Supreme Court Declines Mandamus to Acquire Land, Directs Handover of Recreational Ground and Issuance of Occupation Certificate

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal by Jyoti Builders against the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition challenging orders of the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO‑SRA) and other authorities. The appellant sought, among other reliefs, a writ of mandamus directing the State to acquire a 2,005 sq. m. parcel reserved as Recreational Ground (RG) under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and challenged subsequent sanctioning of a rival developer’s slum‑rehabilitation proposal.

The Supreme Court declined to issue a mandamus directing acquisition and upheld the principle that the power of the State to acquire land under the Slum Act was subject to the owner’s preferential right to propound a redevelopment scheme. The Court recorded that the CEO‑SRA’s 2015 order had not been implemented in time and that the appellant’s delay between 2015 and 2022 was material to the remedy sought. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The power of the State Government under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner. This being the position of law, no case is made out by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act.” The Court also noted that, having regard to events after March 2022, “it is too late in the day” to direct acquisition now. While rejecting the acquisition plea, the Court directed the SRA to grant the final Occupation Certificate (OC) for the sale building to the appellant within four weeks upon the appellant handing over the 2,700 sq. m. “dark green” portion identified as Recreational Ground to the Municipal Corporation. The Court further directed that the purchaser (Alchemi Developers) and successors shall not construct on the subject parcel and that the appellant had been adequately compensated by way of FSI.

Background The dispute concerned a Subject Property in Malad (2,005 sq. m., CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/1 & /2) originally owned by F.E. Dinshaw Trust and later by Phuldai R. Yadav (respondent No.5). The land was declared a slum in 1987 and the 1991 Development Plan reserved it as RG. Harishree Enterprises (and successors) obtained Letters of Intent and Annexure II plans in the late 1990s and early 2000s covering a larger project area; 34 hutment dwellers on the Subject Property were included in Annexure II. The CEO‑SRA issued a detailed order on 26.02.2015 holding that the appellant’s slum scheme had been substantially implemented over the Project Property (12,606.7 sq. m.), directing acquisition steps under Section 14 for the Subject Property and treating the 34 occupants as Project Affected Persons (PAPs). That 2015 order was not challenged by Phuldai and attained finality.

Between 2015 and 2022, occupation certificates and FSI issues arose; the appellant alleged the SRA consistently treated the Subject Property as part of its scheme and demanded acquisition. In March 2022 Phuldai sold the Subject Property to Alchemi Developers, who filed their own redevelopment proposal. The SRA thereafter took the position that the Subject Property was excluded from the appellant’s scheme and invited the new owner’s proposal. Jyoti Builders challenged those developments in the High Court, which held (inter alia) that the Subject Property was not included in the slum redevelopment scheme, that Jyoti had not acted for seven years and had already benefited from FSI, and that the owner retained preferential rights. The High Court dismissed the writ petition; the Supreme Court affirmed the legal position that acquisition under Section 14 is constrained by the owner’s preferential right, relying on this Court’s recent precedents (including Tarabai Nagar and Saldanha) and the statutory scheme in Chapter I‑A of the Slum Act. The Supreme Court therefore refused the mandamus to acquire, held that Jyoti was entitled to OC only on handing over the dark‑green RG parcel (2,700 sq. m.), directed issuance of OC within four weeks thereafter, held the appellant to have been adequately compensated by FSI, and restrained any construction on the Subject Property, which must remain Recreational Ground.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1372; Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3405 of 2025) Case Title: JYOTI BUILDERS …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Counsel (for Jyoti Builders) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate (for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 – CEO‑SRA/State); Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.4 – Alchemi Developers); Mr. K. Parameshwar, Senior Counsel (for Respondent No.5 – Phuldai); Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advocate (for Respondent Nos.6 & 8 – Slum Societies).