than 5 years
b. The SRA's empanelment form (which requires details of past projects, awards, financial statements, etc.) should be incorporated with existing Annexure III requirements under Circulars Nos. 144, 144A and the Ease of Doing Business Manual.
36. Notification Before Third-Party Financial Bailouts: SRA should introduce a new policy/circular whereby no developer should be permitted to enter into an agreement with a third-party or joint-venture without notifying the SRA.
37. Stalled Projects - Auction Process: The SRA has indicated it is in the process of formulating a scheme for auctioning stalled projects through a ward-wise, e-tendering process.”
Submissions on behalf of SRA (Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General)
126. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General has made extensive submissions as also has filed written submissions in two parts, namely, Part 1 and Part 2. The submissions of Dr. Saraf on the distinct topics are as follows:-
(i) Background in relation to the Slum Act – In setting out the factors leading to the enactment of the legislation, it is submitted that the creation of slums in urban areas was due to numerous factors. The rapid expansion of industries led to a significant migration from rural areas to cities, which was also due to rural regions being unable to meet the livelihood needs of people who primarily depended on agriculture and related activities. Such migration caused overcrowding in urban areas and a shortage of housing, which, in turn, led to the development of large slum areas, particularly in Greater Mumbai and other urban regions in Maharashtra. The housing requirements in the urban areas could not meet the rapid development in urban activities. Such large scale and rapid immigration also led to encroachment of open public lands. Also, the apathy of the private landlords to prevent encroachment and to ensure the appropriate use of land led to slums mushrooming on private lands. The proliferation of slums also raised serious concerns in regard to the safety and health not only of the slum dwellers, but also of the society at large. Although multiple municipal laws were in operation, there was no uniformity in the provisions of these enactments coupled with insufficiency of the provisions to improve the situation in regard to slums. It is for such reasons that the legislature thought it appropriate to enact a special law to deal with the improvement, clearance and development of slum areas leading to enactment of the Slum Act in the year 1971. The object, inter alia, being to make better provision for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and for redevelopment as also for the protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants. The Slum Act was brought into force on 11 August 1971. The legislation casts various duties on the authorities. The Slum Act was substantially amended in the year 1996-97 and 2001 inter alia to introduce Chapter I-A and amendments.
(ii) Legislative history of the Slum Act – Under this heading, the learned Advocate General has referred to the Central Act, namely, the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. The backdrop for enactment of the said legislation was considered and elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanyukta Sangharash Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein the Supreme Court made the following observations:
4. Very little attention was paid to the slum dwellers in their initial period during the late 19% century and early 20% century, during colonial Rule. After the 1896 bubonic plague the Government recognized the need for improvement in the housing and sanitary conditions, in the city. This resulted in the formation of Bombay Improvement Trust (for short ‘BIT’)| in 1898, and later Bombay Development Department (for short ‘BDD') in the year 1920. BDD in particular, inter alia, had a mandate to construct low-cost houses for the workers who were manning the factories and the mills in the city; and for the workers in ports and railway station as well. All the same, not much was done by these bodies as far as improvement of living conditions of the workers in these areas or for providing them with a decent housing or sanitary conditions.
5. With independence, initially the approach of the authorities towards slums was also largely focused on clearing the slum areas, rather than improving their conditions. The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament for declaring the areas as slum area, and clearing it. The competent authority could declare an area as a slum area and would thereafter pass demolition or clearance orders. There was no purposeful welfare, socially sensitive, provision in the Act for redevelopment of the area after its clearance and this was left to the satisfaction of the competent authority, which may redevelop an area, subject to his or her satisfaction (see Section 11 of the Act).”
127. In line with the Central legislation, it is contended that the said Slum Act was conceived by promulgation of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Bill (Bill No. XXV of 1970), so as to formulate a comprehensive legislation to deal with slums in Maharashtra. After the suggestions of the report being invited from the Committee constituted to make submissions on the bill, the Legislature enacted the Slums Act in the year 1971 contemplating appointment of Competent authority for supervising the enforcement of the Slum Act, rehabilitation and improvement works. At the relevant time, there was no provision for a rehabilitation scheme as also the Development Control Regulation 1967 did not have any provision regarding implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. On such backdrop, to establish a separate Board for carrying out the works of improvement in the areas of the slums, the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973 was enacted. The joint application of the Slum Act and the Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973 had fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole (supra).
128. It is submitted that despite the said enactments, it was observed that the slum proliferation was not curbed effectively and there was no comprehensive Slum Rehabilitation Scheme setting out the parameters of works of improvement or redevelopment. It is stated that the initial focus of the Government in enactment of the Slum Act was on identifying and declaring slum areas of Maharashtra, for which extensive surveys to map out slum locations and assess the living conditions within these areas were undertaken. Thus, the first phase of implementation of the Slum Act involved the preparation and execution of improvement schemes aimed at providing basic amenities and improving the overall living conditions in slum areas. The progress was, however, felt relatively slow due to several challenges, including bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited financial resources, and the “sheer scale” of the problem. The improvement of slum areas, despite efforts, proved to be a daunting task. The conditions of the slums were so dire that improvement alone was not sufficient, necessitating the clearance and redevelopment of entire slum clusters. These challenges faced during this phase underscored the need for a more robust and coordinated approach to slum redevelopment. In such context, significant observations were made by this Court in Janhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra(2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1145), which read thus:-
“71. Slums and Slum TDR and 1977 Slum Rehabilitation Amendment:
i. Slums have been a problem in Mumbai occasioned by the State's inability protect public lands from encroachment. This administrative failure is occasioned by Vote Bank Politics. Consequently, the same has reached an alarming situation and is posing a great threat to Mumbai's Planning and its already inadequate infrastructure. Living conditions in the slums are unhygienic and pose a great threat to health, though now, facilities like tap water, garbage clearance, electricity and toilets have been provided. According to the estimates, the number of persons who live in slums ranges between 50% to 60% of the city's population. A number of schemes have been devised like slum improvement, slum upgradation under the World Bank Project and also redevelopment schemes by granting FSI upto 2.5. The last scheme has given scope for societies of slum dwellers and developers to develop slums which are commercially viable. However, despite all these measures adopted the problem remains unresolved. The problem required a solution which would run across the board. It appears that it is in this background that the Government of Maharashtra, proposed a new slum policy.”
(emphasis supplied)
129. A reference is made to a study group which was formed to consider changes to be introduced to improve the operation of the Slum Act, under the guidance of Mr. Dinesh Afzalpurkar, as formed by the State Government. The study group made recommendations for the changes to be introduced in the Slum Act for its better implementation. In pursuance thereto, Chapter I-A was introduced under the Slum Act, which formed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) as the sole dedicated authority for implementation of slum schemes in Mumbai. Simultaneously, with the enactment of Chapter I-A, various other amendments were incorporated granting primacy to the SRA, including by bringing about amendment to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) [Section 2(19), Section 37(IB), Section 152], Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) [Section 144(B), Section 354(AAA)].
130. Between 17th April, 1996 and 25th April, 1996 the Slum Rehabilitation Authority invited objections and suggestions to the general slum rehabilitation scheme for Greater Mumbai. By a notification issued by the SRA under Section 37(1-B) of the M.R.T.P. Act, objections and suggestions were invited by the S.R.A. to the proposed modifications in the D.C. Regulations including the insertion of a proposed Appendix VII-B. After a further round of inviting objections and suggestions in August 1996, the Development Control Regulation 33(10) was amended with effect from 15 October 1997. Thereafter, on 19 April 1998 the General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for Greater Mumbai was approved by the SRA and notified.
131. Chapter I-A substantially changed the manner of redevelopment of slums in Mumbai. The significant impact of introduction of Chapter I-A was considered by this Court in Pooja Enterprises v. C.E.O., S.R.A((2000) 3 Mah L] 147) and in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (supra).
132. In his written submissions, learned Advocate General has set out in extenso the scheme of the Slum Act as contained in various chapters. An emphasis is laid on Chapter I-A and Chapter I-B, in the context of establishment of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as also identification of slum rehabilitation areas, identification of slum dwellers, selection of developers and declaration of general slum scheme as per Section 3-B of the Slum Act. It is stated that on 19 April 1998, a General Slum Scheme in accordance with Chapter I-B of the Slum Act was published by the SRA setting out the parameters of implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. A reference is made to Development Control Regulations 1991 and the present Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034. It is stated that prior to the notification of the general slum scheme, the State of Maharashtra on 25 March 1991 notified the Development Control Regulation 1991 (DCR 1991) in which Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991 read with Appendix IV set out the rights of the hutment dwellers in slum schemes, the requirement of building permissions and relaxations which may be granted for planning purposes, computation of rehabilitation and free-sale component, provision for transit camps, constructions of commercial tenements, etc.
133. It is stated that in the year 2018, the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR 2034) were notified. Regulation 33(10) governs the Slum Schemes in the same manner as it was positioned under the DCR 1991. However, Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034 provides for higher FSI as also, as per the new Regulations, the slum rehabilitation tenements were to be constructed for all the slum dwellers irrespective of their eligibility, and in the event the slum tenements were in excess of eligibility, the same would be surrendered to the authority as PAP tenements to be utilized as Project Affected Persons tenements. It is stated that apart from regulations concerning slum rehabilitation schemes, the DCPR 2034 also contemplated generation of a pool of housing. Regulation 33(10) (3.11) is stated to be a scheme which provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers who are situated on lands which are required for implementing vital public projects. It is stated that as per this scheme, developers offer lands owned by them where the slum dwellers encroaching the vital public project land would be housed. The developer conveys such land to the SRA and receives Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the same. Further the Regulation 33(10) (3.12)(c) contemplates creation of PAPs in each slum scheme. Regulation 33(11) of the DCPR 2034 stipulates creation of Permanent Transit Camps for the SRA. Under the said Regulation, the scheme is approved specifically for constructing transit camps which may be used by the SRA for housing slum dwellers from other schemes. These are the provisions enacted for creating a pool of housing which may facilitate the vacating of public and private lands. A reference is also made to Regulations 33(20)(A), (B) and (C) which provide for construction of low cost housing for low income and middle income groups enabling construction of subsidized housing.
134. Considering the difficulties which were faced in implementing the Scheme as per Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991, extensive amendments were made to Regulation 33(10) so as to bring about a sea change by making the following provisions:
“(a) Requirement of construction of rehabilitation tenements by accounting for eligible and ineligible slum dwellers: The DCPR 2034 now makes provisions for construction of tenements for all slum dwellers, eligible and ineligible. It makes provisions for the ineligible slum dwellers who may become eligible subsequently due to verification/scrutiny. In the earlier regime, the hutments were accounted for the eligible slum dwellers only. In the event of increase of eligible slum dwellers, the parameters of slum scheme would be required to be changed. This amendment is a step forward in expedition in schemes.
(b) The incentives such as FSI and built up area were increased. Higher FSI not only ensured that more hutments could be constructed in the rehabilitation components and more PAP tenements could also be generated.
(c) In the earlier regime, the minimum requirement of consent was 70%. Under the new regime, this requirement has been reduced to 51% in order to ensure that slum schemes are accepted faster.
(d) In the earlier regime, no premiums were payable for schemes on Government lands. Presently, 25% value of the ASR of the slum scheme is payable to the Government. This ensures that no government lands 'go for free' in implementation of slum schemes.”
135. The categories of slums are set out in Section 4, primarily being three categories, namely, slum areas declared under Sections 4 and 4A, and further slum rehabilitation area declared under Section 3C and Censused slum areas defined under Section 2(1b) of the Slum Act.
136. Regulation 33(10)(II)(viii) of the DCPR 2034 defines censused slums as hutments located on lands belonging to the Government or any of its undertakings or the MCGM, incorporated in the records of the land owning authority based on the census carried out in 1976, 1980 or 1985 or prior to 1 January 1995 and 1 January 2000.
137. In regard to the process of identification of slum and slum rehabilitation areas earlier and the process for redevelopment schemes, it is stated that for the rehabilitation of slums, the declaration of a slum rehabilitation scheme and slum rehabilitation areas is a prerequisite, the relevant provisions being Sections 4 and 3C providing for the declaration of areas as ‘ slum areas’ and ‘slum rehabilitation areas’, respectively.
138. For such purpose, actual physical surveys were carried out by the SRA / Competent Authority. A survey report of the area was prepared after being satisfied that slum like conditions existed. Public notices were issued by the SRA/Competent Authority declaring their intention to declare particular areas as Slum Areas. This physical process was time consuming and at times could not identify the boundaries of the slums accurately. The State prescribed minimum number of hutments for declaring areas as Slum Areas. In such context, Government Resolution dated 23 May 2001 was issued which stipulated that private lands can be declared as slum areas if they contained 25 or more slum structures. Further, a Government Resolution dated 5 August 2005 declared the issuance of photo-passes to slum structures situated on private land, land owned by the State Government within the jurisdiction of the BMC, and land owned by any other agency of the State Government, provided that 15 or more slum structures existed on such lands. It is stated that the minimum requirement of 15 structures does not apply to the declaration of slum rehabilitation areas. A reference is made to the notification issued by the SRA dated 23 May 2022 declaring all public and private lands on which slum structures existed prior to 1 January 2011 and had been declared as slum areas, or censused slums, as slum rehabilitation areas.
139. It is stated that as on date, the following is the data as regards the lands declared as Slum Rehabilitation Areas under Section 3C of the Slum Act:-
| Total Application received for declaration under Section 3C | 471 |
| Total No. of hutments | 3,02,407 |
| Final Order / Gaz. Notification Issued | 261(Area 3544496.82 sq.mtr.) |
| Application under consideration i.e. in process (at diff. Stages like DDLR Remarks, Joint Visit, Public Notice, Hearing) | 120 |
| Nos of applications Rejected | 90 |
141. Once a proposal is submitted by the developer, the SRA conducts a comprehensive scrutiny of the same by applying the contents of Circular No. 144 & 144A, which inter alia provides for verification of title, the financial capacity of the developer and availability of access roads.
142. SRA applies the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Act that if the owners, landholders or occupiers fail to come forth within a reasonable time, not exceeding 120 days, to relocate and rehabilitate protected and other occupiers, in such event, the SRA may determine to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency or developer. The SRA may also determine to redevelop such land entrusting it to any other agency or developer where an appointed developer does not adhere to the approved plan or violates any stipulated conditions or restrictions, including those pertaining to timelines.
143. In regard to slum area declared under Section 4 or 3C or a censused slum, all slum dwellers form a proposed slum society consisting of one Chief Promoter and 11 Managing Committee members. In such context, Circular No.169 is issued by the SRA, which sets out the manner in which the meeting for appointment of the developer is to be held. A representative from the Cooperative Department by following the procedure as notified by SRA, which includes issuance of notice of meeting for selection of a developer, video-graphing of the meeting, biometrics, counting of votes cast under the statutory ballot constituency. After selection of the developer with 51% consent of slum dwellers, a proposal is submitted by the developer through its architect to the SRA for further permissions/scrutiny.
144. In regard to the consideration of claims as per the procedure prevailing as on date, it is the SRA’s contention that the developers and Societies earlier were submitting incomplete proposals for blocking slum schemes. Such issue was considered by this Court in the case of Atesham Ahmed Khan & Ors. vs. Lakadawala Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,(2011 (3) Mah. L.J. 604). The Division Bench in the context of incomplete proposals has made significant observations:
“10. The grievance, however, of the petitioners relates to the consequential directions that have been issued by the High Power Committee. The Committee has directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to obtain a report of the Competent Authority which was to verify draft Annexure-II submitted by the Architect of the first and second respondents. Now, in this regard it would be necessary to note that when a proposal is submitted by a proposed Co-operative Housing Society of slum dwellers the application is initially accepted and verified. The applicant is then required to pay the scrutiny fees upon which a scrutiny is conducted. Draft Annexure II containing a list of slum dwellers is thereafter forwarded by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the Competent Authority for verifying the names of eligible slum dwellers. In the case of public lands which are of the ownership of the State Government, the Additional Collector (Encroachment and Removal), who is the Competent Authority, has to verify draft Annexure -II containing names of slum dwellers who are eligible to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to certify it. At the stage when an application is submitted before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the application, as it stands, must indicate that the applicant fulfills the requirement of the requisite consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. The claim of the applicant is thereupon subject to scrutiny. But before the question of scrutiny arises, the application must on its face indicate that it fulfills the requirement of 70% consents. Hence, we find merit in the contention which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners in these proceedings that an application which on its face does not fulfill the requirement of DCR 33 (10), must be rejected. The applicant cannot be allowed to progressively make up a deficiency in an application which does not ex facie fulfill the conditions on the date when it is submitted. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Awdesh Tiwari, the submission of an application operates to exclude all other Societies from having their applications received and processed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in respect of the scheme. Since the effect of the acceptance of the first application is to exclude from scrutiny all other applications until the scrutiny of the first application is complete, it is the bounden duty of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete in all respects and does not suffer from any deficiency. Any other construction would lead to the undesirable result that an application which is otherwise deficient and incomplete can progressively be improved upon over a prolonged period of time leading to a delay in the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Moreover, the mere submission of an application, however deficient, will operate to block ail other applicants. This could not possibly be the intent underlying DCR 33(10). Again it must be emphasized that the underlying logic of the judgment of the Division Bench in Awdesh Tiwari (supra) is to exclude the possibility of undesirable competition by unscrupulous elements resorting to extraneous means in the implementation of slum schemes. Hence the first applicant must act bona fide and in compliance with law by submitting an application which fulfills the requirements of a valid application. The application must fulfill the essential requirements of a valid application on the date on which it is submitted.
11. Having regard to this position, we are of the view that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, in pursuance of the directions that were issued by the High Power Committee, must verify as to whether the application that was submitted by the first and second respondents was complete in all respects and fulfils the requirements of DCR 33,(10) in order to merit further scrutiny and verification. We are not inclined at this stage to stay the process of verification of draft Annexure-II by the Competent Authority. Ultimately, if the order of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has to be implemented, it is only necessary and proper that the list of eligible slum dwellers must be certified. Thus while we confirm the order that was passed by the High Power Committee, setting aside the decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 26 October, 2006, we do so on the ground that the decision came to be rendered without furnishing an opportunity to the first and second respondents in compliance with the principles of natural justice. We, however, clarify that in this process the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall determine as to whether the application submitted by the first and second respondents was complete in all respects and met the requirements of DCR 33(10). This must be determined by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority with reference to the date on which the application was submitted. In the meantime, we direct the Competent Authority to complete the process of verification of draft Annexure-II and remit it back to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.”
145. The SRA issued Circular No. 141 to streamline the procedure in regard to the submission of schemes. The said circular was subsequently superseded by a circular dated 31 August 2013, which prescribes the manner in which proposals are to be submitted. This circular is in force till date.
146. The current procedure for the presentation of slum schemes on public lands is governed by Circular No. 144, under which the following procedure is contemplated:-
“5.2.3.1. The promoter / developer/architect is required submit Annexures I to V to the Engineering Department, SRA. The SRA shall first check if there are any slum schemes pending for the land on which slum project is proposed. In case any scheme is pending, the proposal will be rejected forthwith.
5.2.3.2. In case there is no pending scheme, the proposal is inscribed as accepted, and the proposal is returned to the developer for further presentation. The accepted proposal is then submitted by the developer to the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer scrutinizes the proposal for having all relevant documents and accepts the same. In case the proposal is incomplete, the same is rejected.
5.2.3.3. The Executive Engineer then forwards the proposal to the relevant departments for their NOCs.
5.2.3.4. Annexures I to VI are given to the relevant departments. The Annexure I to VI are to be submitted in a particular format which is prescribed in the Forms to Circular 144. The details of the Annexures and the Departments are as under:
Annexure I: Engineering Department of SRA: This document sets out the details about ownership of land, details of plot area, details of existing hutments and their type, computation of tenement density, extent and type of reservations, amenities, FSI available, number of tenements to be constructed including calculation of TDR etc. This annexure is a summary of the scheme which gives an overall perspective of the parameters of development which the developer intends to carry out.
Annexure II: Collector SRA/ land owning authority: This document sets out the details of the number of eligible hutment dwellers and the Appendix to this annexure sets out the consents of the slum dwellers.
i This is a draft Annexure II which is submitted by the developer which comprises all the slum dwellers who are residing on the plot, eligible and ineligible.
ii. The actual exercise of eligibility commences after the scheme is accepted. The Annexure II is scrutinized by the SRA and based on the documents of each slum dweller the eligibility is decided. In cases where the scheme is proposed on MCGM/MHADA land, the Annexure II is scrutinized and certified by such land owning authority.
Annexure III: Financial Department of SRA: This document sets out the financial capability of the developer for undertaking the entire project.
i. In this Annexure, the developer furnishes a statement by a Chartered Accountant/Director / Partner certifying the financials of the Company/ Firm.
ii. Tax returns of 3 years and audited income statements of 3 years are required to be submitted.
iii. Bank balance statement certified by the Bank is submitted.
iv. The cost of construction of each tenement is Rs. 2,64,000/-. Based on the number of tenements proposed to be constructed, the final figure is required to be specified. Proof of availability of 20% of the amount of such final figure is required to be furnished.
v. The funding plan for 80% of the amount as specified above is also required to furnished.
Annexure IV: Town Planning Department: The Sectorial Planning remarks for the proposed S.R. Scheme are offered in consonance with the Development Plan. In this Annexure, the developer is required to furnish the following documents.
i. P.R Cards of the particular land.
ii. CTS Plans.
iii. Kami Jasta Patra (Original).
iv. 7/12 extract if applicable.
v. Notarized copy of the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney.
vi. Notarized copy of the Government Resolution under Section 14 in cases where owners refuse to give consent and the application for land acquisition.
vii. Plot area certificate prepared by the Architect.
viii. Plot area calculation by triangular method.
