Supreme Court of India
JYOTI BUILDERSversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1372
- Decided
- 2 December 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B PARDIWALA
Holding
The State Government’s power to acquire land under s.14 of the Slum Act is subject to the owner’s preferential right, so no mandamus can be issued, the appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate upon surrendering the designated recreational ground, and it has been fully compensated via FSI.
Summary
The dispute concerned a 2,005‑sq‑m parcel in Malad, Mumbai, originally declared a slum and reserved as Recreational Ground under the 1991 Development Plan. Jyoti Builders (appellant) claimed that the 2015 order of the CEO‑SRA required the State Government to acquire the land under s.14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act and that it was entitled to a full Occupation Certificate after handing over the 2,700‑sq‑m dark‑green portion reserved for recreation. The High Court dismissed the writ for mandamus and held the land was not part of the appellant’s scheme, prompting the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the State’s acquisition power is subject to the owner’s preferential right, which remained with the original owner and later with Alchemi Developers, and therefore no mandamus could be issued. The Court granted the appellant an Occupation Certificate for the final sale building upon surrender of the dark‑green portion, confirmed full compensation via FSI, and barred any construction on the subject land, directing it to be used only as a Recreational Ground. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to acquire the subject property under s.14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act in light of the 2015 CEO‑SRA order.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to a full Occupation Certificate for the final sale building upon handing over the 2,700‑sq‑m recreational ground portion.
- Whether the appellant has been fully compensated through an equivalent or adequate FSI allocation for the sale component.
Legislation cited
- Development Control Regulations, 1991
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966s. 152, s. 2(19)
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971s. 14(1), s. 3B, s. 3D(c)(i), s. 4
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether a mandamus should be issued to the State Government to acquire the subject property in accordance with s.14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 keeping in mind the order dated 26.02.2015 (2015 order) passed by the Rehabilitation Authority (SRA); whether the appellant is entitled to full Occupation Certificate for the final sale building in the slum scheme upon handing over the portion of land admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. meant for Recreational Ground (RG) identified as the dark green portion; whether the
Subjects
Section 14Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971MandamusRecreational GroundSlum rehabilitation schemePreferential right of ownerOccupation CertificateFloor Space IndexAcquisition of landDevelopment Control Regulations
Judgment
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 317 : 2025 INSC 1372
Jyoti Builders
v.
Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 14512 of 2025)
02 December 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a mandamus should be issued to the State Government
to acquire the subject property in accordance with s.14(1) of
the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 keeping in mind the order dated
26.02.2015 (2015 order) passed by the Chief Executive Officer-Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA); whether the appellant is entitled to
full Occupation Certificate for the final sale building in the slum
scheme upon handing over the portion of land admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. meant for Recreational Ground (RG) identified as the dark
green portion; whether the appellant has been fully compensated
by granting an equivalent and/or adequate area (FSI) for sale by
the State Government.
Headnotes†
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 – s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i) – Under the Development Plan
of 1991 for Mumbai, the Subject Property was reserved for
Recreational Ground (RG) – In 2015, an order was passed by
respondent No.1-SRA after giving notice to and hearing to all
the concerned including the respondent No.5 (the then owner)
inter alia holding that the Slum Scheme of the appellant-builder
had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering
the Project Property (including the Subject Property) and the
Subject Property was liable to be acquired in the interest
of the slum scheme and the slum dwellers on the Subject
Property had to be rehabilitated by the appellant – Respondent
No.5 transferred her title rights in the subject property in
favour of the respondent No.4 who floated its own proposal
for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme – Writ
* Author
318 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
petition filed by the appellant questioning the orders passed by
the SRA granting sanction to the respondent No.4 and refusal
to implement the 2015 Order and; seeking a mandamus for
the acquisition of the subject property relying on the SRA’s
2015 order – Dismissed by High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Power of the State Government u/s.14 r/w s.3D(c)(i), Slum
Act is subject to preferential right, if any, of the owner – It is
undisputed that when the respondent No.4 submitted its proposal
for development of the subject property in 2022, the same was
accepted in accordance with law as there was no slum scheme
proposal on the subject property – On facts, no case made out
by the appellant for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the State
Government to acquire the subject property u/s.14, Slum Act –
Appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for the Final
Sale Building in the slum scheme on the appellant handing over
the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved
for RG – Further, the appellant has been fully compensated by
granting adequate area/FSI for sale – Respondent No. 4, their
successors and assigns shall not put up any type of construction
on the subject property and the same shall be utilized only as a
RG. [Paras 67, 77]
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 – Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 –
Development Control Regulations, 1991 – Scheme of the Slum
Act, 1971. [Paras 60-62]
Case Law Cited
Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. [2025] 8 SCR 1193 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1795; Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Bishop John Rodrigues
& Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794 – relied on.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh [1964] 2 SCR 197 :
1963 SCC OnLine SC 96; State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of
Tamil Nadu & Anr. [2025] 4 SCR 985 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
770 – referred to.
