Supreme Court upholds SRA redevelopment notices, rules censused slum needs no fresh Slum Act notification

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Krishnan Vinod Chandran heard appeals challenging a Bombay High Court order which had dismissed writ petitions against a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) eviction notice dated 06.12.2022 directing occupants to vacate premises for redevelopment. The appeals arose from Special Leave Petitions against the High Court order and tested the validity of SRA action under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Development Control Regulations (DCR) for Greater Mumbai.

The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's conclusion that the SRA and associated redevelopment scheme suffered no legal infirmity. The judgment held that the appellants had delayed and litigated dilatorily, and that earlier administrative adjudication by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) had attained finality. The Court observed that the appellants "did not approach the Court with clean hands" and that there was "no satisfactory explanation" for failure to challenge the AGRC order earlier. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “This contention is totally misconceived because the project in the present case relates to a ‘censused slum’ and it is included in the definition of slums under Regulation 33(10) of DCR for the purpose of redevelopment... Reading of the above regulations also makes it clear that if a slum is a ‘censused slum’ then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and no separate notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is required.” The Court further found that MHADA had granted a No Objection Certificate to SRA and that the redevelopment had reached an advanced stage affecting thousands of structures, so appellants could not be permitted to derail the project.

Background The dispute arose after SRA issued a notice dated 28.01.2019 under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act directing occupants to vacate a plot for a sanctioned rehabilitation scheme. The AGRC dismissed the occupants' challenge on 12.06.2019; that order was not challenged further. When occupants did not hand over premises, SRA issued a second notice on 06.12.2022 giving 48 hours to vacate. The occupants filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which the High Court dismissed by order dated 04.01.2023. They then approached the Supreme Court.

Appellants contended that the site was a MHADA layout and thus only MHADA could redevelop it under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR, that the scheme lacked the requisite 70% consent, and that no notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act declared the area a slum. The AGRC had, however, found that the plot was not a MHADA layout, occupants were transit-camp tenants (not MHADA tenants), many were ineligible as slum-dwellers, and that the project related to a censused slum recorded in 1981. MHADA had given a No Objection Certificate to SRA. The SRA scheme amalgamated three plots, and the developer implemented it in phases; Phase I was complete and Phase II required vacating the present plot. Records showed 2,965 slum structures surveyed, 2,625 eligible for rehabilitation, and a bona fide society (Bharat Ekta Co-operative Society) comprising 261 slum dwellers with over 70% of eligible members opting for redevelopment.

The Court considered the Slum Act’s welfare purpose, the powers under Sections 33 and 38 to evict and demolish in redevelopment cases, and the DCR definitions — notably Regulation 33(10) which treated censused slums as within the ambit of redevelopment without separate Section 4 notification. The Court found no merit in the appellants' statutory or factual objections, held the AGRC order to have attained finality, rejected claims of ignorance of that order as implausible, and described several appellants as using "dilatory tactics." The appeals were dismissed; pending applications were disposed of and interim orders vacated.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 276 Case Title: Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v. The Tahsildar I, Special Cell & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the judgment