Annexure V: Cooperative Department: Compliance of SRA Circular No. 169 is insisted on. With this annexure, the Developer is required to submit a notarized copy of the GBR of the society.
Annexure VI - Deputy Director-Town planning department -With this Annexure, the developer submits the following documents.
i. Certified true copy of the DP Remarks.
ii. Certified true copy of the A. E Survey Remarks.
iii. Certified true copy of A. E. (Maintenance) - status of road access.
iv. Superimposed plans which include the Slum plans / DP Plans/CTS Plans along with the slum boundary.
5.2.3.5. The relevant departments after scrutinizing the proposals submit their reports to the Engineering Department. The Engineering Department on scrutinizing the reports decides whether the same has to be accepted or rejected. On the proposal being accepted, acceptance fees is required to be paid by the developer. In case the proposal is rejected, the same is conveyed to the developer.”
147. On behalf of the SRA, the issues which are faced by it in scrutiny of the proposals and more specifically the Annexure II, are to the effect that (i) the process of verification/certification of Annexure II as contemplated by the circulars is found to be time consuming, more particularly by the land owning authority, as the draft Annexure II, after verification by the SRA, would be forwarded to the relevant land owning authority; (ii) The Annexure II declares the eligibility of the slum dwellers. On the certification of the Annexure II, the ineligible slum dwellers resort to proceedings and challenge the certification as also refuse to hand over/vacate their respective tenements; (iii) After the issuance of Annexure II by the competent authority, slum dwellers divide their hutments by creating a partition and during proceedings under Sections 33 and 38, additional homes for divided hutments are demanded.
148. Further, the number of eligible slum dwellers keeps changing, due to certain slum dwellers becoming eligible subsequently. This would affect the number of tenements which the developer proposed to construct. Under the DCR 1991 regime, this would affect the scheme itself since the parameters of the scheme were based on the number of eligible slum dwellers.
149. Submissions are made in regard to the current procedure for presentation of slum schemes on private lands, which are governed by Circular 144A as issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. This is in respect of private lands which are declared as slum rehabilitation areas under Section 3C of the Slum Act. The owners of the private lands would have peremptory rights to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and in respect of which the proposal which is submitted is scrutinized as per the provisions of Circular 144A. It is issued considering the settled principles of law that after declaration of areas as slum rehabilitation areas under Section 3C, a notice of 120 days is required to be issued by the SRA to the owners/persons whose name is on the Property Record Card to come forward and submit a slum scheme. Also, in case of areas which are already declared as Slum Rehabilitation Areas, and where no slum schemes are being implemented, the SRA, following the decision of this Court as also the Supreme Court of India, issues a notice of 120 days to the owners to come forward and submit a slum rehabilitation scheme. It is also provided that in regard to privately owned lands where the schemes are submitted by the owners, the same can be submitted without obtaining the consent of the slum dwellers. The condition of Annexure No. II required in circular no. 144 is relaxed at the time of submission of the proposal. It is only after the scheme is accepted and before the LOI (Letter of Intent) is issued, such consents are required to be furnished. It is also provided that where the owner does not submit the Slum Rehabilitation scheme as per Circular 144A in 120 days, acquisition of private land as per the provisions of Section 14(1) is initiated and the procedure is accordingly set into motion. Also, the Society of slum dwellers has the liberty to appoint a developer of its choice with a minimum 51% consent of the slum dwellers.
150. Relevant data regarding the slum schemes in Mumbai : As of 30 June, 2025, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is stated to have received 2784 Slum Rehabilitation Schemes (SRS) under Section 3B of the Slum Act. Out of the said 2784 schemes submitted, 2308 SRS are accepted and 236 SRS are rejected, while 240 SRS are under scrutiny. The ward-wise details with the highest number of schemes in some of the wards are noticed in the following chart:
| Sr. No. | Ward | Total Proposal submitted | Present Status of Accepted Schemes | ||
| Accepted | Under Scrutiny | Recorded/ Rejected | |||
| 1 | A | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | B | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | C | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | D | 11 | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| 5 | E | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | FS | 53 | 48 | 14 | 4 |
| 7 | FN | 108 | 95 | 12 | 1 |
| 8 | GA | 70 | 65 | 0 | 5 |
| 9 | GN | 122 | 119 | 0 | 3 |
| 10 | HE | 141 | 118 | 8 | 15 |
| 11 | HW | 161 | 137 | 12 | 12 |
| 12 | KE | 124 | 75 | 30 | 19 |
| 13 | KW | 175 | 125 | 40 | 10 |
| 14 | L | 41 | 25 | 15 | 1 |
| 15 | ME | 219 | 208 | 0 | 11 |
| 16 | MW | 171 | 129 | 18 | 24 |
| 17 | PN | 120 | 82 | 24 | 14 |
| 18 | PS | 83 | 68 | 4 | 11 |
| 19 | RC | 136 | 119 | 7 | 10 |
| 20 | RS | 96 | 48 | 17 | 31 |
| 21 | RN | 60 | 46 | 4 | 10 |
| 22 | N | 60 | 34 | 4 | 22 |
| 23 | S | 121 | 78 | 32 | 11 |
| 24 | T | 108 | 77 | 11 | 20 |
| Total | 2784 | 2308 | 240 | 236 | |
| Sr. No. | Regulation | No. of Accepted Schemes | No. of sanctioned schemes (LOI) | Schemes under scrutiny | Remarks |
| 1 | 33(10) | 1902 | 1402 | 500 | a) 116 SR Schemes Ann. II received and under scrutiny at various level.b) 384 Scheme Preparation of Annexure-II is in progress. |
| 2 | 3.11 | 45 | 45 | 0 | |
| 3 | 33(11) | 361 | 349 | 12 | Proposals are under scrutiny |
| TOTAL | 2308 | 1796 | 512 | ||
| Relevant Regulation | Total number of Sanctioned Schemes | Number of Completed Schemes | No of ongoing schemes |
| Scheme of 33(10) on Pvt. Land | 575 | 566 | 836 |
| Scheme of 33(10) on Govt. Land | 827 | ||
| Total Scheme of 33(10) | 1402 |
| Relevant Regulation | Total number of Sanctioned Schemes | Number of Completed Schemes | No of ongoing schemes |
| Clause 3.11 of 33(10) | 45 | 30 | 15 |
| Regulation 33(11) | 349 | 125 | 224 |
| Total | 394 | 155 | 239 |
| Sr. No. | Description | Number of Schemes | Additional Remarks |
| 1 | Non-availability of finance and other reasons | 82 | Action under Section 13(2) of Slum Act is to be initiated. |
| 2 | Developer removed due to inefficiency as per Section 13(2) of the Slum Act | 17 | Schemes can progress further on the appointment of new developers by Society. |
| 3 | Litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court | 15 | N.A. |
| 4 | Schemes delayed due to non-submission of NOC from other Departments: |  | |
| A. Coastal Regulation Zones-II (“CRZ-II”) | 2 | Developers have app approached concerned authorities for NOC but are yet to receive the same. | |
| B. Civil Aviation Authority | 4 | ||
| C. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”) & Defence Department | 12 | Schemes are halted due to a stay imposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. | |
| Total | 132 |
156. Steps taken for identification of slums and slum dwellers :-
(1) The SRA has employed advanced technology to identify slum areas, slum hutments and slum dwellers residing in such hutments and also their eligibility for allotment of permanent alternate accommodation. The SRA, by appointing specialized agencies, has carried out an extensive mapping of slums areas in Mumbai and is also linking the hutments in such slum areas with the slum dwellers residing in such hutments.
(2) Since 2022-23, the SRA has relied on methods such as drone surveys, satellite and GIS mapping, geo – tagging and biometrics to holistically identify the slum areas and slum hutments existing in such areas as also their eligibility. The different processes as adopted are:
(I) Current process of identification of slums and slum dwellers -
(i) Marking of slum cluster boundaries using satellite images and topographical survey and DGPS survey:- 1) The SRA has acquired satellite images for areas of Mumbai and identified slum clusters. From the images, the SRA has identified the patches / clusters of slums and its outer boundaries; 2) The SRA has appointed an agency to physically verify the boundary based on the satellite images. Such designated persons visit the slum clusters and physically identify the boundaries of such clusters. This process is called as ‘topographical survey’; 3) At the time of survey of boundaries, the designated person also places digital markers / identifiers on the boundaries which makes the identification of boundaries even more accurate. These points are known as ‘Differential Global Positioning System Points’ (DGPS Points). The process of identification of the boundaries based on such DGPS Points is called as the DGPS Survey; 4) The SRA has taken a decision to ascertain the encroachments of slums through satellite images from Bhaskaracharya National Institute for Space Application and Geo Informatics (BISAG-N); 5)Also, a mobile application will be provided by BISAG-N based on the area identified as slums through satellite maps. An outer boundary is identified. Through the satellite images, the structures which are within the slums, are also identified. Further, in the event of any encroachment/new addition in the slum areas within and outside the boundary, an encroachment trigger gets activated on the application, notifying such encroachment. Such data can be used by the SRA in the sanctioned / on-going scheme. This application will help the competent authorities to issue notices to the unauthorized structures and initiate relevant action of demolition under the Slum Act.
(ii) Drone Survey and GIS Mapping :- 1) Based on the satellite imagery and topographical survey, high resolution images are taken by aerial photography carried out by drones, being the drone survey. By clicking high resolution images of slum clusters, the SRA is able to identify a reasonably accurate number of hutments which exist on the lands. These hutments from the air appear in the shape of polygons. Based on the number of such polygonal shapes which appear in the drone photography, the number of hutments is determined; 2) By identifying the number of hutments by drone survey, a base map of the number of hutments is prepared. This map is known as a ‘Geographic Information System Map’. On such map, a demarcation of each hutment is made and boundaries of such hutments are identified in respect of each of the hutments in the cluster.
(iii) Biometrics :-
Sensitisation meetings :- It is contended that before commencing the actual door-to-door surveys in the slums, in order to make people aware of the process of identification of hutments, sensitisation meetings were held where the experts and officers from SRA explain to the slum dwellers the nature of the exercise being undertaken and their legal rights.
Door to door survey :- Also, there is a door-to-door survey which is undertaken after the GIS mapping and marking of boundaries of hutments, and after the sensitisation meetings, a physical survey of each hutment is undertaken. The door-to-door survey is carried out by appointing agencies in which the appointed person paints a unique number on each hutment. By visiting the hutment, the following data is collected from each hutment:-
. Hut photos from front and side; (360 degree photograph);
. Photos of slum dweller and his family members;
. Self-declaration video from the slum dweller;
. Short video of the inside of the hutment;
. Signed self-declaration from the slum dweller;
. Available proof of existence of the hutment from year before 2000-2011 and additional documents such as electricity bills, survey receipt from the year 2000, Gumasta licence, etc.
. Aadhar Card details and biometric of hutment occupant.
. Hutment measurements.
Geo – tagging :- Further, there is geo-tagging on the hutments being marked and being given a unique number, such tenement is linked with the hutment as visible on the GIS Map. This linking/tagging of each such hutment on the GIS Map is known as Geo-tagging. After such tagging, the details of each hutment, dwellers of the hutment and all details acquired during the door to door survey get linked with the GIS Map.
(iv) Slum Information Management System:- After the entire data as aforesaid is gathered, the same is fed into a data system which contains all particulars from the satellite imagery to the biometric details of each slum dweller. This database is known as the Slum Information Management System (SIMS).
The following are the details of the extent of the survey carried out by the SRA:-
| Total number of Slum Clusters | 2599 |
| Total number of Huts to be surveyed | 1379086 |
| Drone Survey Completed (GIS) | 1078746 (out of 1379086) |
| Total numbering done | 848426 (out of 1078746) |
| Total Biometric Survey done | 577782 (out of 833668) |
| Total Annexure II issued | 3,81,029 (out of 577771) |
| Total Annexure II in process | 1,96,742 |
Database of beneficiaries in existing rehabilitation schemes – To identify if a slum-dweller has previously secured an allotment, the SRA has issued a tender for the creation of a database of rehabilitation/PAP/PTC tenements allotted since its inception. The SRA has developed an online application called “Transfer of Tenements” to digitize the entire process of transferring tenements, including application submission, online fee payment, and issuance of NOC for transfer. It is stated that this database would ensure that slum-dwellers who have been accommodated in slum schemes already, do not get any new tenements in other slum schemes. The purpose of inclusion of PAP and PTC in the database is to ensure that the dwellers who are already accommodated in such PAPs / PTCs are also identified in order to avoid multiple allotments being made to the same dweller.
Online procedures :- It is stated that the SRA has computerized several processes and made them online. Processes such as the Rent Management System, Slum Information Management System, Auto Annexure-II, online allotment of tenements through a lottery system, etc have been made online. The SRA has also implemented an Online Visitor Management System whereby the visitors of the website can interact with the SRA and clarify queries which the visitors may have.
157. Improvements made to the process of selection of new developers and proposed steps for improvement in the selection process.
(i) Robust Panel of developers: The SRA has stated that in order to identify developers with sound financial and experience in implementing slum and infrastructure projects, the SRA with the assistance of the State of Maharashtra is in the process of ‘creating a robust panel of developers based on criteria specified’. In such context,through a public notice, applications were invited from developers and a proposal for the empanelment of developers in three different categories i.e., A, B and C was submitted for approval to the State Government after a technical and financial scrutiny of the applications. It is stated that the State Government has approved 15 developer firms/companies in A category, 9 in B category and 6 in C category on 6th June 2023. The SRA has received an application for empanelment by 20 other developers. The SRA has recommended the empanelment and the same is subject to the approval from the State Government.
(ii) Conditions of empanelment of developers - For the purpose of empanelment, the SRA and State Government have imposed certain criteria such as financial wherewithal, prior experience in implementation of slum projects etc., the details of which are stated to be as under:
| Sr. No. | Developer category | Technical criteria | Financial Criteria | Infrastructure Experience |
| 1 | A | Developer has completed real estate Projects with Occupation Certificate, at least 5 Lakhs Sq. Ft. or Rera Carpet Area. | The Developer should have minimum net worth of INR 25 Crores. & Working capital worth of INR 25 Crores & Working capital-in-hand of INR 5 Crores & Bid capacity:- minimum 75 Crores or more | The Developer should have experience in Real Estate Development of more than 5 years. &The Developer should not be Debarred/ Disqualified/ Defaulter or any court cases pending against promoters/company during last 5 years. |
| 2 | B | Developer has completed Real Estate Projects with Occupation Certificate, at least 2.5 Lakhs Sq. Ft. or Rera Carpet Area. | The Developer should have minimum net worth of INR 12.50 Crores. & Working capital-inhand of INR 2.5 Crores & Bid capacity:- minimum 37.5 Crores or more | -do- |
| 3 | C | Developer has completed Real Estate Projects with Occupation Certificate, at least .125 Lakhs Sq. Ft. or Rera Carpet Area. | The Developer should have minimum net worth of INR 5 Crores. & Working capital-in hand of INR 1 Crores & Bid capacity:-minimum 25 Crores or more | -do- |
Delay in implementation of the slum schemes and steps taken to avoid/remedy delay.
158. The followings are stated to be the causes for delay:-
(i) Financial incapability – It is observed by the SRA time and again that once the developers have secured the schemes, no work is carried out and there is inexplicable delay in implementation and completion of schemes. The developers, while executing the project face various financial difficulties. The developers take loans by mortgaging the free-sale components and further complicate the implementation of schemes. Very often, the developers become financially incapable of implementing the project and such project then gets stuck.
(ii) Waiting for schemes to become more lucrative and trading of schemes. It is observed that developers, after taking projects, wait for projects to become financially more viable and lucrative by waiting for a policy to change etc. Developers also trade ‘slum schemes’ away to other developers either by way of transfer of shares of the developers company or by way of outright sale of the scheme. Such transfers create new hurdles which delay schemes further.
(iii) Injunctions by Courts. In many slum projects, it was observed that the slum scheme itself was on a land which was reserved as an open space. Such slum schemes were held up and no proposals were processed in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the case of NGO Alliance for Goverance and Renewal (NAGAR) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Cityspace](2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2425). In other slum projects, where the developer has been terminated and orders have been passed by the CEO-SRA and the AGRC, the parties have challenged the same by filing Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and have obtained injunctions staying the schemes. Due to the pendency of such matters, the scheme itself gets delayed.
159. Power exercised under Section 13 (2) of the Slum Act. In order to deal with the delay in SRA projects and the circumstances where schemes are being carried out contrary to approvals, powers have been conferred on the SRA to terminate the mandate of the developer under Section 13 (2), either on a complaint by the members of the Society, or suo motu by the SRA itself. There are other decisions of the Court on such issues.
160. It is stated that the power under Section 13 (2) is not exercised only for delay in implementation of the scheme, but also for any construction carried out in violation of the plans sanctioned under Section 12 (10) of the Slum Act or any contravention thereof. Further, the SRA has also exercised such power for non-payment of transit rents to the sum dwellers.
161. The following table, according to the SRA, would depict proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Act in the past 5 years:-
| Year | Total Applications Received | Proceedings under 13(2) completed | Pending Proceedings |
| 2020-21 | 36 | 36 | 0 |
| 2021-22 | 49 | 49 | 0 |
| 2022-23 | 62 | 57 | 5 |
| 2023-24 | 65 | 65 | 0 |
| 2024-25 | 84 | 79 | 5 |
| Total | 296 | 291 | 5 |
| In accordance with Circular No. 169, the SRA has also conducted General Meeting of the societies of slum dwellers and 27 General Body Resolution been passed in the year 2024-2025 for the change of developer. | |||
163. Appointment of Developers by adopting a bidding process – On 20 April 2022, the SRA, after ascertaining the details of stalled schemes had issued an order rejecting / recording 517 slum schemes which as per the records of the SRA had become dormant and no redevelopment process in the same was being carried out. The said decision came to be challenged before this Court and the same was set aside as a blanket order. The Hon'ble Court directed that individual notices be sent to developers who have delayed implementing the schemes.
164. The status as on 30 June 2025 of the said 517 schemes recorded on 20 April 2022 is stated to be as under:-
| Present Status as on 30th June 2025 of 517 schemes (recorded on 20th April, 2022) | |||||
| No. of Schemes | Nos of schemes under sec. 33(14)D, Repeated and Inadvertently included in the list. | No. of schemes where action needs to be initiated. | Nos. of S.R. schemes in which developer terminated. | Closed for Order S.R. Schemes. | Pending S.R. Schemes |
| 1 | 2 | 3 (2-1) | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 517 | 31 | 486 | 312 | 12 | 126 |
166. It is stated that out of the 517 schemes, orders have been issued in case of 306 schemes wherein either new developers have been appointed or some existing developers have been retained.
167. It is stated that tenders were invited for stalled schemes on ‘Government lands’. The SRA floated a tender for 10 stalled schemes in respect of which the mandate of the developers was terminated. On 2 June 2025, a tender was floated and bids were invited for implementing and completing such stalled projects, to be submitted by 19 June 2025. However, no bids were received. There were three extensions granted for submission of bids. The last extension was till 25 July 2025 and only one bid was received for one scheme. The response to the process of tendering has been poor.
168. Amnesty Scheme – It is stated that several developers, despite having financial backing from recognized financial institutions, failed to complete the slum rehabilitation schemes, adversely affecting both slum dwellers and the financial institutions involved. Neither the SRA nor the State Government maintained any records of the financial institutions that had invested in the State's slum rehabilitation schemes. These financial institutions had an interest in ensuring that the development is completed.
169. Consequent thereto, the Housing Department issued a Government Resolution dated 25 May 2022, allowing financial institutions regulated/ recognized by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), or the National Housing Board (NHB) to send in applications under the said amnesty scheme. Once a proposal from any financial institution is accepted, they would be recorded as co-developers of the scheme.
170. It is sufficient for the Committee of the Government to appoint the developer/financial institution. A separate resolution of the Annual General Meeting is not needed. The 5% premium that is otherwise payable because of change of developers does not apply in such cases. The financial institution must complete the slum rehabilitation scheme within the agreed timelines. It must pay transit rent to eligible slum dwellers without fail. Further, the matter of pending transit rent must be discussed with the CEO (SRA) and the slum dwellers' association, after which a consensus must be reached on payment of transit rent, failing which the Letter of Intent is not issued. Submission of Annexure III, in relation to the financial capacity to be established, is mandatory. The details of the schemes received till date are stated to be as under:
| Details of Amnesty Applications | ||||
| Sr. No. | Name of Financial Institution | No. of Schemes | Accepted Schemes | Dropped Schemes |
| 1 | JC Flowers Asset Reconstruction Private Limited | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 2 | Piramal Capital & Housing Finance | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| 3 | IIFL Finance Limited | 16 | 9 | 7 |
| 4 | Edelweiss ARC | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 5 | ACRE | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 6 | Sanghvi Finance Pvt Ltd | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | Thar Commercial Finance Ltd* (Veena Developers) | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 8 | India Bulls | 1 | 1 | |
| 9 | HDFC (PN) | 1 | 1 | |
| 10 | Yes Bank | 2 | 2 | |
| 11 | Wadhwa Group Holding Pvt. Ltd. | 1 | 1 | |
| 12 | HDFC & Lodha / Macrotech Developer Limited* (KE) | 1 | 1 | |
| 13 | M/s Mack Star Marketing Pvt. Ltd | 1 | 1 | |
| 14 | Inspira realty | 1 | 1 | |
| 15 | OMKARA assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd | 1 | 1 | |
| 16 | Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. | 1 | 1 | |
| Total | 47 | 23 | 24 | |
Steps taken to monitor delay in schemes activated under the Amnesty Scheme –
172. The SRA introduced the following measures to ensure that the schemes activated under the amnesty scheme are completed on time and the delay does not defeat the purpose of the legislation, such as submission of bar-chart. The developers are directed to submit Bar Chart and Critical Path Method (CPM) charts depicting the exact time frames in which various phases of the redevelopment project are to be completed as a registered undertaking to ensure time-bound completion of projects. Also the developers are required to furnish date-wise/stage-wise progress reports of existing SRS, if any, before the sanction of FC-NOC/Annexure-III. It is stated that in cases where existing schemes of the developer are delayed or incomplete, the developer will be required to demonstrate the financial capacity to carry out the existing as well as new projects. Also, the concerned developer implementing the scheme is required to submit a bar chart outlining the deadlines of the project and also submit a phase wise programme of implementation of the S.R. Scheme. On failure to implement the scheme in a timely manner, a Show Cause Notice is given for the delay caused. The developer is terminated if no satisfactory explanation is offered. Such proceedings for termination of the developer are undertaken either on the complaints received, or suo-motu.