Citispace & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, Order passed by the
Bombay High Court dated 31.07.2002 in Writ Petition No. 1152
of 2002 – referred to.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 319
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Maharashtra Regional Town Planning
Act, 1966; Development Control Regulations, 1991.
List of Keywords
Section 14, Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971; No mandamus can be issued to
State Government to acquire property under Section 14, Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971; Recreational Ground; Slum rehabilitation scheme; Slum
redevelopment scheme; Owner possesses a preferential right
to redevelop the Slum Rehabilitation Area; Preferential right to
redevelop; Redevelopment of slum dwellers; Mandamus to State
Government to acquire property; Redevelopment; Recreational
ground; Occupation certificate; Occupation Certificate for the
final sale; Slum scheme; Dark green portion; Rehabilitation and
redevelopment of slum dwellers; Slum Rehabilitation Authority;
Development Plan of 1991 for Mumbai.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14512
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WPL No. 31702 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Shyam Divan, Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advs., Anish Agarwal, Yogesh
Adhia, Pratik Chakma, Ms. Natasha Bagga, Abhinav Maurya,
Ms. Pooja Kane, Jitendra Jain, Yashvardhan Singh.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Vikas Singh, Vinay Navare, K. Parameshwar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Pallavi
Sharma, Shubhranshu Padhi, Bharat Jain, Purvesh Buttan, Karan
Batura, Prateek Narwar, Nikhil Vijay Adkine, Ms. Tuhina Kakkar,
Himanshu Buttan, Ms. Prachi Bhutani, Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Amol
Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, B. Dhananjay, Ms. Srishty Pandey,
Palash Singhai, Harshal Sareen, Pragya Prakash Upadhyaya.
320 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay (Original Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction)
dated 18.12.2024 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein seeking to challenge the orders passed by the respondent
No. 1 herein dated 03.10.2022 and respondent No. 3 herein dated
07.10.2024 respectively came to be dismissed.
3. Over and above the challenge to the two orders referred to above, the
appellant also prayed before the High Court for a writ of mandamus
directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein respectively to implement
the order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 herein i.e.
the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO-SRA).
4. This litigation has a chequered history. The facts are quite complicated.
In such circumstances, we need to give a fair idea about this litigation
which, according to the High Court, was a third round of litigation
between the parties.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The dispute in the present case relates to a parcel of land admeasuring
2,005 sq. mts. bearing CTS No.620/A/1A/1(Part) (now renumbered
as CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/1 and 620/A/1A/1B/2) of Village Malad in
Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District (“Subject Property”).
6. The Subject Property was originally owned by F.E. Dinshaw Trust.
Since there were hutments on the Subject Property and the same
had no proper hygiene and sanitation, it was declared as a slum
on 26th November, 1987 under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for
short “Slum Act”).
7. On 25th March, 1991, the Development Plan of 1991 for Mumbai was
published, wherein the Subject Property was reserved for Recreational
Ground (“RG”). The Subject Property even today is reserved for RG.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 321
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
8. The respondent No. 5, i.e., Phuldai R. Yadav claims to have purchased
the Subject Property from the Trust on 18th September, 1991 under
a distressed sale for an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/-. Within a period of
6 months from the date of purchase, the respondent No. 5 is said to
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 9th
February, 1992 (“1992 MOU”) for sale of the Subject Property with
the appellant’s predecessor in interest viz. Harishree Enterprises
(“Harishree Enterprises”). The respondent No. 5 is said to have
granted her consent to Harishree Enterprises for redevelopment. It
is the case of the appellant that such act on the part the respondent
No. 5 is a pointer that she was not interested in developing the
property herself or in any case, had waived her preferential right, if
any, to redevelop the slum land i.e. the Subject Property way back
in the year 1992.
9. Initially, Harishree Enterprises propounded the slum scheme on a
larger property consisting of seven plots of land, admeasuring 19456.7
sq. mts. (“Larger Property”). The Subject Property is one of the said
seven plots. The 1992 MOU was considered as grant of consent
by the owner for the proposed redevelopment as per the prevailing
law. The other six plots of land are either owned by the appellant’s
predecessor (and thereafter the appellant) or the development rights/
consent for the slum scheme had been given for the same.
10. Accordingly, a survey was undertaken to identify the number of
slum dwellers. As per the survey, 34 slum dwellers were found to
be residing on the Subject Property.
11. On 30th January 1997, Certified Annexure-II (“Annexure II”) was
issued by the SRA in respect of the slum dwellers of the Larger
Property including the Subject Property. Annexure II contains a plan
on which slum scheme is to be implemented. The plan annexed to
Annexure II includes the Subject Property and contain names/details
of 34 slum dwellers who had their hutments on the Subject Property.