173. Submissions of monthly progress reports are made mandatory for developers and architects. Also in regard to some of the schemes approved under the amnesty scheme where progress is not being made / rent not paid, action has already been initiated.
Steps taken for redevelopment of public lands by public authorities. -
174. The slum rehabilitation schemes on public lands are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the DCPR 2034. In order to ensure that public lands do not go for free and the authority owning the land does not suffer a loss due to implementation of the slum scheme and to safeguard the interest of the Government/Statutory authorities various provisions have been introduced in the DCPR 2034. In such context, Regulation 33 (10) (1.11) provides for a payment of premium of 25% of the Annual Statement of Rates to the landowning authority. Further, the land on which free - sale component is constructed is given on lease and power has been conferred on the SRA to determine the lease rent payable. In addition, any reserve lands on the property also become free of encroachments. It is stated that carrying out of the slum rehabilitation projects on the said land also leads to the creation of PAPs, which had been handed over to the SRA and in turn creates a pool of housing which is utilized by various authorities.
175. In the recent past, the State Government, the SRA and other planning bodies have endeavoured to undertake redevelopment of slums themselves on a joint venture basis. Policies have been brought into force by the State of Maharashtra to ensure smooth implementation of such schemes which are undertaken by the planning bodies themselves. The SRA has itself undertaken to carry out slum schemes. The relevant policies are as under:-
(i) SRA acting as the developer itself - In the recent past, the SRA has acted as the developer of the projects for implementing the Slum Scheme. One such example is the rehabilitation of slum dwellers occupying the site where the Sahityaratna Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Memorial is proposed to be constructed. The area had 640 slum dwellers. The State Government approved this project as a vital project on 11th March 2024 and approved an estimate of Rs. 305 crores as the project cost. The SRA will be implementing this project and all project-related costs will be spent from the SRA's account. This project will have approximately 520 residential units and 120 commercial units.
(ii) Joint venture with Public Authorities - With a view to ensuring that public lands on which the mandate of the developers had been terminated could be expeditiously developed, a decision was taken by the Government that in such circumstances, the land may revert to the land owning agencies who would then complete the scheme within a 3 year time frame. The target is to create 2 lakh affordable tenements as a pool of housing.
176. The State Government in such context, approved a joint venture policy and issued a Government Resolution dated 21 September 2023 prescribing certain terms and conditions for the implementation of this policy. The terms and conditions being :(i)Projects where a developer is unable to complete the project and it remains stalled will be completed through a joint venture arrangement;
(ii) The process stipulated under the Slum Act for changing the developer will be adhered to.
(iii) An economic and technical feasibility study must be conducted prior to the handover of the scheme to the public authority.
(iv) An agreement must be executed between the SRA and the relevant public authority concerning the project.
(v) The SRA will act as the Planning Authority for these schemes.
(vi) The local authority or civic body will be responsible for constructing the rehabilitation and sale components of the projects. They will then be permitted to sell the sale component in the open market under the 'affordable housing for all' scheme to recover construction and other associated expenses.
(vii) The public authority will be tasked with providing transit rent and accommodation to the displaced slum dwellers.
(viii) For stalled projects, the concerned authority/body must pay to the old developer the amount determined by an SRA empanelled valuer for the costs incurred by the old developer.
On the basis of the Chief Minister's announcement, the Housing Department vide letter dated 26 June 2024 directed the SRA to submit a proposal for implementation of joint venture schemes with various government agencies i.e., BMC/ CIDCO/ MIDC/ MahaPREIT/MHADA/ Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ("MMRDA")/ Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited ("MSRDC"), etc. As a result, 228 schemes have been allocated to public authorities like the BMC, CIDCO, MAHAPREIT, MHADA, MSRDC. The details of which are as under:-
| Sr. No. | Government / Semi-Government Organization | No. of Schemes | No. of Tenements |
| 1 | Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation | 77 | 51,002 |
| 2 | MHADA | 24 | 33,915 |
| 3 | MMRDA | 5 | 28,050 |
| 4 | MSRDC | 46 | 27,649 |
| 5 | CIDCO | 6 | 25,740 |
| 6 | MAHAPREIT | 57 | 26,094 |
| 7 | MIDC | 12 | 25,668 |
| 8 | MAHA HOUSING | 1 | 813 |
| Total | 228 | 2,18,931 |
177. The State of Maharashtra on 28 March 2025 in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the MRTP Act issued a Government Resolution appointing MCGM as the planning authority for slums situated on lands owned by the MCGM. The said GR was issued in order to expedite the implementation of slum schemes on MCGM lands.
Transit accommodation and rent -
178. During the implementation of the Slum Scheme, there is an obligation on the developer to provide either transit accommodation or rent till such time the scheme is implemented. However, in a large number of cases, it is found that neither accommodation is given, nor the transit rent is paid. Large arrears of rent accumulated leading to the developer becoming financially incapable and the scheme becoming unviable, is what is observed. The slum dwellers upon not receiving rents, also face further displacement leading to further proliferation of slums. To address these issues, the following measures have been implemented:-
(i) Appointment of nodal officers and notices to pay transit rent outstanding as on 7 December 2022. In 2019, two public interest litigations were filed before this Court concerning the non-payment of transit rent. It was brought to light that a significant amount of approximately Rs. 620 crores in transit rent was pending payment by various developers across 150 schemes as of 7 December, 2022;
This Court directed the SRA to proactively take measures to ensure that the slum dwellers receive transit rent. This Court specifically directed that the SRA should appoint a Nodal Officer and call for representations/ complaints from the cooperative housing societies of the slum dwellers if they have grievances regarding the non-payment of transit rent.
The SRA has appointed 25 ward-wise nodal officers. They have also published information regarding their appointment in various newspapers having wide circulation in Mumbai City and suburban areas and displayed it on the official website of the SRA. Separately, the SRA also issued a notice to the concerned developers asking them to pay all eligible slum-dwellers within 15 days, or face legal action and suspension. Such notices were also published in two local newspapers.
(ii) Appointment of Auditors for determining pending transit rent:-
While dealing with the issue of non-payment of the transit rent, this Court had also directed the SRA to take necessary action based on the complaints or grievances of the slum dwellers in respect of pending transit rent. It was also noted that this Court noted that the SRA can indicate the action taken as against such representations/complaints on their portal. This was in addition to the individual communications made to the cooperative societies of slum dwellers which are already made.
In furtherance of this direction, the SRA regularly appoints auditors to determine the amount of transit rent pending in respect of societies from which any complaints regarding the non-payment of transit rent have been received. As on 30 June 2025, the position was that the SRA had appointed 155 empanelled auditors. The assessment of pending rent in the 155 schemes is reflected in the following statement:-
| Ward | Societies / Schemes | Auditors Appointed |
| A | 0 | 0 |
| B | 0 | 0 |
| C | 0 | 0 |
| D | 0 | 0 |
| E | 0 | 0 |
| F/S | 5 | 5 |
| F/N | 17 | 17 |
| G/S | 7 | 7 |
| G/N | 10 | 10 |
| L | 3 | 3 |
| M/E | 8 | 8 |
| M/W | 2 | 2 |
| N | 3 | 3 |
| S | 6 | 6 |
| T | 6 | 6 |
| H/E | 4 | 4 |
| H/W | 7 | 7 |
| K/E | 12 | 12 |
| K/W | 6 | 6 |
| P/S | 10 | 10 |
| P/N | 22 | 22 |
| R/S | 14 | 14 |
| R/C | 12 | 12 |
| R/N | 1 | 1 |
| TOTAL | 155 |
180. Circular No. 210 and 210A. - These circulars are issued in furtherance of the orders passed by this Court. The salient features thereof are as follows:-
(i) In respect of new projects at the stage of Annexure III (financial capacity of the developer), the developer is to submit a plan indicating the area proposed to be developed in each phase i.e. Phase I, II, III etc. The developer is required to submit a statement by the architect indicating the number of structures required to be demolished in each phase as well as the area to be developed in each phase.
(ii) Most importantly, the Developers must deposit two years transit rent in advance and one year's rent must be deposited by way of post-dated cheques for the third year for the slum dwellers who would be evicted in the first phase. The Executive Engineers of the SRA are to process the Letter of Intent only after receipt of transit rent,
(iii) The Commencement Certificates shall also be issued in a phase wise manner. For getting permission for further construction, the Developer would be required to deposit 2 years advance rent and postdated cheques for the third year,
(iv) No new proposals of defaulting developers/ firms, and their partners/directors would be accepted until they deposit transit rent,
(v) Defaulting developers will not be appointed as developers irrespective of the consent of slum dwellers in existing proposals of SRS where an agreement with an existing developer is terminated;
vi) Developers that defaulted in providing PAP/PTC tenements to SRA, their SRS proposals will not be accepted;
vii) The Executive Engineer will ensure that PAP/PTC tenements are earmarked in approved plans at the time of intimation of Approval. The Executive Engineer will also ensure that the agreement for PTC/PAP tenements is registered in favour of SRA before the issue of further commencement certificate of free sale buildings. Executive Engineer will restrict to 25% sale commencement certificate [17(3)(D)(b)(6) of the DCPR 2034] till PAP tenements are duly handed over to SRA.
181. It is stated that pursuant to Circular Nos.210 and 210A, the SRA has recovered substantial pending rents of Rs.12,41,58,88,792/- as per the following table:
| Statement of transit rent recovered under Circular No. 210 as of 1 August 2024 | ||
| Sr. No. | Ward | Rent Amount Collected From the Developers |
| 1 | A | 36123300 |
| 2 | B | 0 |
| 3 | C | 0 |
| 4 | D | 0 |
| 5 | E | 16904535 |
| 6 | F/S | 43343565 |
| 7 | F/N | 125804950 |
| 8 | G/S | 123549759 |
| 9 | G/N | 5570091667 |
| 10 | L | 219205799 |
| 11 | M/E | 45612600 |
| 12 | M/W | 509134537 |
| 13 | N | 1800000 |
| 14 | S | 92198366 |
| 15 | T | 275106098 |
| 16 | H/E | 249017899 |
| 17 | H/W | 744781933 |
| 18 | K/E | 1289259792 |
| 19 | K/W | 1377490512 |
| 20 | P/S | 111393600 |
| 21 | P/N | 537645830 |
| 22 | R/S | 129732419 |
| 23 | R/C | 33780247 |
| 24 | R/N | 874910484 |
| Total | 12,41,58,88,792 | |
182. In various slum projects, it was noticed by the SRA that the tenements reserved for rehabilitating Project Affected Persons (PAPs) were not handed over by the developer and unlawfully given away to either slum dwellers or sold as free sale units, or despite being handed over were being unlawfully occupied either by ineligible slum dwellers or third parties who claimed to be purchasers of such tenements.
183. PAP tenements are stated to be vital for creating a pool of housing in Mumbai. These tenements are essential for carrying out infrastructure projects and rehabilitating persons affected by such projects. Hence, to ensure that the PAP units are not unlawfully dealt with by the developers, the measures are taken. To prevent the illegal sale of the PAP/PTC tenements by the developers as well as the allotted rehab tenement by eligible slum-dwellers before the lock in period, the following steps were taken:
(i) Developers are required to earmark the PAP/PTC tenements in approved plans, wherever necessary;
(ii) Approved plans are displayed on the SRA website for information to the general public;
(iii) A registered undertaking to be furnished by concerned developers stating that the PAP/PTC tenements will be duly handed over to SRA, and no third-party interest will be created in respect of these tenements,
(iv) Developers are mandated to display hoardings in conspicuous places or at the entrance of the project site mentioning details of PAP/PTC tenements;
(v) Copy of approved plans wherein PAP/PTC tenements are earmarked will be shared with the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the Department of Registration and Stamps (DoRS), requesting them to add it to their record. DoRS will be requested to enter these PAP/PTC tenements in their negative list and not register any agreement with respect to these tenements; and
(vi) In order to prevent the sale of rehab tenements within five years of allotment, the SRA has forwarded the letters to the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps requesting them to insist on the permission of SRA prior to the registration of the agreement.
Eviction of obstructing slum dwellers under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act.
(i) Section 33 of the Slum Act empowers the competent authority to direct eviction of occupants from buildings on being satisfied that the occupants of the building have not vacated despite an order or direction made by the competent authority. Before ordering such eviction, the competent authority must give a hearing opportunity to the occupant. In most cases, two hearing opportunities are granted to the occupant to present their case and after such hearing and an approval from the CEO, the Competent Authority passes an order of eviction. The Competent Authority also has the power to demolish buildings as per Section 38 of the Act.
(ii) The summary of action initiated under Sections 33 and 38 from 1 April 2024 to 11 November 2025 is set out according to which, 205 applications under Section 38 were received and 6423 tenements were ordered to be demolished, out of which 5162 tenements were demolished and demolition of 1261 tenements is stated to be in progress.
(iii) Staffing the SRA. - 10 appointments were made as Competent Authority (Deputy Collector) for online Annexure-II, 25 Assistant Commissioners of BMC wards are also the Competent Authority for BMC land and there are separate Competent Authority for MHADA land. 3 Deputy Collectors (Special Cell) were appointed to initiate action under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act conducting hearings under section 13(2) and 30% Permanent Staff has been appointed as per Government Resolution dated 11 July 2024. Increase in the staff is done to cope with the large number of applications/proposals which are revised by the SRA at various stages.
184. The following documents in regard to the staffing pattern has been placed on record:-
Steps taken to create a pool of housing.
185. Creation of PAPs from slum projects. - In all the slum schemes which are being constructed as per Reg. 33 (10) (3.12) (C) of the DCPR-2034, the number of rehabilitation tenements to be constructed are required to be as per the Draft Annexure II. This includes the ineligible slum dwellers as well. On final determination of eligibility, in case the total tenements constructed are more than the eligible slum dwellers, the balance tenements are used for housing non-protected occupiers and PAPs. These PAPs which are a part of each slum scheme are constructed by the developer and are to be handed over to the SRA. The PAPs then, as per requirement, may be handed to other public authorities or retained by the SRA.
186. The details of number of PAP tenements received by the SRA and allotted to PAP between November 2017 to 14 July 2024 (period of about 7 years) are as follows:
| Sr. No. | PAP tenement handed over between November 2017 to 10/11/2025 | Number of PAP tenements |
| 1 | Received PAP | 27742 |
| 2 | Allotted PAP | 24583 |
| (a) MCGM | 2563 | |
| (b) MMRDA | 20190 | |
| (c) Deputy Collector | 77 | |
| (d) SPPL / MMRCL | 0 | |
| (e) PWD | 169 | |
| (f) Leave & License | 266 | |
| (g) Allotment by SRA | 1318 | |
| 3 | Balance | 3159 |
(iii) Bhonsale Committee. - In the proceedings of Writ Petition (L) No. 8970 of 2023 this Court passed an order on 3 November 2023 observing that there is no policy in respect of PAP tenements and the allocation of such tenements. Accordingly, this Court suggested formation of a Special Task Force for accessing the situation of PAP and various policies in force and also make recommendations to the Government in this regard.
187. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, a Government Resolution dated 22 November 2023 was issued forming a task force headed by Justice Bhosale (Rtd.) to analyse the prevailing policy pertaining to generation, recovery and sharing of the PAP tenements by various planning authorities such as MCGM, MMRDA, SRA etc.
188. The task force held meetings on various occasions and has prepared its Report dated 15 January 2024 assessing the existing policies in respect of generating PAP tenements and giving its recommendations regarding the preferential allocation of PAP tenements. The committee made several recommendations such as formation of Public Project Implementation Authority, whose purpose would be to take note of all ongoing public projects and check the number of persons being displaced by execution of a public project. The committee recommended preparation of a database of all such persons and also a database of PAP tenements available and then allot the PAPs accordingly.
189. The recommendations of the Committee were considered by the State Government and a Housing Policy was prepared accordingly.
Housing Policy (2024).-
190. Government Resolution dated 19 August 2024 covering the PAP policy was notified. Under the housing policy, the following obligations are cast on the different authorities:-
(i) The BMC/SRA and MMRDA must devise an action plan to create sufficient housing units in the next 15 years. In cases, where PAP need to be urgently accommodated, they must provide the tenements in 3 to 5 years;
(ii) Excess tenements generated by MHADA and BMC under Regulations 33(7) and 33(9) of the DCPR 2034 must be utilised for PAP tenement allotments;
(iii) CEO, SRA must suggest the MMRDA and BMC to adopt schemes under Regulations 33(10), and 33(10) (3.11) of the DCPR 2034. This would enable the MMRDA and BMC to purchase tenements in bulk from the free sale components under such schemes;
(iv) The Urban Development Department is required to coordinate with concerned departments to make government land and salt pan lands of the Central Government available for the construction of PAP tenements;
(v) Additional incentives in built-up area would be available to developers building PAP tenements.
(vi) In lieu of collecting premium from builders under Regulation 33 (10), the SRA may obtain PAP tenements from developers;
(vii) Process for distribution of PAP flats;
(viii) Consideration to be paid by the BMC/MMRDA to acquire flats from the SRA;
Acquisition of Land as per the scheme of Section 14 as amended under Chapter I-A.
191. Development of slum on private lands by owners of such lands:
(i) The owners of private lands which are proliferated with slums, and which are declared in accordance with law to be slums, can themselves redevelop these lands in accordance with the provisions of the Slum Act as also the circulars issued by the SRA in that regard. Circular 144A pertains to the manner of submission of schemes by owners of the land.
(ii) In order to expedite the submission of the schemes, the owners are exempted from furnishing consent of 51% of the slum dwellers at the time of submission of the schemes. The requirement of furnishing consent is to be complied with before the issuance of the LOI. This measure is introduced in order to expedite the submission of schemes by the owners.
(iii) Under Section 13 (1) of the Slum Act, a proposal is required to be presented by the owners within 120 days of issuance of a notice by the CEO, SRA. The provision has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (supra) and Bishop John Rodrigues (supra).
(iv) These decisions have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Society (Proposed) (supra) and Saldhana Real Estate Limited vs. Bishop John Rodrigues (supra). The Supreme Court has held that a notice of 120 days is required to be given specifically to the owner calling upon the owner to submit a slum scheme for redeveloping the land. In the case of Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Society (Proposed)(supra), it was held that the owners have a preferential right to redevelop the land and the power to acquire under Section 14 cannot be relied on till such preferential right has been exercised and/or exhausted.
(v) The right of the owners to develop the land is given primacy. Sections 13 and 14 were interpreted in a manner which safeguards the ownership rights of individuals whose lands were proliferated by slums and it is only after the opportunity of redevelopment is granted and the owner fails to come forward, is the process of acquisition resorted to.
Circumstances in which the power of acquisition is exercised. -
192. The power of acquisition is exercised only in cases of total inaction on the part of the owners and only after the prescribed procedure for issuance of notice has been duly followed and no scheme has been submitted. Accordingly, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 14 of the Slum Act, acquires the land by issuing a notification and publishing the same in the Official Gazette.
193. Once the land is vested in the State of Maharashtra, the land is thereafter handed over to the SRA, either by appointing an agency or by allotment to a co-operative housing society of the slum dwellers.
Calculation of quantum of compensation :-
194. The quantum of compensation is determined in accordance with Section 17 to be paid to the owner. Where there is a consensus, the compensation is fixed by agreement between the owners of the land and the State Government, and shall be paid accordingly.
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 14 and 17:-
195. The vires of Sections 14 and 17 were challenged before this Court in the case of Sara Harry D'Mello v. State of Maharashtra (supra). Rejecting the challenge, this Court reiterated that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right. Further, relying on a plethora of decisions, the Court observed that the method of computation cannot be challenged in Courts. It was observed that in case of slum lands, these lands are entirely encroached by slum dwellers and it is in this context that the compensation payable can be calculated.
Grievance and Apex Grievance Redressal Committees. -
196. Following the orders passed by this Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co.Op. Housing Society in the year 2007, the State Government to constitute a High Power Committee (HPC) which would deal with the grievances of slum dwellers, developers and all aggrieved parties. In the year 2017, the Government of Maharashtra constituted the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Grievance Redressal Committees. In the year 2023, necessary amendments were made to the Slum Act to introduce the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Grievance Redressal Committees. (Sections 34A and 34B).
197. The powers of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee are as follows:
(i) To hear and dispose of the appeals against the order of CEO/SRA or any officer to whom such powers are delegated;
(ii) To hear and dispose of the appeals against declaration of Slum Rehabilitation areas under Section 3(C) of the Slum Act;
(iii) To hear and dispose of the appeals against clearance orders under section 3(D) of the Slum Act;
(iv) To hear and dispose of the appeals against orders under section 13 of the Slum Act;
(v) To hear and dispose of the appeals against orders under section 33;
(vi) To hear and dispose of the appeals against orders under section 38;
(vii) To hear and dispose of the appeals against orders under section 3(E);
(viii) To hear and dispose of challenges pertaining to LOI, approvals, any order passed by the CEO, SRA or their subordinate officers, rent-related issues and any other grievances.
198. It is stated that the formation and constitution of the AGRC was in consonance with the directions of the Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society (supra). The said constitution was provided taking into account the fact that the members of the AGRC are people who are aware of the working of the slum laws and also the ground realities. The redevelopment of slums being done for housing of slum dwellers and also to create a pool of housing, the Additional Chief Secretary Housing is made the Chairman of the AGRC. The other members of the AGRC are also high ranking officers who are familiar with planning laws and also the procedures and ground realities of slum rehabilitation. The nature of the proceedings before the AGRC is quasi -judicial and hence, the same is not intended to be a judicial tribunal.
Tenement density and the facilities being provided in slum buildings:
199. It is stated that accommodation in multistorey towers is a reality in Mumbai. Due to the acute lack of space, housing in Mumbai is almost everywhere in the form of tall towers, whether for private residences or public housing schemes. Slum rehabilitation schemes are no exception to this pattern. Further it is stated that an endeavour is made to provide better housing conditions, and all necessary steps are taken to ensure that adequate facilities and amenities are made available in the rehabilitation buildings. Under Regulation 33 (10) (8), facilities such as a Balwadi, Welfare Hall, Aanganwadi, Health Centre, Community Hall, Gymnasium, Skill Development Centre, Women Entrepreneurship Centre, Yuva Kendra, Society Office and religious structures may be provided in the rehabilitation component. Any two of the amenities, apart from the Balwadi and Welfare Hall, may be provided in a scheme.
Utilization of FSI. -
200. FSI in slum rehabilitation schemes is provided as per Regulation 33 (10) (3.2) of DCPR 2034. Under DCR 1991, there was a cap on the permissible FSI that could be utilized, which resulted in planning constraints. Under DCPR 2034, the permissible FSI is calculated based on the area required to rehabilitate all the slum dwellers. The free sale FSI is generated as per the Incentive built up area table.
201. A minimum 650 tenements of 300 sq. ft. aggregating to approximately 2100 sq. mts. has to be constructed on a One Hectare plot of land. Depending on the size of the plot, the said figure is proportionately increased or decreased. The free sale component is determined as per the Chart as set out in DCPR 33 (10) (3.2), depending on the area of construction of the rehabilitation component. As per the said Chart, the free sale component ranges between 0.8 to 1.35 times the area of the rehabilitation component depending on the size and location of the plot of land. If the plot of land is an area where the cost of land is high, the free sale component has a lesser percentage than the area where the price of land is lower. If the number of slum dwellers is less, then the balance area of the rehabilitation component has to be made available as PAPs in order to avail of the incentive (3.12 (C) (proviso) of DCPR 33(10).
Corpus amount: -
202. The corpus amount was originally fixed at Rs. 40,000/- per tenement. It was subsequently found that this amount was inadequate for the maintenance of the building. Accordingly, the corpus amount was revised. As per the Notification dated 22 September 2025, the corpus amount is now calculated based on the height of the rehabilitation building. For buildings up to 70 metres, the corpus amount is Rs. 1,00,000 per tenement. For buildings above 70 metres and up to 120 metres, the corpus amount is Rs. 2,00,000 per tenement. For buildings above 120 metres, the corpus amount is Rs. 3,00,000 per tenement only.
Defect Liability period.-
203. As per Circular 108, a Defect Liability Period of 3 years was specified for maintenance of the building after occupation. It was subsequently observed that the said period of three years was insufficient. Accordingly, the SRA vide Circular No. 216 dated 21 February 2024, increased the Defect Liability Period to ten years. A condition to that effect has been incorporated in the LOI, wherein the Defect Liability Period is specified.
204. Also at the time of issuance of the LOI, a bank guarantee of 2% of the construction cost is taken from the developer. This bank guarantee is released only after the expiry of the defect liability period of 10 years. Such circular has been implemented by the SRA and on receipt of such application for any defects which arise in the construction after occupation, the SRA calls upon the developer to remedy the same.
Providing Open Spaces :-
205. Minimum requirement of space between buildings as per DCR is maintained. At the time of approval of plans, NOC from Fire Department is required to be obtained by the developer. Also before issuing OC, the NOC of the Fire Department has to be obtained. Therefore the allegation of movement of fire-brigade are misplaced. Such issues are duly taken into account in the DCR while providing for the distance between the buildings.
206. As per the provisions of 33 (10), the minimum layout open space requirement is 8%. Hence, when the plots are subdivided for free sale and rehabilitation buildings, the land is divided on the basis of the FSI consumed for the said land and the area which is sufficient to sustain such FSI. Depending on the size of the plot, the open spaces are accordingly divided.
“Response to the suggestions note on behalf of the Amicus dated 28th November 2025
I. Declaration of slums and rights of landowners.
1. Policy of housing of SRA.
1.1. Presently, the policy is as under:
i. Premises are given on ownership basis free of cost to eligible slum dwellers who are occupying tenements in slums prior to 2000.
ii. Allotment of tenements on ownership basis to occupiers in slums who are occupying tenements in slums from the years 2000 to 2011 on payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
iii. Ineligible slum dwellers and slum dwellers who have been occupying the tenements after 2011 are not entitled to any tenement and are evicted.
2. The grant of premises on ownership basis to slum dwellers.
2.1. The grant of premises on ownership basis to occupants is a policy decision of the Government of Maharashtra as incorporated in the legislative scheme, which has been in force in the State of Maharashtra right since inception. The same is balancing the right to housing which is treated as a part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of slum dwellers, and the right of the society to remain free from squalid and insanitary conditions and the danger posed by slums.
2.2. The statutory audit of the functioning of the Slum Act does not envisage the reassessment of the entire legislative scheme and the policy of the Government. The present scope of the matter does not envisage considering the validity of the existing laws or to disturb the entire legislative policy but rather to consider how the legislative policy as incorporated in the statute can be more effectively implemented.
3. Private lands and protecting landowner rights.
3.1. The SRA in Note II dated 12th November 2025 in Chapter XIV (pg. 85) sets out the entire process of acquisition which is envisaged under the Slum Act. Further, the SRA has set out in the said Chapter the process being followed pursuant to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Learned Amici in the Suggestion note have placed reliance on the earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bishop Rodrigues, Anil Gildas Shah and Indian Cork Mills. These decisions have been extensively considered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Society (Proposed) (supra) and Saldhana Real Estate Limited vs. Bishop John Rodrigues (supra)(see Note II, pg. 85) Taking into account these decisions, the SRA in its note has set out the procedure followed. The entire process of notice under Section 13(1) to the owner giving the owner an opportunity to develop the property on which there are slums is now governed by the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The procedure set out by the Supreme Court is now to be strictly followed by the SRA and the State Government. (Please refer to Chapter XIV, Note II, pg. 85 submitted by the Advocate General)
3.2. As regards “Title Disputes” (Point 10), SRA issues notice to the owners whose names are mentioned in the property card and does not recognize the ownership claims of a person whose name is not in the property card. Such claims are left to be adjudicated in appropriate forum.
3.3. As regards “Time-Bound Implementation” (Point 12), if the owner presents the scheme and thereafter does not carry out development effectively, the power vested under Section 13 can always be exercised by the SRA as in any other scheme. The power under Section 13 is exercised suo-moto by the SRA.
4. Government owned lands.
4.1. The SRA in Chapter VI – Note II (pg. 49) has extensively set out the scientific procedure which is presently being followed to identify all lands on which there are encroachments. This procedure will ensure that, in future, a comprehensive data of all slums and slum dwellers is readily available and all slums are identified, be it on public or private lands.
4.2. As regards “accountability and prevention of further encroachment” (Point 13), in para 6.3.1.5 (Note II, pg. 50) SRA has set out that steps are also being taken to develop an application to track encroachments. In case of any fresh encroachments, such application will raise an encroachment trigger and notify the authorities of such encroachment. This is to try and ensure that no further encroachment takes place. Once the entire process set out in Chapter VI is completed, the extent of encroachments will stand crystallized.
4.3. As regards “No veto power for occupants” (Point 14), as per Regulation 33(10) (1.15) of the DCPR, no consent of the hutment dwellers is required for slum rehabilitation projects which are being undertaken by the State Government / Public Authority / Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 and companies owned and controlled by the State Government.
4.4. As regards “Transparent Tendering” (Point 15) and “Best deal for State” (Point 17), whenever public – private partnership is being resorted to, the Government is adopting a procedure of inviting tender as has been done in some of the cases. The SRA in Note II, para 8.3 (p. 61), para 9.3 (p. 67) and para 9.4 (p. 68) has set out various endeavors which are undertaken by the SRA and the State to implement slum schemes across Mumbai.
4.5. As regards “community housing stock” (Point 16) and “community land reserve on public land” (Point 18), the SRA in Chapter XIII (pg. 81) set out the steps taken by the government to create a pool of housing. To create this pool of housing various provisions in the DCPR have been enacted. Further the State of Maharashtra has notified the Housing Policy dated 19th August 2024 which seeks to generate public housing units. Various steps have also been taken which are highlighted in the note on behalf of the SRA.
II. Delays and automatic termination provisions.
5. Time bound completion of slum schemes.
5.1. As regards “Mandatory Time-Bound Completion” (Point 19) and “Automatic Application of Section 13(2)” (Point 20), steps are being taken for monitoring the progress of the work in a stage-wise manner. The suggestions regarding the Letter of Intent and Agreements contemplating timely stage-wise completion of all schemes is being actively considered by the SRA. These are the suggestions which are well taken and will be actively considered by the SRA.
5.2. As regards automatic application of Section 13(2), if timelines are provided by the developer as is being considered by the SRA, regular progress reports can also be required to be submitted by the developer so as to monitor the progress as per the timeline furnished. In the event of default in compliance with the timelines, SRA can initiate proceedings to make the developer accountable, including, if required, initiation of proceedings under Section 13.
III. Density and apportionment.
6. Maximum tenement density.
6.1. Considering the complex nature of the slum rehabilitation scheme, applying the provisions regarding the density of tenements as provided elsewhere in the DCPR may not be practicable for slum rehabilitation. A slum rehabilitation scheme has various complexities including the size and shape of land, number of occupants etc. However, adequate safeguards are provided as set out hereunder which ensures the maximum construction that can take place in a slum rehabilitation scheme.
6.2. As regards ‘Maximum Tenement Density’ (Point 21), the provision of inserting the maximum construction in slum rehabilitation schemes is not practicable considering that it may not be possible to have an uniform maximum tenement density applicable to all slum projects.
6.3. However, appropriate safeguards are provided in the DCPR regarding the FSI that can be utilized in a slum project. There is a permissible FSI set out under DCPR 33 (10) (3.8). DCPR 33 (10) (3.2) ensures that the utilization of FSI is commensurate with the area of the land, the location of the land and the area required to rehabilitate the slum dwellers. It effectively ensures that there is a maximum density in a slum rehabilitation project. Regulation 33(10) (3.2) apart from providing maximum FSI permissible in a slum project also sets out the ratio in which FSI will be made available for free sale in a slum project subject to the ceiling of the maximum FSI. This ensures the balancing of the tenement density. A slum rehabilitation project poses unique and different challenges which are sought to be answered by the Development Control Regulations which is a delegated legislation prepared by experts following the detailed procedure under the MRTP Act. Disturbing a part of the said DCR which deals with varied situations may render the entire scheme and regulation unviable. (Please see Chapter XVI, para 16.2, pg. 97)
7. Building safety standards and fire protection.
7.1. As regards ‘No relaxations to the minimum distance of 6m between two rehab buildings under Regulation 33(10)(6.8) should be permitted’ (Point 22(a)), at every stage, the clearance from the Fire Department is obtained and all safeguards required from the fire perspective are taken. As regards DCR 33(10) (6.8), it provides that a minimum distance of 6 meters is maintained between two buildings. The power of relaxation is exercised considering unique requirements of each slum project and the constraints if any in the project. Despite relaxations, adequate distance is maintained between the buildings to ensure the movement including of fire tenders without which the fire clearance would not be granted.
7.2. As regards ‘Lighting and ventilation requirements provided under Regulation 40 of the DCPR should be made mandatory to slum rehabilitation projects’ (Point 22(c)), in given cases strict adherence with DCPR 40 may not be practical considering the nature of the slum project. As regards Point 22(d), the open space is distributed between the rehabilitation and the free sale components on the basis of FSI consumed in the rehabilitation component and the free sale. The manner in which open space is provided is already explained by the SRA. A slum project is a distinct and different kind of housing project which is affected by high densities and less spaces.
8. Apportionment of land between rehabilitation and free sale components.
8.1. As regards ‘Apportionment of Land between Rehab and Sale Components’ (Point 23), the SRA has set out the manner in which the FSI and the land is apportioned. Regulation 33 (10) (3.2) links the rehabilitation and free sale FSI. It is not a case that there is unlimited FSI utilized for free sale however, the rehabilitation FSI is capped. Both the components are proportionate and the FSI is calculated based on where the slum scheme is situated. Further, regulation 33 (10) (8) mandates that amenities are required to be provided in a rehabilitation building.
9. Developer’s entitlement conditional on compliance and protection of third-party purchasers.
9.1. As regards ‘Developer’s Entitlement – Conditional on Compliance” (Point 24), Regulation 33 (10) (2.6) stipulates that the FSI for free-sale is given proportionately and in such manner as directed by the SRA. The permission for free sale building is dependent on the progress in construction of rehabilitation. The Developer is entitled to the free-sale only if the rehabilitation and PAP component is completed and duly handed over to the SRA.
9.2. As regards ‘Adequate checks and balances to protect bona fide third party purchasers’ (Point 25), the slum scheme proposed by the developer since inception is focused on the construction of rehabilitation building. The entitlement of free sale is dependent on the extent of rehabilitation area constructed.
9.3. Even if the developer sells any premises, no right is acquired by the purchaser in the said flat or the scheme in the event of termination of the mandate of the developer.
IV. Identification of slum dwellers
10. Cut-off date freeze.
10.1. As regards ‘Cut-Off Date Freeze’ (point 26), Section 3Y of the Slum Act freezes the eligibility to persons having photo passes or documents showing existence of dwelling structure prior 1st January 2000. Section 3X(c) stipulates that only such persons who hold photo passes are protected occupiers.
10.2. In paragraph 26(b), it has been suggested that rehabilitation should be permitted on payment of costs for non-protected occupiers. This suggestion stipulates providing tenements to all slum dwellers irrespective of the date of occupation of a tenement on payment. This in fact would defeat the entire scheme of the law and may further encourage encroachment. As per Section 3B (5) (f), non-protected occupiers having dwelling structures from 2000 to 2011 are the only ones entitled to receive tenements on payment of costs. As regard other persons, there are various schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) which may be availed by such persons if so entitled under the scheme.
11. Time bound and streamlined process for Annexure II, satellite survey, centralized master list and biometrics.
11.1. The SRA in Note I, Chapter V, para 5.2.2(pg. 33) set out the earlier process of formation of Annexure II. The issues faced by the SRA in this process are set out in paragraph 5.2.4 (pg. 39). Due to the issues faced, the SRA has now adopted a scientific method of Auto Annexure II and Biometrics which will not only lead to a database of all hutments and hutment dwellers but also will have ready Annexure II for schemes as and when they are presented. As regards Points 27, 28, 30 and 31, an entirely new process of Annexure II and surveys is being carried out which is set out by the SRA in Note II, Chapter VI, paragraph 6.3 (pg. 47) and paragraph 6.5 (pg. 53).
12. Dwelling structure.
12.1. A “Dwelling House” is defined in Section 3X (a) of the Slum Act. Only ground floor structures are considered as dwelling structures. A challenge was made to the policy of the State Government which recognized only ground floor structure as a dwelling house. An assertion was made that even the mezzanine and first floor should be treated as a part of the dwelling structure for the purposes of rehabilitation. This contention was rejected by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pameshkumar Nandlal Sahu v. High Powered Committee & Ors. – WP No. 3075 of 2015 and Gopal Chinmaya Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra – PIL (L) No. 31310 of 2021.
V. Selection of Developers.
13. The Suggestion Note in Points 32 to 35 suggested empanelment of developers based on objective criteria and financial and technical scrutiny of the developers. The SRA in Note II, Chapter VII, paragraph 7.1 (pg. 56) exhaustively set out the new steps have been taken in order to develop a robust panel of developers who are financially sound and have experience in implementing infrastructure projects. The SRA has in paragraph 7.1.2 (pg. 56) set out the process adopted by them for calling upon developers to submit applications for getting empanelled.
14. Further, the SRA has implemented schemes such as amnesty schemes for implementing stalled projects where financial institutions are now being appointed as developers. Furthermore, the SRA in Chapter XVIII, paragraph 8.3 (pg. 61) set out all the steps taken to revive / implement stalled projects which are not only limited to calling for tenders, but also involve implementing the projects either itself or through joint venture.
Discussion
Brief Overview
207. Having noted the submissions as made on behalf of the stakeholders as also the learned Amici and learned Advocate General appearing for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, we now proceed to take a review of the slum legislation for final suggestions to be made. We propose to divide the discussion as under:
(I) Historical Antecedents of the Slum Legislation:
208. The history of the slum legislation prior to the Slum Act(Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971) can be traced to the legislation enacted by the Parliament, namely, The Slum Areas (Improvement And Clearance) Act, 1956. As seen from the preamble of the said Act, it was enacted to provide for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in certain Union territories and for the protection of tenants in such areas from eviction. The said Act comprised of Seven Chapters, inter alia, dealing with the declaration of slum areas (Section 3), the provisions for slum improvement as contained in Chapter III. Provisions on slum clearance and re-development as contained in Chapter IV. Provisions on acquisition of land in Chapter V. Provisions on protection of tenants in slum areas from eviction in Chapter VI, and the miscellaneous provisions in Chapter VII dealing with powers of entry, powers of inspection, breaking into buildings, power of eviction, power of demolition, jurisdiction of the Courts, sanction of competent authority, protection of action taken in good faith, bar of jurisdiction etc.
209. Insofar as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, in the year 1971, the State Legislature enacted the Slum Act to make better provision for the Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment of slum areas in the State, as set out in the preamble to the Slum Act. The Act was brought into force on 03 September 1971. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as notified in the Government Gazette, 1970, Part V, Extra., pp. 252-253, is also required to be noted, which reads thus:-
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
(Maharashtra Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment Bill, 1970)
The rapid growth of industries and consequent growth of population and over-crowding have created slums in Greater Bombay and other urban areas. The slums are a menace to the safety, health and morals of the inhabitants. The problem of slum improvement and clearance has been engaging the attention of both official and non-official agencies for the past several years, and certain schemes for clearance of slum areas have been and are being executed by the Maharashtra Housing Board and Local Bodies.
2. At present there are certain provisions regarding improvement and clearance of slum areas in different laws in force in the State, namely the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949; and the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. These provisions are, however, applicable to the areas in which the enactments in question are in force. There is also no uniformity in the provisions in these enactments. Moreover, they are not comprehensive.
3. It is, therefore, considered necessary to enact comprehensive legislation for the whole State somewhat on the lines of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, enacted by Parliament, with suitable modifications to make better provision for the clearance of slum areas in the whole of the State and their redevelopment. This Bill is intended for that purpose.
Notes on Clauses
The important provisions proposed in the Bill are explained in the following notes on clauses:—
Clause 3.—A provision is made for the appointment of Competent Authorities. It also provides for appointment of bodies corporate as Competent Authorities though the powers and duties will be exercised by their Chief Executives generally.
Clause 4.—This clause empowers the Competent Authority to declare any area, which satisfies certain requirements, as slum area.
Clauses 5 to 7.—These clauses empower the Competent Authority to declare any slum area to be a clearance area, to ask the owner to demolish the buildings and to allow the owner to re-develop the area in accordance with the plans approved by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority can undertake the work of re-development not only if the owner does not execute it satisfactorily, but also in case the Competent Authority is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest. Provision has also been made for appeals to the Tribunal against confirmation of the clearance order by the Administrator and the restrictions imposed by the Competent Authority on redevelopment of land.
Clause 8.—The State Government has been empowered to acquire land for redevelopment of clearance area. The land shall vest in the State Government from the date of publication of the notice. This would avoid delay in acquisition of land.
Clause 11.—This provides for payment of compensation for the land acquired under the Act. The compensation is to be paid as may be determined by agreement or equal to sixty times the net average monthly income actually derived from such land during the period of five consecutive years immediately preceding the date of publication of the notice referred to in clause 8.
Clause 15.—Provision has been made for payment of interest on the amount of compensation for the period from the time of taking the possession of land till the payment or depositing of the amount of compensation. The rate of interest is to be fixed by the State Government but it shall not be less than 4 per cent.
Clauses 16 to 20.—These clauses provide for protecting tenants in a slum area from eviction, restoration of possession of premises vacated by tenants for the purpose of re-erection, and the rents to be charged to tenants after re-erection. The re-housed tenant has to pay rent equal to 4 per cent of the cost of re-erection of the building and the cost of land on which the building is re-erected or standard rent, whichever is more. Other tenants have to pay rent according to the general law relating to the control of rents in force in that area, and in the absence of such law, rent determined by an authority as prescribed under rules to be made by the State Government.
Clause 28.—This clause empowers the Competent Authority to remove offensive or dangerous trades from slum areas.
Clause 29.—This clause provides for appeals to the Administrator by any person aggrieved by any notice, order or direction of the Competent Authority except as otherwise expressly provided. The decision of the Administrator on appeal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court of law. Thus, while giving due opportunity to any aggrieved party to get this grievance redressed, this will enable speedy execution of the slum clearance schemes and avoid inordinate delays resulting from lengthy litigations.
Clause 32.—This clause empowers the Competent Authority to demolish at the cost of the owner any building erected or being erected in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
Clause 38.—Reference to the Tribunal has been provided for determining the claim of the Competent Authority regarding expenses incurred by it, if the claim is disputed, and the amount claimed is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Bombay, dated the 7th May 1970.
N. K. Tirpude, Minister for Housing.”
(emphasis supplied)
210. Incidentally, it may also be observed that in the year 1973, another legislation, namely, Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board Act, 1973, was enacted which was granted assent by the President on 26 April 1973. The objects of the State Act, as seen from the preamble, are to the following effect:-
“WHEREAS, several slums have sprung up and continue to exist in the various areas of the State;
AND WHEREAS, despite continued efforts by legal authorities, Housing Boards, Improvement Trusts and other bodies to remove the slums, and to rehouse and resettle the slum dwellers in housing colonies and the like, it has not been possible to keep pace with the necessities of the situation;
AND WHEREAS, existing slums are becoming a source of danger to the health, safety and convenience of the slum dwellers and also to the surrounding areas, and generally a source of nuisance to the public;
AND WHEREAS, until such time as those slums are removed and the persons settled and housed in proper buildings, it is necessary to provide the basic necessities, such as water, sanitary arrangements, light, etc., to the slum dwellers; and for the purpose of more effectively and most speedily providing these amenities, it is now expedient to set up a Slum Improvement Board; and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid.”
(emphasis supplied)
211. An amendment to the Slum Act in the year 1978 by Maharashtra Act No. 13 of 1978 was incorporated. By such amendment, the preamble of the Act was amended whereby the words “and for protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants” came to be incorporated.
II. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
212. This 1971 legislation was enacted to make better provisions for the improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and their redevelopment, subsequent to which, vide Amendment Act of 1978 (Maharashtra Act No. 13 of 1978) provisions in regard to protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants were incorporated. We may, at the outset, observe that there were 21 substantial amendments to the 1971 Act by the following Amendment Acts:
The aforesaid amendments indicate the progressive steps being adopted by the Legislature to achieve the object and intention of the Slum Act.
III. Scheme of the Slum Act
213. Now coming to the scheme of the Slum Act. Section 2 is the exhaustive definition clause dealing with significant definitions and more importantly, the definition of ‘building’ [Section 2(b)], which includes structures within community economic activity area, which is also separately defined [Section 2(b-2)]. The other vital definitions are – Censused Slum [Section 2(1b)], Developer [Section 2(c-a)], eligible slum dwellers [Section 2(c-b)], Grievance Redressal Committee [Section 2(c-c)], land [Section 2(d)], occupier [Section 2(e)], owner [Section 2(f)], slum area [Section 2(ga)], slum clearance [Section 2(h)], slumlord [Section 2(h-a)], Slum Rehabilitation Area [Section 2(h-b)], Slum Rehabilitation Authority [Section 2(h-c)], Slum Rehabilitation Scheme [Section 2(h-d)], works of improvement [Section 2(j)] etc.
214. Chapter I-A incorporates provisions from Section 3A to Section 3W, making provisions for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme as defined under Section 3B. It is under the provisions of this Chapter, that a Slum Rehabilitation Authority with its Chief Executive Officer and members was constituted as provided for under Section 3A. The Chapter makes provision in regard to powers, duties and functions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to survey and review existing positions regarding slum areas, to formulate schemes for rehabilitation of slum areas, to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implemented, to do all such other acts and things as are felt necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation of slums.
215. Significantly, sub-section (5) thereunder provides the power of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to appoint Committees consisting of its members and experts to facilitate its working and speedy implementation of the scheme prepared under Section 3B including the general schemes of Slum Rehabilitation for specific areas as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 3A.
216. The methodology in regard to implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme to be notified by the Chief Executive Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3B has been exhaustively provided in sub-section (5) and sub-section (6). Section 3C is another significant provision providing for ‘Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area’, which would include community economic activity area. Further provisions of Chapter I-A would indicate that for the purpose of the said Chapter, there are specific sections incorporated. For example, Section 13, which is applicable to slum rehabilitation areas by virtue of Section 3D, providing for “Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop slum rehabilitation area”. There is also incorporation of Section 33 in regard to “Power of eviction to be exercised by Chief Executive Officer”, Section 38 in regard to “Order of demolition of building in certain areas” and Section 47 “Cesser of corresponding laws”. Thus, Section 3D carves out an independent scheme in relation to the application of other Chapters of the Slum Act to a slum rehabilitation area, however, with specific modifications to the provisions as categorically incorporated in Section 3D. Section 3E provides for “Restriction on transfer of tenements”.
217. There are provisions on the constitution of officers, servants and membership of the slum rehabilitation authority. A perusal of all these provisions, i.e., Section 3A to Section 3W indicates that the provisions so incorporated is a Code by itself in relation to the slum rehabilitation scheme.
218. Chapter I-B was incorporated by Maharashtra Amendment Act No. 10 of 2002, which is in regard to “Protected Occupiers, their relocation and rehabilitation”. Section 3X is the definition clause, which defines “dwelling structure” [Section 3X(a)], “photo-pass” [Section 3X(b)], “protected occupier” [Section 3X(c)]. Section 3Y introduces the scheme whereby the Government or any officer, inter alia, authorized by it, after verifying certain documents or records, as may be prescribed, issues a photo-pass for the purpose of the Act in regard to the actual occupier of a dwelling structure in existence on or prior to 1 January, 2000 by Maharashtra 9 of 2014, prior to which original Section 3Y(1) provided for the cut off date to be 1 January, 1995. By the issuance of a photo-pass in favour of a slum dweller, he becomes an occupier, i.e., entitlement to benefit under Section 3Z – “Protection, relocation and rehabilitation of protected occupiers”. Section 3Z is required to be noted, which reads thus:
“3Z. Protection, relocation and rehabilitation of protected occupiers.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, on and after the commencement of the 1[Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2014 (Mah. IX of 2014)], no protected occupier shall, save as provided in sub-section (2), be evicted, from his dwelling structure.
(2) When, in the opinion of the State Government, it is necessary in the larger public interest, to evict the protected occupiers from the dwelling structures occupied by them, the State Government may, subject to the condition of relocating and rehabilitating them in accordance with the scheme or schemes prepared by the State Government in this behalf, evict them from such dwelling structures :
Provided that, if any of the protected occupiers does not comply with the terms and conditions of the scheme for relocation and rehabilitation, such occupier shall forfeit the claim for such relocation and rehabilitation and shall become liable for eviction without being relocated and rehabilitated.”
219. The other provisions are dealing with powers of the competent authority to demolish unauthorized or illegal dwelling structures (Section 3Z-1) and penal liability (Section 3Z-2).
220. Chapter I-C provides for “Special Provisions for in Situ Rehabilitation Housing Schemes for protected occupiers in slum areas” and was incorporated by Maharashtra Act No. 1 of 2004. The provisions under this Chapter are from Section 3Z-3 to 3Z-7. Section 3Z-3 provides for a definition clause defining “Housing Committee”[Section 3Z-3(a)], “Housing scheme” [Section 3Z-3(b)] and “Scheme area” [Section 3Z-3(c)]. Section 3Z-4 provides for “Constitution of Housing Committee”. Section 3Z-5 provides for “Development permission”. Section 3Z-6 provides for “Provisions of this Chapter not to apply in certain areas”, for example, Coastal Regulation Zone, Eco-Sensitive Zones of Ecologically Fragile Area, Hill Stations, Special Tourism Areas, Lands belonging to the Central Government or any entity thereof unless the same is voluntarily offered for the housing scheme. Chapter I-C can be seen to be an endeavour to have housing schemes by undertaking construction/reconstruction of dwelling units or structures in the scheme area for providing basic amenities to the slum dwellers who are protected occupiers as defined in clause (a) of Section 3X and their in situ rehabilitation in such scheme area. It accordingly enables the implementation of Chapter I-B.
221. After specific incorporation of all these Chapters, the next Chapter is Chapter II, as originally contained in the legislation, dealing with slum areas. Section 4 provides for Declaration of slum areas by the Competent Authority, where the Competent authority is satisfied that any area is or may be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by reason of the area having inadequate or no basic amenities, or being insanitary, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise; as also in respect of the buildings which are used or intended to be used for human habitation and are in any respect, unfit for human habitation; or for reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such building or inter alia, a combination of factors like lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities, detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area. Section 4A was incorporated by Maharashtra Act 20 of 1976 providing that certain slum improvement areas shall be deemed to be slum areas.
222. Chapter III provides for “Slum Improvement”, which, inter alia, deals with “Power of Competent Authority of execution of works of improvement” (Section 5). Section 5A incorporates the ‘Improvement works’ consisting of what is provided under clauses (a) to (h). This Chapter also provides for power of Competent Authority to require occupiers to vacate premises (Section 5B). Section 5C provides for “Power of Competent Authority to require improvement of buildings unfit for human habitation and of areas which are a source of danger to public health etc.” Other provisions are provided which are necessary to execute such works.
223. Chapter IV provides for ‘slum clearance and redevelopment’, which contains provisions from Section 11 to Section 13. Section 11 under this Chapter provides for “Power to declare any slum area to be a clearance area”. Section 12 provides for “clearance order” to be passed by the competent authority. Section 13 provides for “power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop Slum Rehabilitation Area”.
224. Chapter V provides for the “Acquisition of Land”. This is a significant chapter, as substantial litigation is generated on acquisition of land encroached upon by slums. Section 14 confers power upon the State Government to acquire land for the purpose of executing any work of improvement or for the redevelopment of any slum area or any structure situated therein. Section 15 thereunder provides for the “Power of Collector to require person in possession of land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to him, etc.”. Section 15A, which was inserted by the Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2012, provides for the ‘vesting of land under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme’. The Chapter further contains provisions relating to the basis for determination of compensation, apportionment and payment of compensation, the powers of the Competent Authority in relation to determination of compensation, and payment of interest, as contained in Sections 17 to 21.
225. Chapter VI provides for the “protection of occupiers in slum areas from eviction and distress warrants”. The heading of Chapter VI was substituted by Maharashtra Act No.13 of 1978 for the heading "Protection of Tenants in Slum Areas From Eviction". Under this Chapter, Section 22 stipulates that proceedings for eviction of occupiers or for the issuance of distress warrants shall not be taken without the prior permission of the Competent Authority. Section 23 provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority to the Tribunal, and also provides for the finality of the Tribunal’s orders. Section 23A, which was inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act 2 of 1987, provides for ‘recovery of rent, etc., by criminal intimidation being prohibited’. Further provisions relate to the restoration of possession of premises vacated by a tenant and the regulation of rent of buildings in slum areas, as contained in Sections 24 and 25. Section 26 provides that the Chapter shall not apply to, or in relation to, the eviction under any law of a tenant from any buildings in a slum area belonging to the Government, the Nagpur Improvement Trust, or any local authority.
226. Chapter VII makes miscellaneous provisions dealing with a variety of matters, namely, ‘powers of entry’ (Section 27); ‘powers of inspection’ (Section 28); ‘power to enter land adjoining land where work is in progress’ (Section 29); ‘breaking into building’ (Section 30); ‘entry to be made in day time’ (Section 31); ‘occupier's or owner's consent to be ordinarily obtained’ (Section 32); ‘power of eviction to be exercised by Chief Executive Officer’ (Section 33); and ‘procedure for allotment of tenements to slum dwellers not willing to join the scheme or project’ (Section 33A and 33B substituted by Maharashtra Amendment Act No.42 of 2025). Another significant provision is the ‘power to remove offensive or dangerous trades from slum areas’ (Section 34). Section 34A and 34B, which were inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act, 2023, provide for the Constitution of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the Grievance Redressal Committee, respectively. Section 35 provides for appeals before the Grievance Redressal Committee as also the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. Provision is also made for service of notice (Section 36). Section 37 provides for ‘penalty in regard to non-compliance of notice, order or direction issued or given under the Act, on conviction, providing for imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 38 provides for ‘order of demolition of buildings in certain cases’. Section 39 provides for ‘jurisdiction of Courts’. Section 40 provides for ‘previous sanction of Competent Authority for prosecution’. Section 41 provides for ‘protection of action taken in good faith’. Section 42 provides for ‘bar of jurisdiction’. Section 43 provides for ‘Competent Authority, etc., to be public servants’. Section 44 provides for ‘Tribunal to determine claims of Competent Authorities before they are recovered as arrears of land revenue’.
227. Sections 44A and 45 deal with vacancy and temporary absence of the President and other members of the Tribunal and other provisions relating to the Tribunal respectively. Section 46 provides for ‘power to make rules’. Section 47 provides for ‘cesser of corresponding laws and powers conferred thereunder temporarily’ and the making of a declaration under sub-section (1) thereof.
IV Rules framed under the Slums Act
228. Rules have also been framed under the Act, namely, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Protection of Tenants in Slum Areas from Eviction Rules, 1972, which, inter alia make provision for the eviction of an occupier and matters connected therewith. The following rules and regulations are framed under the Act:-
“1. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Protection of Tenants in Slum Areas from Eviction Rules, 1972
2. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal Rules, 1972.
3. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Other Manner of Publication of Notification regarding Restriction on Building in Slum Areas, etc.) Rules, 1971.
4. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Other Manner of Publication of Declaration) Rules, 1971.
5. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Other Manner of Publication of Notification regarding Restriction on Building in Slum Areas, etc.) Rules, 1971.
6. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Protection of Tenants in slum Areas from Eviction Rules, 1972.
7. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal Rules, 1972.
8. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Clearance areas Order) (publicity Etc.) Rules, 1973.
9. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Tribunal, Regulations, 1974.
10. The President in The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment Tribunal) (Recruitment) Rules, 1999.
11. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Grievance Redressal Committees) Rules, 2014.
229. Apart from this, the SRA issues notifications and circulars from time to time with the intent of giving effect to the provisions of the Act and Rules.
V AREAS OF DISPUTES
230. Having noted the various provisions of the Act as they stand in the scheme of the legislation, we note the areas/issues in relation to which disputes legally arise which are as under:-
i. Identification of lands declared as slums, particularly with regard to the declaration of such lands as slums and/or slum rehabilitation areas (Section 3C – Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area),
ii. Disputes over the eligibility of slum-dwellers.
iii. Disputes in regard to the formation of societies by the slum-dwellers,
iv. Disputes on appointment of developers by the societies of slum-dwellers,
v. Disputes on eligibility of the slum-dwellers for the purpose of permanent alternate accommodation, which depends upon the existence of the structure in the context of the protection granted under different notifications issued by the State Government.
vi. Disputes arising regarding the change of developers by societies for the reasons such as the appointed developer’s failure to perform, delays in implementing the slum scheme, inability to undertake or complete the slum scheme, transfer or proposed transfer of the slum scheme to another agency/ developer, and various other related reasons.
vii. Disputes relating to slums situated on certain private lands, where the landowners are not provided an opportunity to develop the slum rehabilitation scheme, and where slum dwellers appoint developers in disregard of the rights of the landowners.
viii. Disputes between rival societies appointed by slum-dwellers (significantly in the case of large slums).
ix. Disputes in regard to the removal of slum-dwellers appointed by the slum society.
x. Disputes relating to compulsory acquisition of land as per the provisions of Section 14.
xi. Disputes regarding payment of transit rent by the developers and arrears of transit rent.
xii. Disputes on delays in the completion of the scheme and the complications arising therefrom.
xiii. Disputes on the acquisition of private lands declared as slums or slum rehabilitation areas.
xiv. Disputes on slums on government land or land belonging to public bodies.
xv. Lack of effective dispute resolution mechanism in litigation before forums such as the Grievance Redressal Committee and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, constituted under Section 34A and 34B respectively of the Slum Act, which hardly hold even one sitting in a week or fortnight, resulting in a large pendency of cases before such forums.
xvi. Proceedings arising from the non-consideration of the representation of the Chief Executive Officer, as well as proceedings arising from the effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes between slum-dwellers and developers, slum-dwellers and societies, or slum-dwellers and the SRA, before the Grievance Redressal Committee or the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.
xvii. Apart from the aforesaid issues, there are several other disputes, including those between developers and financiers, as well as disputes between purchasers of free-sale tenements and developers, including those involving projects under MahaRERA.
VI Magnitude of the Slums in Mumbai
231. Having noticed the variety of disputes arising from the implementation of the slum scheme, we may observe the applicability of the Slum Act to the areas in the City of Mumbai has assumed alarming propositions. According to the latest data available with the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, approximately 875.97 acres of land is under slums, which include private land as well as public land belonging to the State Government, Central Government, Municipal Corporation, etc. The total number of persons currently living in slums is estimated to be around 12 million (as per the official website of SRA). The situation of lands affected by slums within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Metropolitan area within the municipal jurisdiction of other seven Municipal Corporations is also quite concern. Hence, the areas of other municipal corporations surrounding Mumbai, namely, Thane Municipal Corporation, New Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation, Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation, Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Ulhas Nagar Municipal Corporation, Bhiwandi Municipal Corporation as well as distinct corporations like Pune Municipal Corporation and Nashik Municipal Corporation, also have slums or slum areas on both government and private lands.
Analysis/Suggestions
232. The task in hand is assigned to this Court as per the directions of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra). The Supreme Court observed that the propensity and the proclivity of the Slum Act to generate litigation was worrisome and that there seems to be a problem with the statutory framework for realising the purpose and object of the statute including referring to the decision in Galaxy Enterprises (supra). In such context, the Court observed that the Act came into being in 1971 and since then, for over five decades, the High Court has been exercising judicial review jurisdiction, disposing of writ petitions raising claims or challenges to the exercise of powers or dereliction of duties by authorities under the Act. It is also noted that a large number of cases have reached the Court and which are pending. It is in such context that the Slum Act, being a beneficial legislation, is intended to materialise the constitutional assurance of dignity of the individual by providing basic housing, so integral to human life. The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Galaxy Enterprises (supra), setting out eight parameters, stating that the statutory scheme is problematic on such issues as set out in paragraphs 56.1 to 56.8, which are as follows:
“(i) Identification and declaration of land as a slum.
(ii) Identification of slum dwellers.
(iii) Selection of a developer
(iv) Apportionment of the slum land between redevelopment area and sale area.
(v) Obligation to provide transit accommodation for the slum dwellers pending redevelopment.
(vi) Lack of independence and objectivity in the functioning of statutory authorities.
(vii) Effectiveness of statutory remedies.
(viii) Judicial review proceedings under Article 226 cannot be a long term solution.”
233. The Supreme Court has categorically observed that the said problems arising out of the statutory scheme and policy framework in fact should have come under review by the State of Maharashtra. It is also observed that an assessment of the working of the statute to realise its purpose and objective are achieved or not is the implied duty of the executive government and that reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of the Rule of Law. It is in recognition of this obligation of the executive government that the Constitutional courts have directed Governments to carry out a performance audit of statutes. In these circumstances, a facilitative role of the judiciary compels an audit of the legislation, which promotes debate and discussion but does not and cannot compel legislative reforms.
234. It is in these circumstances, for reviewing the working of the Slum Act to identify the cause of the problems as indicated in paragraph 56 of Yash Developers (supra), the Court was tasked to hear the Government, the statutory authorities and the necessary stakeholders including intended beneficiaries by taking assistance of senior members of the Bar, it is ordered that the Bench may consider directing the Government to constitute a Committee for performance audit of the Act. It is with the aforesaid parameters, in our considered opinion, we have reflected on the working of the statute and the problems which have arisen, are discussed herein, for consideration of the Committee to be constituted by the State Government for undertaking a performance audit of the Act :-
Journey of the Legislation
235. The Slum Act was brought into force on 3 September, 1971 and has undergone 21 amendments from 1973 to 2025 as noted in paragraph 214 hereinabove, so as to adapt itself to the contemporary requirements as dealt with by the legislature.
236. The period from 1971 till date is a period of almost 55 years. Considering the nature of the legislation, which was primarily ad-hoc for making better provision for the Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment of the slum area, it ought to have so far served its purpose by ameliorating the slum in the city of Mumbai as also in other cities in the State. However, time has shown that the extinction of the slums has remained a dream on paper, and in fact the magnitude of surrounding slums in the cities and more particularly Mumbai, is beyond any reasonable imagination and rationale.
237. The reasons are many:
(I) Lack of policy to protect lands from encroachments and prevent formation of slums.
i. No deterrent measures have been implemented to curb the proliferation of unauthorized settlements. On the contrary, it appears that, with the full knowledge of the concerned authorities and/or implicit assistance there has been a tacit recognition of such encroachments and more so on public lands wherever situated in Mumbai leading to formation of slums. Thus, over the years, slums have been permitted to develop on both public and private lands, whether due to inaction or active acquiescence on the part of the authorities. There cannot be any State policy that there is no deterrent against encroachments on private and public lands. Valuable lands belonging to the State Government, as also to the Municipal Corporation, MHADA and other public authorities, have been brazenly encroached upon over the years. Such illegal encroachments are now sought to be recognized under the policies of the Government of Maharashtra for the purpose of implementing slum schemes, whereby free or subsidized tenements are allotted to the encroachers.
ii. On one hand, the encroachments on government lands were permitted by no action being taken and on the other hand, merely because such encroachments have continued for many years and fall within the framework of cut-off dates notified by the State Government, the encroachers are being held to be entitled to in-situ, free tenement of 300 sq.ft. This is not only unconscionable but also amounts to a fraud on the Constitution for the following reasons:
(a) The primary duty of the government bodies to protect the valuable limited public land more so in an island city like Mumbai, the basic legitimate expectation in public interest, has been persistently disregarded for years together, not only by the ground level officials but also by the higher authorities and officials at the highest levels;
(b) Having proliferated the slums, the creation of policies that recognize such encroachments by attributing development potential and categorizing these lands as slums is another aspect which is extremely worrisome and in fact beyond any legitimate principles of law as recognized by the Constitution and/or is against the ethos of the constitutional requirements of allotment of State largesse. A policy granting free and/or subsidized tenements to encroachers of public lands, finds no justification within the constitutional scheme. The consequences of such a policy are deeply concerning when tested on the constitutional principles.
(c) By not taking any action against encroachment, public land is deprived of its potential use and benefits. Such lands could otherwise be utilized for essential public purposes, including hospitals, dispensaries, bus depots, gardens, playgrounds and other civic amenities.
(d) When such encroachments are protected under the statutory schemes that provide free or subsidized tenements, it amounts to dealing with State largesse and that too in a coerced manner, leading to the only consequence that the public land would be required to be used only for the purpose of housing the encroachers/slum dwellers and that too in situ;
(e) Once the compulsory development of such encroached government land as foisted against the principles of Constitutional morality, is being legitimized and being recognized under the legislative scheme of redevelopment of slums. Thus, not only do the encroachers/slum dwellers become the stakeholders in exploiting the land to become owners of the tenements. Also the very development of such encroached land is being legalized, being carried out by the developer appointed by the slum dwellers, who would get a share in the land to construct a building in which apartments for free sale would be constructed, thereby creating private rights over public land under the guise of slum redevelopment.
(f) Consequently, prime government lands, without the will of the people and contrary to the principles recognized by the Constitution in allotment of State largesse, under such camouflage arrangement of the slum redevelopment is expropriated for unintended purposes being foisted by the slum dwellers. At their behest, valuable government lands become available to the developers, which otherwise would have to be obtained through the process known to law if it is to be sought from the Government or acquired from the private owners at competitive market prices. Thus, a patently illegal scheme of siphoning off the valuable government land is legalized by such arrangements under the garb of encroachment and slum formation. Slums are formed wherever an Government/public land is available not even hillocks are spared on mangroves/marshy lands. This is illustrated from the nature of the slums found everywhere in a ariel view as observed by Dipankar Datta, J. (as His Lordship then was) in his concurring judgment in High Court on its own motion v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corpn. (Jilani Building) (supra), when His Lordship observed thus:
114 Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a planned and sustainable development, the successive Governments together with the Corporation seem to have unabashedly allowed mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by encouraging them not only to encroach more and more of public property but, simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized occupation. Enacting laws to further the interests of the weaker sections of the society is the obligation of every State in terms of Part IV of the Constitution and any move in that behalf ought to and must be welcomed. People living in slums do equally have a right of decent living conditions, which can be ensured by relocating them with proper housing facilities. However, a vicious nexus involving high profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords have created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance being provided by the law enforcing agency, followed by a declaration of slum gradually progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the “haves”. In the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the population including holders of public offices have continued to prosper by achieving their goals through impure means which are nothing short of betrayal of the trust that the people of this region have reposed in those responsible for an able governance. While it was the need of the hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to cater to the needs of the hapless coupled with a complete lack of sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek. Quite contrary to the ideals and values embodied in the Constitution which lay down the basic framework of the social and political structure of the country and sets out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavor to secure happiness and welfare of every member of the society and despite taking oath to uphold the laws, actions of those in power and authority are now invariably driven by political motivations or other oblique considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the compassionate Constitution of ours.”
(g) There does not appear to be any comprehensive accounting of how much government land in an island city like Mumbai has not only vanished but is in the process of being lost from the public pool of lands.
(iii) It is wholly unacceptable that merely because the State Government lacks a robust public housing policy and/or a pool of houses being created to be made available for the class of people who are required to encroach such slum, the existence of such slums on government lands would forever deprive the public at large of the benefits of such public lands. Statutory recognition of such encroachment amounts to the grossest fraud on the Constitution. The sequel being that the authorities would state that they would not safeguard the Government lands and by permitting encroachment, make way for redevelopment of the Government land purely for rehabilitation of slum dwellers and purely for commercial exploitation by developers, can never be the rule of law.
(iv) In our opinion, this grave concern requires immediate attention in the working of the Slum Act in the Government having a performance audit of the Slum Act by constituting an Expert Committee. Although considerable time has already passed, there still remain large tracts of government land belonging to the State Government, the Municipal Corporation, MHADA, MMRDA and other public bodies, which suffer encroachment and are at the risk of being permanently lost to private exploitation. In our opinion, the only approach would be for the Government to review the slum rehabilitation policy qua the public lands and to not recognize any right of encroachers who occupy such land, irrespective of the duration of such occupation, particularly for whatsoever period for rehabilitation and more particularly in respect of in-situ rehabilitation. Recognizing such rights amounts to conferring legitimacy upon illegality of the highest order, and no illegality of such magnitude can be rewarded with the grant of free slum tenements under any scheme, even if constructed by private developers.
(v) The endeavour of the State Government needs to urgently undertake demarcation of the public lands which are encroached and more particularly considering that in a city like Mumbai and its suburbs, public land is extremely scarce and must be safeguarded rather than siphoned off in such a manner. No patronage by official machinery, slum dwellers, developers, public representatives or higher officials in the Ministry can overlook the basic requirement of the Constitution against such coerced utilization of public land for the benefit of encroachers and private development. In fact, a robust mechanism must be instituted to take strict action against the officials who are guilty of dereliction of duty in safeguarding public lands.
(vi) If the Government is nonetheless of the opinion that such encroachers require rehabilitation, then a robust housing policy must be formulated to create a pool of government-owned housing that can be made available on a licence basis for reasonable compensation and an appropriate expert study on such issue is required to be undertaken. It is in such context of government lands that the Division Bench of this Court in Jilani Building has frozen any slum rehabilitation scheme on government lands and has permitted such schemes to operate only in the following terms.
“xii) In so far as the State Government's land and/or other public lands in respect of which, till date no slums schemes are approved by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, such lands shall not be redeveloped under slum redevelopment schemes, unless the State Government or the concerned public authority gives a ‘no objection’, to be published, in at least two local newspapers, that in future it does not require such public lands for any of its purposes, or for the public purposes of any other public bodies under the State or the Central Government. Unless, such no objection is received from the State Government or the Central Government or any other public body, the development of any slum scheme or private utilization of such land shall stand freezed.
xiii) The State Government and the public bodies shall take appropriate steps as permissible in law, to remove the encroachments of the public lands as described in (xii) above, so that land is made encroachment free, to be utilized for public purpose.
xiv) In the event the encroached lands are required by the State Government or by any public body, steps be taken to remove the encroachment and make the land encroachment-free within one year, by rehabilitating the slum dwellers of such lands, if they are protected occupiers. Such eligible slum dwellers be rehabilitated in any other part of the city or in the municipal jurisdiction of the adjoining municipal corporation as the State Government may decide.”
(vii) The aforesaid terms are followed only in breach, which become a matter for the accountability of the Chief Executive Officer or any other Government official in appropriate proceedings.
(II) Vertical slums :
(i) Whether it is affordable to have vertical slums wherever there are open lands in Mumbai and other cities, is a matter of serious concern, particularly when it is a common sight. The slum tenements are scattered all over, the density of population would certainly not commensurate with the development potential of the land. The concept of enhanced development potential for slum redevelopment was first introduced under the Development Control Regulations, 1991 by the incorporation of DCR 33(10). Illustratively, if the land encroached is say about 10000 sq.ft. and accommodates 435 slum dwellers, the DCR provision may permit an FSI of up to 4, which would be equivalent to 40000 sq.ft., out of which only a meagre percentage would be available for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers and the remaining development potential is made available to the developer for free-sale buildings. The cost of constructing rehabilitation buildings is thus effectively subsidized through the private commercial exploitation of the remaining land. This is precisely the scheme. Thus, the land which had scattered slums, ultimately houses distinct vertical settlements, one consisting of rehabilitation buildings for slum dwellers and the other comprising of free-sale buildings marketed in the open market. Thus, the density of the residents on the very same plot of land by such redevelopment is increased to four times from what was the original position or even sometime more depending on the number of tenements in the same area, the developer will fix. This mechanism not only enhances the density of the population on the existing land by bringing on such land a large number of people from the open market but also adds to the woes on the weak and challenged infrastructure like width of the road, water, electricity, hospitals, lack of open space, gardens, sewerage etc.
(ii) Mr. Seervai has pointed out the pathetic condition of these vertical slum buildings being permitted to be constructed, having no light and ventilation, and in between two slum buildings, dust and filth being rampant. If such position is to be believed in respect of such redevelopment, the question is whether at all the object of the Slum Act is being achieved or the same is proved to be counter productive.
(iii) Certainly in undertaking redevelopment of the slums, there is no warrant for straining the existing infrastructure by having the vertical redevelopment of the slums. This aspect requires an appropriate study, more particularly considering that in a larger city like Mumbai, there is hardly any open space left except to be utilized for redevelopment of the slums. The suggestions of the learned Amici as made by Mr. Seervai need to be considered by the State Government.
III. Identification and demarcation of slum land :
(i) There is an urgent need for phasing of these slums by undertaking demarcation of such slums, in regard to which, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has already initiated steps such as geo-mapping, satellite imaging and biometric identification, in order to freeze the number of slum dwellers in such areas, whether situated on private or public land. A comprehensive assessment of housing requirements for such occupants must be undertaken.
(ii) If slums are to be permanently ameliorated and/or removed, a robust mechanism to prevent further encroachment and a systematic manner in which such encroachment would be dealt with by creating public housing is the need of the hour. It is only in these circumstances that an adequate and appropriate utilization of the resources can be brought about. It is inconceivable that encroached land should be used primarily for housing coupled with private commercial exploitation, thereby leading to the creation of a monstrous concrete jungle.
IV) Role of the Slum Societies and their Controlling Authority:
(i) From the ground reality, and as to what is actually happening in the redevelopment of slums, is the purported formation of the co-operative society by the slum dwellers and technically in a method being followed by them as recognized by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by holding a special general meeting under the supervision of the concerned Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies (Slum Rehabilitation Authority) and such meeting being held to appoint a developer. The purported consensus in such meeting to appoint a developer and thereafter a development agreement being entered into with such developer and the developer thereafter submitting a proposal to the SRA for redevelopment of a slum, which would include construction of a slum rehabilitation building to house the slum dwellers and construction of a free sale building from where the developer would compensate himself by selling the residential and commercial spaces in the open market. This is normally the scheme in which the redevelopments are taking place. However, the experience is something different and the same has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Bishop John Rodrigues vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), where the Court made the following observations in regard to actually the developer hunting the slums and forming societies, and it is the developer who, under such garb of having been appointed by the societies, does everything right from the beginning and culminates it into the construction. The said observations of the Court are required to be noted which read thus:-
“99. The SRA and whosoever is concerned in regard to the slum redevelopment need to be conscious of the ground realities namely that it is an herculean task in a city like Mumbai to remove any encroachment on private and public land. It is equally difficult for a private owner of the land to safeguard its land and prevent encroachment. This is the sad story, as encroachment does not happen by such encroachers simplicitor squatting on the land, invariably the encroachment is backed inter alia by slumlords, criminals, social workers, politicians (as the squatters would be vote banks). For a bonafide landlord, it is impossible to fight with such forces and keep litigating on removal of encroachment. Thus, to achieve removal of the encroachment, is seen to be impossible for the landlords and for public bodies like State Government and Municipal Corporation as also the Airport Authority, as major public lands in the City of Mumbai have vanished from the public pool and are subjected to private development by developers under the garb of slum re-development, as the rulings of this Court on several such issues would remind us of these woeful realities. In these circumstances, persons like the developers who are interested in commercial exploitation of any land under the slums may it be private or public, who are backed by other powerful forces and many times also by the government machinery, initiate proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act for declaring private land as a slum. The moment such a declaration takes place, a nightmare and one of the most difficult journeys any citizen who owns land, commences namely to pursue litigation on such a declaration. It is hence as good as a preliminary capital punishment in so far as the ownership rights qua the private land are concerned. The way forward is just to be imagined. This being the case immediately developers who keep track on such development potential purportedly at the behest of the slum society come forward on a purported appointment by a slum society. In reality it is seen that it is the developer who actually forms the slum society. He is the one who is taking steps to enter into a development agreement with the society and the slum dwellers and put up a proposal before the SRA through his architect, everything in the name of the slum society. This for the reason that there is a bonanza of FSI of a free sale component available to be developed by the developer. The question is why should the developers have such bonanza on a land of somebody's ownership or of a private ownership. Thereafter, the SRA purporting to exercise some pious obligation would, under a label of social sympathy and purportedly to forward the object of the Slum Act, commence a process to permit development at the hands of such developer and in a given situation, start proceedings to acquire the land. To say the least, we can certainly take a judicial notice that this has been a sad reality, replete on this branch of slum jurisprudence, as majority of these cases are asserted by the developers with all resources and legal ammunition they could have.”
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) There is so much of credence to the fact position in regard to the role of the slum societies. First and foremost, it is quite difficult for a slum society per se to have any expertise in selection of a developer, inasmuch as it would be the leaders of the slums who have in reality been approached by these developers, to get convinced that a particular developer needs to be appointed and that too for a large project, foisting their discretion on the other slum dwellers. The reason being that the credentials of such developers appointed would be tested for the first time when a proposal is submitted to the SRA by such developers. However, the proposal is itself submitted only after the development agreement is entered into with the slum dwellers. Thus, once the developer is appointed by executing the agreement, it becomes an irreversible position for the society to back out from such agreement, in the event the developer subsequently appears to be not worthy of taking forward the development. There is a likelihood of a number of issues / disputes arising on account of the developer not specifically not complying with its obligation under the development agreement. This is the normal situation. In such context, prominently the issues which reach before the Court are the issues of non payment of transit rent, the developer not entering into the permanent alternate allotment agreement by demarcating specific tenements, commercial or residential, gross delay in undertaking the redevelopment and the dispute in regard to financial incapacity, to name a few.
(iii) On the aforesaid backdrop, in our opinion, such redevelopment cannot be purported to be a slum dweller society-centric (when in reality it is not) it is in fact developer-centric, inasmuch as it is the developer who does everything right from formation of the society and managing all subsequent affairs with the SRA till the occupation certificate is granted. The reality is that it is the developer who controls everything and the entire slum redevelopment wherever it takes place is a developer’s paradise.
(iv) This model in the statutory colour it wields needs to be reconsidered, is our opinion, which would be by streamlining the role of the slum society and participation of the slum dwellers in the redevelopment being replaced by having a robust mechanism which would involve the committee of the SRA that would in fact identify and select a reputed developer from its panel so as to effectively achieve the goals for the society of slum dwellers. Solely everything being done sub silentio by the society, when in fact it is undertaken by the developer, needs fundamental correction. This more particularly, considering the helplessness of the slum dwellers in finding out the right person to be appointed as a developer, which itself goes to the root of the redevelopment, as large number of disputes are arising only from such position of the developer which is between the society and the SRA.
(v) This assumes importance, more particularly when the land on which the slum redevelopment is being undertaken, is the land belonging to the State Government or to public bodies like the Municipal Corporation, MHADA, MMRDA etc. The question arises as to why, in respect of such lands, the society needs to be the sole propeller to initiate redevelopment and ultimately this developer, the society and the SRA become the only active participants in the development, with the owners of the land namely the State Government, MHADA, MMRDA, etc., being rendered to be mute spectators in the scheme of redevelopment as it stands. In this regard, serious observations are made by this Court in Galaxi Enterprises (supra) as also in New Janata SRA Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. (supra).
(vi) We find from the provisions of the Slum Act as also the DCPR 33(10) that the role of the society is very limited as specified in Sections 13, 15A and Regulations 1.6, 1.11, 1.16. This certainly requires a deeper reconsideration as such relationship inter se between the society and the developer vis a vis SRA has generated enormous litigation.
V) Slum on Private Lands:
(i) Slum redevelopment, from the very beginning, when the Slum Act was introduced, has been the subject matter of litigation. As noted hereinabove, slums are generated by encroachments on public and private lands. Once slum settlements come into existence, they are, for all effective purposes, regarded as areas of concern within the urban agglomeration, affecting town planning and the surrounding areas in their vicinity. The procedure to declare a slum under Section 4 is the first step towards recognizing such a slum. If such declaration is in respect of private lands and in regard to settlement on private lands which are regarded as slums, large scale litigation is generated by challenging such action. The concern is for disputes raised before different authorities as also before the Court, is the action on the part of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to take recourse to the provisions of Section 3C to declare the area as a “slum rehabilitation area”, at the request of a slum society, and once such slums are so declared as “slum rehabilitation areas”, under the garb of the owners not undertaking the redevelopment of the slum, the Chief Executive Officer resorts to compulsory acquisition of the private lands for the purpose of slum redevelopment at the hands of the society so appointed. This has been the subject matter of consideration in several cases before this Court. (Ref.: Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, Bishop John Rodrigues Vs. State of Maharashtra and finally the decision of the Supreme Court confirming the said decision of this Court in Tarabai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd Vs. Bishop John Rodrigues and Ors).
(ii) It is quite routinely seen that the provisions for declaration of a land as slum are invoked by the Chief Executive Officer so as to deprive the owner of the preferential rights of redevelopment of his own land. The position in this regard although now is well-settled.
(iii) The thought in this regard is required to be to weed out slums in private properties so as to ameliorate the slums phasewise and for which proper technical assistance is to be provided by the SRA. A need for appropriate provisions which would safeguard the valuable rights of property of the landowners which include the right to enjoy all the benefits derived from it (usufruct) are required to be considered, can a deeper thought on such aspect is the need of the hour.
VI Constitution of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC):
(i) A Full Bench of this Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) was considering large scale litigation reaching this Court on issues pertaining to slums and redevelopment of slums, which involve a fact finding exercise. It is in such context, and also in the context of the decision of this Court with regard to the nature of powers conferred upon the State and Slum Rehabilitation Authority during the course of implementation and monitoring of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, that the issues were considered by the Full Bench of this Court as referred by the Division Bench in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society (supra). The relevant observations as made by the Court are required to be noted, which read thus:
“2. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as “Slum Act” for short) came to be extensively amended in 1996-1997 and 2001, introducing Chapter I-A therein. That Chapter is entitled “Slum Rehabilitation Scheme”. Under that Chapter falls Section 3A. This provision is inserted with a view to establish a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (S.R.A. for short) for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. After this Chapter was introduced in the Slum Act and such Authority became functional for Brihanmumbai and its suburbs, that the S.R.A. decided to undertake and implement several rehabilitation schemes. The State took notice of proliferation of Slums on public lands and properties. Therefore, it decided to confer wide powers on the S.R.A. so that the public lands are cleared by S.R.A. acting in co-ordination with the local authorities. For that purpose, the State Government made appropriate amendments and inserted provisions in the planning and local laws. Insofar as, Mumbai is concerned, S.R.A. was put in charge of permitting developments on lands, which had large slum pockets. Lands were of private/public ownership. Therefore, after amending Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act) for short, the Development Control Regulations for Brihanmumbai (D.C. Rules 1991) were also amended. These Development Control Regulations are traceable to section 22(m) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. For individual development to be controlled, monitored and regulated as also restricted, development control rules were made and they are traceable to the Development Plan itself.
3. One of the Regulations in the set of Regulations, to control development in Mumbai, pertains to Floor Space Index and its computation (F.S.I.). While, computing the permissible F.S.I. for development of the lands/property, incentives were offered by the State and Local Body (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) to Developers and Builders. An obligation was cast upon them as also the owners of these private lands to rehabilitate the slum dwellers at the same site as far as possible and after discharging this obligation to develop the plot/land. The incentive was increased F.S.I. or appropriate adjustments in computing permissible outer limit. At the same time, the slum pockets were also offered incentive inasmuch as persons residing in slums were permitted to organise themselves into Co-operative Housing Societies and such Co-operative Societies were further permitted to come forward with a proposal for development of the land, on which slums are situated or located, either by societies themselves or an outside Agency and incentives were offered for the same as well.
4. The underlying object for the above being clearance of the lands by removal of the slums and dilapidated structures. It is now a well known fact of which judicial notice has been taken repeatedly, that large scale encroachment takes place as far as Government properties and lands are concerned. The Government and its instrumentalities and agencies are unable to control encroachment, illegal squatting and unauthorised development on its lands as the political will and strength is lacking. The slum pockets being Vote Banks, preventive or prohibitory measures are not initiated at right time. The number of encroachers and squatters on lands, roads and pavements have increased and one can witness the same. Once the incentives were offered as above and regulatory and rehabilitation measures and schemes were mooted number of disputes and differences between the slum dwellers/encroachers and the local authority and appropriate agencies have arisen which are consuming valuable time of this Court. In such disputes, the acts and omissions of the Authorities and Agencies are highlighted. The State and the SRA does not resolve them is the principal grievance. Hence, steps are taken to approach this Court.
5. Every Division Bench assigned constitutional and writ matters on the Original Side has to deal with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising specifically from Mumbai, wherein above disputes and differences are involved. The request is to resolve the same in this Court's constitutional and Writ Jurisdiction.
6. Noticing an increasing spate of litigation and the nature of disputes and differences projected therein, it was decided that certain parameters need to be laid down which would enable this Court to take note and cognizance of genuine grievances. Hence, the first and foremost objective of setting up a larger Bench was laying down the parameters.
……….
14. Broadly, the disputes which are brought before the Court and highlighted by the facts in the two petitions noticed above are between slum dwellers themselves, Slum Dwellers and Developer, Developer in a Rehabilitation project who is not acceptable to a particular group or section of slum dwellers, they propose name of another developer and last but not the least between the slum dwellers, developers and the B.M.C. and S.R.A. This is a common complaint. The implementation of the scheme or project is obstructed and often comes to a complete halt on account of inaction by the S.R.A. and the State Government. They do not take any cognizance of common grievances, for example, removal of the Minority or obstructing occupants from the site etc. On some occasions, they refuse to intervene. The allegation is that SRA or State sides with one group or the other. Resultantly all disputes land up in this Court and that is how petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are filed.”
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) It is in such context, the following questions were framed by the Full Bench as set out in paragraph 15 of the said decision, which read thus:
“15. There are several such matters which have been grouped together. It is in the backdrop of such factual and other disputes and complaints with regard to implementation/non implementation of the schemes and projects meant for slum dwellers that the following questions were formulated, for being answered in this reference, by the Division Bench:—
(a) Whether, a private party can seek resolution of dispute and claim relief entirely falling in the private domain, under the garb of Public Authority not functioning?
(b) Whether Municipal Corporation or S.R.A. are responsible for defaults, under the schemes of Slum Redevelopment or under Urban Renewal Schemes?
(iii) The aforesaid issues were answered by due consideration of the provisions of the Act and Development Control Regulations in the following terms:
“111. We have actually not nor should it be understood that we have in any way expressly or implied restricted the scope of applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution to such cases. We have only indicated certain cases where inter or intra-departmental mechanism may be invoked in consonance with the scheme of the Act before approaching this Court. Such classification is not exhaustive but is merely an indication of class of cases where the Court in its discretion may require the parties to take recourse to such remedy. These principles are neither innovative nor new percepts but are re-appreciation of well accepted principles.
112. Compelling the parties to file suits would neither be efficacious, alternate remedy nor would meet the ends of justice in all cases.
113. Till such time as the Legislature or the State Government makes changes or amendments, it would be just, fair and proper to direct that a Monitoring Agency/mechanism should be set up by the State so that the power to supervise and issue directions available in the Slum Act can be exercised effectively. The State Government as also the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has not opposed this course during oral arguments. Hence, we are of the view that the State should immediately establish a monitoring agency. It is necessary to do so for the following reasons:—
114. That apart, with a view to remove all apprehensions in the minds of slum dwellers and other aggrieved parties, we suggested to the learned Advocate General that the State should immediately set up a monitoring agency/mechanism so that the power to supervise and issue directions available in the slum Act can be exercised effectively. In all fairness, learned Advocate General stated that directions be issued in that behalf. The State should immediately put a monitoring agency in place.
a) Considering that the Eligibility criteria is determined by the District Collectorate and in cases of land belonging to public body by the Competent Authority thereof, the scheme works with co-operation and co-ordination of these Authorities. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the SRA acts as a Chief Co-ordinator and the Government, being the ultimate and final body, which establishes authority like SRA and sets up public authorities like MHADA, MMRDA etc. should have a final word.
b) The Government and all such bodies have a duty to undertake and implement these projects. The implementation is not restricted only to sanction and approval of plans and grant of permission. The Government must see to it that the purpose of establishing SRA is achieved and slum dwellers are rehabilitated, so that the government and private lands are slum free. Equally the pavements, which are meant for use of residents and tax payers are cleared. In other words, if the Government does not want proliferation of slums, then it has to take steps to ensure Coordination and Harmony amongst the Agencies and Authorities.
c) It would be of utmost importance that the Government sets up high power committee, consisting of a person, preferably a Principal Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary, who shall be assisted by Chief Executive Officer/SRA, CEO/Vice President of MHADA and CEO/Vice President of MMRDA and Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Gr. Mumbai.
d) That any complaint about eligibility of slum dwellers, eligible slum dwellers being denied tenement, developers not undertaking and completing the project as per the permission and approval so also within the stipulated time frame, transit accommodation being unavailable or not provided for etc. shall be addressed to this Committee and grievances be looked into by it accordingly. The Courts cannot be approached straightway unless and until above mentioned Committee is first moved by the aggrieved person in the form of an application/complaint in writing. If the grievance is not redressed or complaint/representation is not attended to, then and in that event this Court can be approached under Article 226 of the Constitution and not otherwise. Ordinarily, no person can approach this Court directly without exhausting the above remedy.
115. In the result, we are of the opinion that writ jurisdiction is available in matters of Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers but the limits of exercise of power should be confined and restricted to matters, which remain unresolved despite the remedies of Appeals etc. being exhausted. Similarly, in the illustrations given by learned Advocate General, this Court can be approached only if the decision of SRA or State is permissible for being interfered with on the settled principles in writ jurisdiction. We have given illustrations and categories of case wherein a prerogative writ may be issued so as to ensure smooth and effective implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. However, the writ jurisdiction will not be available where the dispute is essentially private or contractual and the State Government, SRA and other local bodies are impleaded as parties only to file writ petition. In other words, when the main relief is not sought against these bodies, yet, they have been impleaded as parties and the dispute is mainly and essentially between private parties involving purely private law, then, writ petition is not the remedy.
(iv) The questions framed in paragraph 15 were answered by the Full Bench in the following terms:
“118. In the result, we answer the question framed hereinabove as under:
A) While exercising the Jurisdiction and powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters concerning Rehabilitation - of Slum Dwellers and schemes framed under relevant statutes, distinct yardsticks cannot be carved out nor separate parameters laid down by this Court.
B) However, the limits and restrictions which are placed on the writ jurisdiction of this Court by Authoritative pronouncements of Supreme Court would govern the writ petitions challenging the orders, actions/inaction of the Authorities in-charge of implementing and/or monitoring the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
C) It is clarified that ordinarily a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed and depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, this Court can decide to intervene, even if, alternate remedy provided above is not exhausted by the petitioner. However, such intervention should be minimum and the Court must abide by the Rule of caution and Prudence enunciated by the Supreme Court in this behalf. In exceptional and deserving cases, this Court would exercise its powers and no general rule can be laid down in that behalf.
D) As far as disputes and questions involving the slum dwellers and Slum Rehabilitation Authority/Public Body/State, Co-operative Housing Society of Slum Dwellers and Developers, Registered Co-operative Housing Society of Slum Dwellers on one hand and proposed Co-operative Society on the other, Developers and S.R.A./State, a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not lie or would be entertained unless and until the parties exhaust the remedy of approaching the High Powered Committee referred to above.
E) The only exception that can be made to Clause (D) above, is with regard to Writ petitions challenging the validity and legality of the Rules, Regulations and Policy Circulars/directives issued under the Statutory provisions or the vires of the Statutory provisions themselves. In such cases, the Court would not insist upon exhaustion of remedies stipulated above. Similarly, if a High Powered Committee/Authority refuses to act on the representations/applications despite proof of the same having been received, then, in appropriate cases, directions can be issued to the said Authority. However, the parties must satisfy this Court that they had made a grievance with regard to inaction of High Powered Committee to the State Government and it has also refused to issue any directions to either that Authority or SRA. Thus, if the State inaction is also alleged, then, the petition can be entertained. However, grant of relief would depend upon this Court satisfying itself about the promptness or sense of urgency shown by the aggrieved party apart from its bona fides in approaching this Court.
F) Needless to state that the Rule of Prudence and caution evolved by the Supreme Court with regard to exhaustion of alternate remedy would always be applicable. If the disputes and questions raised involve factual aspects or necessitate leading of oral and documentary evidence, then, this Court can refuse to interfere in writ jurisdiction leaving open to the parties, remedy of suit in competent civil court or Arbitration.
G) It is clarified that purely private disputes or those involving contractual rights, brought before this Court by way of writ petitions, will have to be ordinarily resolved by recourse to civil suit or arbitration and this principle would apply even to petitions where the State, S.R.A., B.M.C., MHADA etc. are impleaded as parties.
H) An exhaustive category of such cases and disputes cannot be framed and the General principles governing writ jurisdiction would be applicable having regard to the facts in each case.”
(emphasis supplied)
(v) In view of the aforesaid directions of the Full Bench, initially a High Power Committee (HPC) was constituted by the State Government to adjudicate the disputes of the kind as observed in the said decision of the Full Bench. However, subsequently, an amendment was brought about to the provisions of the Slum Act by incorporating Section 34A and Section 34B for the constitution of AGRC and GRC respectively. Such amendment was incorporated by Maharashtra Act No. 33 of 2023 with effect from 8 March, 2017. Sections 34A and 34B are required to be noted, which read thus:
“34A. Constitution of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.—
(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute, the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee or Committees, for such area as may be specified in the notification, consisting of the Chairperson and such number of members and for the purposes of exercising such powers and performing such functions as the Government may deem fit to assign to it under this Act.
(2) The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee shall exercise the powers and perform the functions, as follows, namely :—
(i) to hear and dispose off appeals against orders of the Chief Executive Officer or any Officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, as provided under this Act;
(ii) any issues or matters referred to it by the State Government.
(3) The qualifications of the Chairperson and the members of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, the procedure to be followed for transacting its business and quorum for its meetings, shall be such as may be prescribed.
34B. Constitution of Grievance Redressal Committee.—
(1) The State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute Grievance Redressal Committees consisting of Chairperson and such number of members as the Government may deem fit, for such areas as may be specified in the notification for the purposes of exercising the powers and performing the functions as may be assigned to it under this Act.
(2) The qualifications of the Chairperson and the members of the Grievance Redressal Committee, the procedure to be followed for transacting its business and quorum for its meetings, shall be such as may be prescribed.”
(vi) It is thus clear that AGRC would exercise powers to hear and dispose of appeals against the orders of the Chief Executive Officer or any officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, as provided under the Act. Further, the “Grievance Redressal Committee” exercises powers as assigned to it under the provisions of Section 35 of Slum Act that is to decide the appeals. Section 35 reads thus:
35. Appeals.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any person aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Competent Authority, may appeal to the Appellate Authority, who shall be a person holding a post not below the rank of Additional Collector, in respect of the areas of Municipal Corporations and “A” Class Municipal Councils, and not below the rank of Deputy Collector, in respect of areas of other Municipal Councils, to be notified by the State Government, within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of such notice, order or direction.
(1A) Any person,—
(a) aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the Appellate Authority under sub-section (1), may file an appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice, order or direction, before the Grievance Redressal Committee;
(b) aggrieved by any notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval issued or given by the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority or any Officer to whom the powers are delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, may file an appeal within thirty days of receipt of such notice, direction, circular, decision, order, permission or approval, before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.
(2) Every appeal under this Act shall be made by petition in writing accompanied by a copy of the notice, order or direction appealed against.
(3) Any appeal shall not operate as a stay order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Authority may grant by reasoned order, nor shall execution of any other be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from, but the Appellate Authority may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such order and if the notice, order or direction against which appeal is made and is set aside by Appellate Authority on an appeal disobedience thereto shall not be deemed to be an offence.
(4) No appeal shall be decided under this section unless the appellant had been heard or has had a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person or through a legal practitioner.
(5) The decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on appeal shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.”
(vii) The issues which have continuously reached the Court in regard to matters pertaining to AGRC and GRC are as under:
(a) Large number of matters are pending before the AGRC as well as the GRC. These Committees are unable to dispose of the interim applications and the appeals expeditiously as they do not have regular sittings or have limited sittings considering their composition of its members. We take judicial notice of the fact that in this regard several petitions are filed merely seeking directions to the AGRC to decide the appeal or the Interim Application for stay or for interim orders, and for the said reason that these committees do not hold sittings every day and is, on many occasions, available only once or twice in a fortnight.
(b) The next grievance is that, considering the orders which are required to be passed by AGRC on the nature of disputes in the appeal, it is of utmost necessity that a person trained in law, i.e., a retired Judicial Officer or a person who has practiced as an Advocate with sufficient experience at the Bar, be appointed as a Member of the AGRC. We find that presently AGRC comprises of five members, who are officers of the State Government, as follows:
* Chairman: Additional Chief Secretary, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Committee Members:
* Vice President/ Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA)
* Chief Executive Officer, SRA
* Additional Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
* Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.”
The following officers constitute the GRC:
“Grievance Redressal Committee (Mumbai City)
* Chairperson: Additional Collector / Divisional / Special Executive Magistrate, Mumbai
* Joint Chief Officer, MMRDA, Mumbai
* Deputy Commissioner, MCGM as authorized by the Commissioner, MCGM, Mumbai
Grievance Redressal Committee (Mumbai Suburban)
* Chairperson: Additional Collector / Divisional / Special Executive Magistrate, Mumbai Suburban
* Joint Chief Officer, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Board
* Deputy Commissioner, MCGM as authorized by the Commissioner, MCGM Grievance Redressal Committee (Thane City)
* Chairperson: Additional Collector / Divisional / Special Executive Magistrate, Thane
* Joint Chief Officer, MMRDA, Konkan
* Deputy Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation as authorized by the Municipal Commissioner
Grievance Redressal Committee (Pune City)
* Chairperson: Deputy Commissioner at the rank of Deputy Collector in the office of Divisional Commissioner, Pune as authorized by Divisional Commissioner, Pune
* Joint Chief Officer, MMRDA, Pune
* Deputy Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation as authorized by the Municipal Commissioner”
(c) We are of the clear opinion that it is high time that both the AGRC and GRC hold regular sittings. Further, multiple Committees should be constituted by categorizing the territorial jurisdiction of such Committees, as permitted by the recent amendment to Section 34A, which provides that one or more Committees may be constituted.
(d) The AGRC needs to have a Chairman, who is a former Judge of the High Court and a Judicial Member (Retired District Judge), considering the nature of the disputes being taken to the AGRC arising from orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, which involve adjudication of civil rights, including rights touching on the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 21, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution. The reason being that appropriate adjudication by the AGRC concerning such valuable rights of the parties ought not to generate further litigation.
(e) Similarly the GRC needs to have a Chairman to be a retired District Judge and a Judicial Member (Retired Civil Judge) alongwith other members.
(f) At the level of the AGRC, an endeavour needs to be made to bring about a satisfactory resolution, thereby furthering the object and intent of the legislation, since litigation on such issues is neither conducive to the interests of the slum dwellers nor to the State Government, the authorities or the appointed developer and would, in fact, be counterproductive to the redevelopment of slums.
(g) The AGRC as also the GRC are required to decide Interim Applications expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of the Interim Application, depending upon the urgency of the matter. Accordingly, the AGRC and GRC need to have more permanent Benches headed by retired Judicial Officers. The suggestion is for the Committee to consider amendment of the provisions of the Slum Act on such issues.
VII Disputes on Annexure II :
(i) It is routinely observed that disputes relating to the eligibility of slum dwellers, ultimately reflected in Annexure-II, generate substantial litigation. Robust statutory mechanisms and methods now being formulated by slum dwellers, along with the certification of the slum, require systematic institutional efforts to address disputes concerning the eligibility of slum dwellers so that such disputes can be resolved without generating litigation.
VIII Pool of Houses :
(i) We are in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Rustomjee, appearing for the deceased intervenor Mr. Shirish Patel, that the existing approach of providing free housing ought to be reconsidered. The notion that a poor family residing in an urban area must necessarily be provided with free housing needs to be re-examined. The submissions that every household should contribute towards the cost of its own constructed house, and that subsidized housing loans should be made available for this purpose. Further, for families who are unable to afford EMIs towards the construction cost, housing may be provided by the SRA on a Leave and Licence basis, as suggested in the Afzalpurkar Committee Report.
(ii) In the event, the tenement is allotted free of cost, there should be a preferential right in favour of the Government/SRA in the event of sale in the open market. Such sale should be permitted only in favour of the Government or the SRA at the subsidized construction cost, or at such price as may be determined to be payable by the slum dwellers to the State Government. This would enable the allotment of tenements to persons genuinely in need by enhancing the pool of public accommodation, which may be made available to people who need it.
(iii) In respect of land owned by the Government, such ownership ought to be transferred to a Community Land Reserve, whereby the land is reserved for a specific purpose so that it may always be used exclusively for low-income housing. The sale of such land along with the structures thereon ought not to be permitted. The Community Land Reserve should be managed by non-private bodies that may be created by the State Government.
IX Pool Public Housing :
(i) This Court in the decision of Jilani Building, has echoed the need for the State Government to formulate a policy to create a substantial pool of houses, which can be made available, on payment of compensation, to persons who intend to migrate to cities and occupy such houses by paying the prescribed compensation to the State Government. This would reduce the encroachment on public and private lands and ensure that persons in need of housing are able to reside in decent houses.
(ii) With the development of mass transportation facilities, a significant portion of the existing population who reside in the city are spread across distant suburbs, for whom commuting is not a major impediment. If this be the position for those residing in legitimate housing in suburban areas, the question arises as to why “in situ” rehabilitation on encroached public land ought to be at all permitted. This issue requires urgent reconsideration and total discarding of the provisions of in situ houses by encroachment on public land under the garb of slum redevelopment as noted hereinabove. It is also for such reason that there is a need to create substantial public housing by appointing an Expert Committee to estimate the housing needs of the city and to identify land on which mass housing facilities can be developed.
X Financing arrangement in regard to redevelopment of slum :
(i) Large number of disputes have reached the Court concerning financial arrangements undertaken by developers in the implementation of slum redevelopment schemes. At the outset, it may be observed that financing arrangements in respect of slum redevelopment on private land may not pose significant difficulties. However, where slums are to be redeveloped on land belonging to the State Government or public bodies such as the Municipal Corporation, MMRDA and MHADA, then certainly a specific and a rigorous regulatory control is necessary. It cannot be overlooked that developers are appointed by societies of slum dwellers, while the lands on which such redevelopment is undertaken are public lands. In such circumstances, the issues concerning the mortgage of public land to financial institutions or other financial arrangements between the private financiers and developers must be regulated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
(ii) The nature of the litigation which has reached the Court has shown very serious disputes arising out of the financial arrangements. The slum dwellers are completely unaware of and/or alien to, the ground realities of these financial transactions. Many financiers have become co-developers and are required to be so recognized by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, whereby in such a situation, one party may only have a financial interest while the other party is the party would actually undertake the slum redevelopment. Any dispute arising inter se between such parties or among multiple parties to such arrangements, have severely affected the implementation of the slum redevelopment scheme. Either the finance being not made available or the parties resort to litigation, arbitration, resulting in a stay on redevelopment of the slum. The slum dwellers as also the SRA find it difficult to have any control over such situations as the only tool available with the CEO-SRA is to remove a developer under Section 13 of the Act in the event a slum project is being delayed. The funds brought by one of the parties into the slum scheme become the subject matter of disputes and in such eventualities, things go to the extent of the developers indulging into wholesale trading in the slum scheme and/or in fact dealing in such slum scheme by resorting to a manner to bring another developer or financier into the picture, thereby changing the entire original complexion of the slum scheme. These are complex disputes arising in disputes which have reached the Court (see: New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra(2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896) and Paramvir Developers Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.(Writ Petition (L) No. 41556 of 2025)). The Court has taken a view that insofar as this financial arrangement is concerned, it is the dispute between two private parties and which would be the subject matter of litigation to be adjudicated in a Civil Suit in view of the fact that the Chief Executive Officer would not have any control on inter se financial disputes between two parties and the role of the Chief Executive Officer, SRA would be limited to the effective and expeditious implementation of the slum scheme. No doubt security deposits / bank guarantees are taken from the developers / financers. It is, therefore, necessary that appropriate statutory/regulatory control needs to be introduced, looking at the complexity of such situations so that the slum schemes which are already in process of being implemented are not entangled in such disputes and the slum dwellers do not suffer on such count.
XI The requirement for a maximum density cap for rehabilitation to be fixed:-
(i) This issue is of concern because slum tenements which were originally spread across a larger land parcel would be required to be rehabilitated in a vertical manner through the construction of a slum rehabilitation building. For instance, if a plot of slum measuring 10,000 square meters contains 1000 slum tenements, and such slum tenements are to be rehabilitated vertically in a newly constructed building, an important question arises as to what portion of the land would be required for the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, and what portion would remain available to the developer for free-sale development in the open market?
(ii) The statistics in such a situation would be significant. Under normal circumstances, not only would the 1,000 existing slum dwellers be rehabilitated on the same plot, but the land would also bear the additional burden of free-sale tenements constructed by the developer after completing the rehabilitation component. This situation inevitably raises the issue of density of the population, as the same plot which was originally occupied by 1,000 slum dwellers would eventually accommodate a substantially higher population due to the addition of free-sale residential units.
(iii) Very serious concerns are raised on behalf of the parties as noted by us in recording their respective submissions. There ought not to be any vertical slums, as also the living conditions which are being made available on redevelopment in such high rise slum buildings are commensurate with the normal human requirements of appropriate tenements, which would cater to health, hygiene, light and ventilation and other amenities like open spaces, children’s play area, parking etc. to be made available not only to the redeveloped building, but also to the free sale component which is being constructed. The object and intention are not to have congestion or any unmanageable situation insofar as the realistic living space and issues are concerned and more particularly looking at the future of this development. There cannot be an unjust enrichment of the free sale component at the cost of any compromise on the part of the slum dwellers who are not in a dominant position or are in fact in a weak, exploitative and oppressed vulnerable position.
(iv) Also a reference is made to the National Building Code, 2016, (NBC 2016) (Part 3, Section C-2.4.2) which specifies 500 dwelling units per hectare as the maximum density on a plot for 15 sq. metre apartments in four storey walk-ups. The NBC 2016 does not specify which amenities have to be within a walking distance of the 500 dwelling units per hectare as an essential aspect of the housing construction.
(v) Mr. Seervai proposes that the maximum density for rehabilitation be fixed at 600 tenements per hectare, which would be consistent with the maximum density of 450 tenements per hectare as specified in DCPR 2034 for general housing projects. This would help safeguard the interests of inhabitants by ensuring that basic amenities in rehabilitation areas are maintained in line with standards applicable to normal redevelopment under the DCPR 2034.
(vi) The suggestion is also that slum TDR needs to be utilized exclusively within slum redevelopment projects and not to be utilized in any other project as prevalent. Hence, the suggestion is that the sale and purchase of TDR be restricted for use in other slum redevelopment projects to maintain uniform density across various slum pockets which are currently unequal. Also, a suggestion is made that the SRA could operate a slum TDR Bank for ease of TDR encashment, sale and regulation of its pricing. The practice of concessions and premiums granted under discretionary power of the CEO-SRA needs to be immediately stopped, so as to facilitate in alienating the vexed issue of apportionment, is the significant suggestion of Mr. Seervai.
(vii) The suggestion is that the essential amenities to be provided on site shall be first defined for the size of the population to be rehabilitated on that site and on no account should the same be compromised. Adequate natural light and ventilation, particularly to the lower floors and the space between buildings for facades that have windows, shall not be compromised. In this regard, NBC 2016 (Part 3, Section 8) which provides for clear guidelines, must be adhered to. If the conditions which are so prescribed in regard to adequate social amenities, density, light and ventilation are not feasible, then in such a case some families shall be relocated on adjacent vacant land or in any other redevelopment site which is less over-crowded. Thus, specific regulations in regard to preventing overcrowding of the slum dwellers and/or any congestion which is vitally affecting the basic human rights of the slum dwellers are matters of prime concern, on which there needs to be appropriate regulations, which presently are lacking. Thus, a more systematic and organized approach to the redevelopment of slum must be taken, as also it should be scientific and well-planned.
(viii) Thus, the suggestion is that a maximum tenement density needs to be provided by suitably amending DCPR 33(10), keeping in view the principles of sustainable development and to ensure that rehabilitated slum dwellers are provided access to basic amenities. Also that the regulation should prescribe a maximum density in line with DCPR 30(B) and the National Building Code of India, 2016, rather than prescribing a minimum tenement density. Thus, the need would be to have a re-look at the provisions of Regulation 33(10), VII, 3.8 which is extracted hereinbelow:-
“3.8 Maximum FSI Permissible FSI that can be sanctioned on any slum site shall be 4 or sum total of rehabilitation BUA plus incentive BUA whichever is more with Minimum Tenement Density of 650 per Net Hectare. Due to local planning constraints and viability of the Slum Rehabilitation Project, the tenement density norms of 650 per net hectare may be reduced upto 25% by Chief Executive Officer, SRA subject to minimum tenement density of 500 per net hectare, In such cases, maximum permissible in-situ/total FSI shall be restricted to sum of rehabilitation and incentive BUA which may be generated in the scheme after such relaxation of tenement density. The computation of FSI shall be done for both rehab and free-sale component in the normal manner, that is giving benefit of what is set down in Regulation No. 31(1). While the areas referred in sub-regulations No 6.6 and 8.2 of this Regulation shall not be included for computation of FSI the said areas shall be included for computation of the rehab component. In all cases where permissible in-situ FSI cannot be utilised in situ the difference between permissible FSI and that can be constructed in-situ, will be made available in the form of TDR in accordance with provisions of Regulation No. 32. Provided that permissible in-situ FSI shall be as below.
Provided that the aforesaid FSI shall be exclusive of the fungible compensatory area admissible under the provision of Regulation 31(3).
| Criteria | Permissible in situ FSI |
| Access road of 9.0 m. and above but less than 13.0 m. | 3.0 or up to the sanctioned FSI of scheme, whichever is higher, subject to the observance of building height under reg. 19(2) |
| Access road of 13.0 m. and above | 4.00 or up to sanctioned FSI of the scheme, whichever is higher. Relaxation in marginal open spaces as required under regulation 41(5)(a)(iii) shall be granted by CEO (SRA) in case of demonstrable hardship. However, minimum Joint Open Space of 9 m for buildings height above 32 m & up to 70 m and 12 m between two adjacent buildings for buildings having height above 70 m but below 120 m shall be insisted. For buildings having height above120 m, joint open space between two adjacent buildings shall be 15 m. However, CEO (SRA) shall in case of hardship relax it to 12 m after recording reasons in writing. The relaxations granted shall be subject to compliance of requirements of CFO's NOC. |
(i) Today developers are appointed by the slum society. The whole edifice of the slum redevelopment is on the developer who needs to be a person possessing appropriate expertise and credentials demonstrating achievements in the construction of rehabilitation buildings and free-sale buildings. Accountability in construction, particularly in regard to quality and compliance with building norms, requires strict implementation. There ought not to be creation of vertical slums, as noted hereinabove. For this reason, a Special Committee of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to be constituted, is the need of the hour, to monitor the quality of construction in respect of any construction under the slum rehabilitation scheme. Such Special Committee, as may be constituted, must ensure appropriate certification of the quality of construction, particularly considering that the quality of construction of rehabilitation buildings is often not adequately maintained by developers.
(ii) There cannot be any compromise in the quality of construction of rehabilitation buildings merely because the buildings or tenements therein are allotted free of cost. This is an unacceptable approach inasmuch as, irrespective of whether the building is a slum rehabilitation building or a free-sale building, all norms of construction and standards of quality must be strictly complied with. Certificates of quality and accountability of the developers so appointed must be ensured and recognized for a minimum period of 10 years, which is the least that can reasonably be expected.
(iii) Considering the nature of slums, redevelopment, and development, which involves providing tenements to slum dwellers as well as constructing free sale tenements, it is essential that slum redevelopment projects be undertaken by developers with vast experience and a proven track record in implementing such projects. A basic criteria, as suggested by Dr. Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing for NAREDCO West Foundation, is that developers bidding for such slum schemes be selected based on the size of the slum, built-up area, project cost and density, as specified in clause 3.1.2 (a) of the DCPR. Only those developers who have successfully completed projects of similar scale and possess the required minimum net worth would be considered. The practice of by-night developers, appointed by slum dwellers or societies but actually executing slum schemes through other developers, should be discontinued. The SRA should adopt a digitalized platform, similar to the MCGM system, for sanctioning redevelopment proposals, including establishing a single window clearance mechanism.
XIII Apportionment of Slum Land
(i) In regard to vexed issue of apportionment of slum land between rehabilitation area and sale area, there is no statutory formula or percentage stipulated for bifurcation of land and area between the rehab and sale area under the Slum Act. Thus, any fixed ratio of apportionment would create inflexibility in making the slum rehabilitation scheme further unviable. To overcome this and the situations where the developer has to provide buildable reservations and shifting of reservations under Regulation 17(3)(d) of the DCPR 2034 read with regulation 9 of the DCR, freedom of planning is suggested to be the need of the hour to ensure smooth implementation of slum projects.
XIV Identification of slum dwellers and cut-off date freeze:
(i) The submissions as urged before the Court by the different stakeholders lead to an inescapable inference that the Slums Act has failed to achieve its objective, as there is no sign of the slums in such a large metropolitan city like Mumbai or elsewhere, being eradicated. In fact, the slums in all the cities continue to increase, thereby posing insurmountable challenges and giving sleepless nights to the town planners. This, considering that illustratively, for a city like Mumbai, majority of the lands are occupied by slums, and the eradication and/or redevelopment of such slum areas has not been achieved for decades. This itself shows that there is something amiss in the legislation and its implementation, as also in the policy of the State Government for the protection of slums, including those on public lands, and making tenements available to the slum dwellers free of cost in redeveloped premises or at subsidized rates, which are available at Rs. 2.5 lakh per tenement. The suggestions in such context are significant which are as under:-
(a) There needs to be an absolute freeze on the cut-off dates, which cannot be extended by way of any circular and should not be further revised. Accordingly, any slum established after the fixed cut-off date shall not be recognized, and its occupants shall not be eligible for rehabilitation. In accordance with the applicable legal provisions, such occupants are liable to be removed from the land, whether it is private or public.
(b) Non-protected slum dwellers can be offered housing from the public housing pool, if available, otherwise, they must secure housing in the private sector like any other citizen. The reason is that it is not justifiable for population below the poverty line, or those who are homeless in relation to the city (as opposed to rather than their original place of residence), to move into cities, occupy land illegally, form slums and thereafter benefit from government policies. Such a policy that attracts additional population inflow under such circumstances is unacceptable.
(c) Also, the suggestion is that if a person considers migrating to a city based depending on his economic capacity, either public housing should be made available or the person must access housing through the open market. The practice of providing free or subsequent tenements to encroachers is unconstitutional and should history. There is an evident laxity in government policies. Today, the State Government, as well as public bodies, are virtually landless in cities like Mumbai, which have attained saturation in terms of new construction, as is also the case in other major cities in the State of Maharashtra. It is, therefore, an urgent necessity not to formulate a ‘robust policy’ that succumbs to social or other extraneous pressures by encouraging encroachment through subsidized housing, but instead to adhere strictly to constitutional principles in policy-making on such issues. This includes reducing population pressure on limited and secure lands and implementing recovery of lands from encroachments where slum rehabilitation schemes have not commenced, and the land is still occupied by slums as held by the Division Bench as far back as in February 2022 in Jilani Building where the Court had already ordered a freeze on any redevelopment of slums on government and public land.
(d) We reiterate that, under the guise of slum rehabilitation, the use of public lands solely for residential and commercial development contravenes constitutional morality and disregards every principle the Constitution recognizes for managing State resources. The magnitude of the issue, where hundred of acres of public land have already been removed from the public pool, is not only a clear warning, but a serious alarm. Yet for reasons not known to the law, this has been consistently overlooked by policy makers. We say so that any rehabilitation to any eligible extent can be recognized. However, such mass illegality, and the fact that there will be no freeze of the slums of the State, in fact itself, has created a chaotic situation, more particularly in respect of international cities like Mumbai, and irreparable damage of such nature happening with open eyes, nurtured as it is, has contributed to ruin. Cities like Mumbai today stand in such a condition. It is already too late; however, effective actions, if taken at least within a decade, can improve things, and there can be some hope of the dark clouds of planning receiving some ray of sunshine. However, this requires political will, it requires executive’s will, and it also requires adherence to the rule of law by the citizens. In the event of a single mismatch not being attended to, the chaos which commenced a decade back on such issues would continue to haunt generations to come, converting the city into what only time would tell. Thus, viewed from any angle, unless there is substantial will to improve the situation through a complete revamp of the policies, there may be little scope for the ideals of the eradication of slums to be achieved.
(e) Why for decades together there is no redevelopment of slums in certain areas? There is an urgent need to identify those areas where, for more than 2 to 3 decades, slum redevelopment has not occurred due to the non-feasibility of developing these lands. In such cases, slum dwellers would necessarily need to be evacuated and resettled elsewhere. For example, all the slums surrounding the “Mumbai Airport” and many hilly areas in Mumbai fall into this category. These slums render an international image to Mumbai to be a city of slums although it is commercial capital of the country. High-rise construction in the vicinity of the airport is restricted due to air traffic control regulations. If this is the situation, should the government adopt a selective approach, allowing slum dwellers in such areas to continue living in slums for decades together, even though these lands are legally prohibited from development? This situation results in a disturbing state of affairs in an international city like Mumbai. Any international or domestic traveler arriving in the city would immediately see acres of land in the vicinity of the airport occupied by slums, rather than developed in a planned and safe manner. There cannot be selective redevelopment of slums. This has failed the object of the Act being achieved.
(f) This state of affair demonstrates a complete failure in the implementation of the Act, as well as selective enforcement, indicating the absence of any clear policy or will to cater/address these areas. In such context, a policy is required to recover lands in the vicinity of vital installations, such as the airport and other areas, where the development of slums is automatically restricted. Action must be taken to relocate such slums, rather than attempting in-situ redevelopment, which is itself impermissible, even if it involves large populations that constitute a significant vote bank for the constituents. [Refer to Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmed Patvekari vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. (supra).] In saying this, the observations of Dipankar Datta, J. (as his Lordship’s then was) concluding judgment in Jilani need to be remembered which we have extracted herein, which read thus:-
“113. In Lewis Carroll's classic “Alice in Wonderland”, Alice was so surprised after entering the rabbit hole that she exclaimed “curiouser, curiouser”. Although ‘curiouser’ is no part of English vocabulary, Alice's utter surprise was sought to be highlighted by the author by preferring an unconventional ‘curiouser’ to the grammatically correct ‘more curious’. Alice would have certainly exclaimed “curiouser, curiouser”, had she descended in this wonder city, Mumbai, and noticed the stark urban inequalities resulting from the exceedingly sharp contrast between the wealthy and the poor, the opulent and the frugal. While the affluent enjoy lavish life-styles and show-off their new expensive acquisitions, the whole lot struggling day long for securing their daily share of meal lack proper housing facilities and even the basic of civic amenities. The gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is so pronounced that no matter whatever welfare measures are thought of by social, political and economic reforms, it may not be possible in the near future to achieve even a token equality. No wonder, as far back as in 1956, a melodious duet of two extremely popular voices of Bollywood cautioned that it was difficult (mushkil) to live in (erstwhile) Bombay and that one would have to try hard to find a heart (dil) here.
114. Erstwhile Bombay, now Mumbai, is home to people coming from across the country in search of livelihood. This migration has not only added to the dense population, making Mumbai the most populous Indian city, it has immensely burdened the housing sector so much so that 41.3% of the population live in slums. Anyone taking an aerial view of Mumbai, also called the city of dreams, would be fascinated by the swanky sky-scrapers but disheartened by the structures at the foot of such sky-scrapers covered mostly by blue tarpaulin covers. These are the densely populated single-storey or double-storied slums accommodating almost half of the population, which co-exist as neighbours with real estate developments of extravagance. Despite these pronounced inequalities, people here seem to have accepted that this is the way life should go on. Mumbai happens to be the financial capital of this great nation and the extent of developments that one can see having taken place in Maharashtra are significant. The annual budget of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is more than several mid-sized States of India. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to assume that sufficient financial resources are at its disposal, and one would have expected the Government and the Corporation, whoever was at their helm, to adequately plan development by making appropriate budgetary provisions for affordable housing projects for the not-so-fortunate working class of people living in slums. Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a planned and sustainable development, the successive Governments together with the Corporation seem to have unabashedly allowed mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by encouraging them not only to encroach more and more of public property but, simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized occupation. Enacting laws to further the interests of the weaker sections of society is the obligation of every State in terms of Part IV of the Constitution, and any move in that behalf ought to and must be welcomed. People living in slums do equally have a right to decent living conditions, which can be ensured by relocating them with proper housing facilities. However, a vicious nexus involving high-profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords has created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance being provided by the law-enforcing agency, followed by a declaration of slum, gradually progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the “haves”. In the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the population, including holders of public offices, have continued to prosper by achieving their goals through impure means, which are nothing short of betrayal of the trust that the people of this region have reposed in those responsible for able governance. While it was the need of the hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to cater to the needs of the hapless, coupled with a complete lack of sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek. Quite contrary to the ideals and values embodied in the Constitution, which lay down the basic framework of the social and political structure of the country and set out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavour to secure happiness and welfare of every member of society, and despite taking oath to uphold the laws, actions of those in power and authority are now invariably driven by political motivations or other oblique considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the compassionate Constitution of ours.”
(ii) The preparation of Annexure-II, which determines the eligibility of slum dwellers, has been found to be extremely time-consuming, complicated, and litigious. A robust scheme, to be implemented by specialized officers of the SRA, needs to be formulated for determining eligibility of the slum dwellers for inclusion in Annexure-II. This scheme may use technologies such as GIS, biometric systems, or an automated annexure system, and once eligibility is determined, it must be frozen. In addition, further additions to Annexure-II or attempts at re-survey needs to be discouraged. The database of eligible slum dwellers must be published and notified on the official website of the municipal corporation. Correct data, certified in soft form by the officer who determines eligibility, with the counter-signature of the appropriate authority, shall always be maintained. All supporting documents must also be preserved and made available, area or project-wise, on the official website. The rationale for this is to ensure transparency and accountability, the officer who determines eligibility and the concerned persons must have clear records of how a particular slum dweller qualifies for free or subsidized accommodation, especially in prime locations. No other person, forum, court, or state authority should be left unaware of the basis for eligibility and the benefit conferred. The regime of circulars govering such issues needs to be replaced by a Statutory Mechanism.
XV Maintaining of town planning reservations:
(i) It is essential to free up amenity space by relocating a slum from one plot to another plot and undertaking a joint/cluster redevelopment of the slums. The approach should be to ensure that the amount of open or designated reserved land, to which such a cluster redevelopment scheme would apply, is preserved and made available. SRA projects should not be implemented at the expense of open spaces. Thus a policy in this regard on prioritizing public spaces on par with public projects and providing incentives for clearing and maintaining open spaces via different methods like amalgamation of slum rehab projects on open lands with other slum schemes, has been suggested.
Conclusion
238. We are in complete agreement with Mr. Darius Khambata, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned amici and the learned Counsel appearing for the different stakeholders on the valuable inputs given by them as succinctly captured in the chart of suggestions as prepared by the learned Amici which shall form part of the judgment as an “Appendix” as attached to the judgment.
239. In light of the aforesaid observations and the mandate of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra), on the need to review the working of the Slum Act to identify the causes of issues highlighted by the Supreme Court in paragraph 56 of the judgment, we have made the aforesaid endeavour to record the concerns and the suggestions.
240. In the light of the above discussion, we direct the State Government to constitute an “Expert Committee” having adequate and appropriate members for conducting a performance audit of the Act, so as to make the Slum Act more effective on the issues discussed in this judgment, with the only objective of enabling the Government to achieve the distant dream of slum-free Mumbai, as well as other major cities in the State of Maharashtra.
241. The committee to be appointed by the State Government for reviewing the performance audit of the Slum Act shall comprise of experts in town planning, two of whom shall be one representatives of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and one representative from the Pune Municipal Corporation, and one representative from the Directorate of Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra. It shall also include two independent architects having expertise in building construction and town planning.
242. Further, the committee shall include the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department and an Additional Principal Secretary, as may be nominated by the Chief Secretary, who possess expertise in such matters. The committee shall also comprise of two expert public representatives having specialized knowledge and expertise. Inclusive of such members, the strength of the Committee be fixed by the State Government in Town Planning.
243. Such committee shall be constituted within a period of four weeks from today. The State Government shall thereafter consider the recommendations of the committee shall take a decision as it may find appropriate, in the light of the report which may be submitted by such Committee. An endeavour be made by the Committee to make its report within a period of ten months.
EPILOGUE
244. While parting, we may observe that the present proceedings, as entrusted to this Bench under the orders of the Supreme Court in Yash Developers (supra) is one of its kind, (sui generis), wherein every possible stakeholder has participated. The platform of the present proceedings was thus available to the slum dwellers, developers, citizens, NGO’s, associations, statutory authorities, individuals, charitable institutions etc. This is wholly unprecedented, and was possible only because of the robust vision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court amplifying the concept of audit of a legislation by Constitutional Court, on the burning issues as reflected in the observations in Yash Developers (supra). We have tried to reflect on some of the major issues, albeit there are many more issues as canvassed on behalf of the parties, which we have set out in detail, so that at any point of time, an easy reference of such issues is available along with the valuable overall suggestions as made by the learned Amici. Our observations/reflections, hence, be not taken as something final or conclusive, it is for the Committee to be appointed to ponder on such issues, which would also consider the different perspectives as made on behalf of the stakeholders.
245. The problems which are discussed certainly reflect an abysmal progress of the ideals of town planning expected of an international city like Mumbai, when large areas are still slums. Any town planning which does not sail with the tide of time is questionable. The official machinery under the statutory mechanism despite all the efforts as urged on behalf of the SRA, has failed to eradicate the slums to fulfill the dream of the year 1971, to convert the city into a slum free city. The continuous requirements of planning and in that regard, the expectations and the rights of the citizens, who live in this city, in our opinion, need to assume hightest importance. Hence, there is certainly a need for area/zone wise, systematic and a scientific approach, to be adopted in a phased manner to do away with the slums in Mumbai. The task is herculean but not impossible, provided those who exercise authority and power, have committed determination, a robust and genuine willingness to achieve public good, on this important area, in the city’s march in the 21st century. On such conspectus, we feel that there is need for the Government to consider having a specialized Corporation/Body tasked with planning and redevelopment of slums, with all specialized and scientific machinery to supplement the overburdening of the Chief Executive Officer and the existing machinery under the Slums Act. Considering the existing situation, we doubt whether the Slum Act with the continuous amendments it has seen, can still be considered to be any fulfilling ray of hope. This more particularly when for the last 55 years, the objective of a ad hoc enactment like the Slums Act, has lagged far behind, in achieving its objects. However, it is for the government to decide on such issues. At this juncture, with the deep sense of belonging to the city of Mumbai, we are reminded of the following couplet, from a timeless classic, which is most befitting:
Our Gratitude:
246. The present proceedings were argued before us by the learned counsel appearing for the different stakeholders, demonstratively reflecting the distinguished standards of the illustrious Bar of this Court. The proceedings were argued in a most cordial manner, considering it to be a social cause, of immense public welfare. We have the highest appreciation for the role played by each and every counsel who has participated in the present proceedings.
247. We express our profound gratitude for the herculean efforts of Dr. Birendra Saraf, along with Mr. Vaibhav Charlawar and Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) who represented the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the State Government. We also express our deep gratitude to the monumental effort of Mr. Darius Khambata, Mr. Sharan Jagtiani learned senior advocate along with Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned amici. We also appreciate the valuable assistance of learned senior advocate Ms. Gayatri Singh, Mr. Mihir Desai, Mr. Pravin Samadani, Dr. Milind Sathe (now learned Advocate General), Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Mr. Shiroz Rustomjee, senior advocate, Mr. Kirti Munshi and Akash Rebello and all other learned counsel, who have represented their respective stakeholders their contribution in regard to the present cause shall always remain invaluable.
248. We accordingly conclude the present Suo Motu proceedings in the aforesaid terms.
249. In view of disposal of suo motu proceedings, Interim Applications in suo motu proceedings would also stand disposed of.
250. All other Writ Petitions/proceedings be placed before the Regular Bench.