12. On 3rd September, 1997, a Letter of Intent (“1997 LOI ”) was issued
in favour of Harishree Enterprises for implementation of the Slum
Scheme on Larger Property, which includes the Subject Property.
13. In the meantime, there was an agreement between Harishree
Enterprises and one M/s. Vikas Housing Ltd. (“Vikas Housing”)
for joint development. This led to a dispute, which, in turn, was
322 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
ultimately resolved through Consent Terms dated 3rd August, 2000. In
accordance with the consent terms, Vikas Housing became entitled
to develop 12606.7 sq. mts. (“Project Property ”), which includes the
Subject Property. The said Consent Terms came to be subsequently
registered. In the present appeal we are not concerned with the
balance portion of the Larger Property which came to Harishree
Enterprises’s share as per the Consent Terms.
14. The appellant claims to have acquired its rights from Vikas Housing
for Project Property. On 9th August, 2005, a revised LOI came to be
issued in favour of the appellant thereby sanctioning slum scheme
on Project Property and Annexure II was certified. The plan includes
the Subject Property. The 34 slum dwellers whose hutments were
on the Subject Property were included in the Annexure II issued to
the appellant.
15. A Public Notice dated 8th June, 2004 was issued by the SRA intimating
the public at large that a Letter of Intent with respect to the Project
Property including the Subject Property had been issued to Harishree
Enterprises for rehabilitation and redevelopment of slum dwellers.
16. Thereafter four Rehabilitation Buildings were constructed between
the year 2005 and 2011 and the Occupation Certificate (OC) for the
fifth Rehabilitation building was issued by the SRA in the year 2022.
17. On 26th February, 2015 (“2015 Order”), a detailed order came to
be passed by the CEO-SRA after giving notice to and hearing to
all the concerned including the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai, the then
owner) inter alia holding that the Slum Scheme of the appellant
had substantially been implemented on the entire area covering the
Project Property admeasuring 12,606 sq. mts. (including the Subject
Property) and that a substantial number of slum dwellers had already
been accommodated and in furtherance of the slum scheme, the
Subject Property was liable to be acquired in the interest of the slum
scheme and the slum dwellers on the Subject Property had to be
rehabilitated by the appellant. It further states that the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) would be entitled to monetary compensation amount
after acquisition. The 2015 Order never came to be challenged by
the respondent No.5 (Phuldai) and thus, has attained finality.
18. Accordingly, on the application filed by the society of the slum dwellers,
a survey for demarcation of the Subject Property was carried out by
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 323
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the Officers of SRA and requests were made by the Slum Societies
for acquisition of the Subject Property from time to time as per the
2015 Order. It is the case of the appellant that the Full Occupation
Certificate for the sale building in favour of the appellant was not
granted on the ground that the Subject Property of the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) was yet to be acquired under Section 14 of the Slum
Act and handed over to MCGM.
19. On 26th March, 2022, the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) sold the
Subject Property to the respondent No. 4 (“Alchemi Developers”).
According to the appellant, it was sold on the pretext that there
are slum dwellers on the Subject Property who are required to be
rehabilitated. It is alleged by the appellant that the subject property
was sold with the knowledge that the slum scheme had already
been implemented. However, the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) has now floated its own scheme giving a list of 34
persons, most of whom, according to the appellant, have already been
rehabilitated.
20. The subject matter of the present dispute is only to the extent of 2005
sq. mts. i.e. the Subject Property which was owned by the respondent
No. 5 (Phuldai) and which has belatedly been acquired by another
builder, i.e. respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) on 26th March,
2022 with knowledge that the Slum Scheme on the area of 12606.7
sq. mts., i.e. the Project Property, including Subject Property, had
fully been implemented by rehabilitating 498 slum dwellers. It is the
case of the appellant that the SRA has changed its earlier consistent
stand till the issuance of letter dated 14th March, 2022 only after the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) acquired rights from the
respondent No. 5 (Phuldai), i.e. after March 2022.
21. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant invoked the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court and questioned the legality and
validity of the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 (CEO-SRA)
granting sanction to the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) and
refusal to implement the 2015 Order referred to above.
JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT
22. The High Court first looked into Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.
Section 14 relates to the power of State Government to acquire
land. Section 14 of the Slum Act reads thus:-
324 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“14. Power of State Government to acquire land
(1) Where on any representation from the Competent
Authority it appears to the State Government that, in order
to enable the Authority to execute any work of improvement
or to redevelop any slum area or any structure in such area,
it is necessary that such area, or any land within adjoining
or surrounded by any such area should be acquired the
State Government may acquire the land by publishing in
the Official Gazette, a notice to the effect that the State
Government had decided to acquire the land in pursuance
of this section:
Provided that, before publishing such notice, the State
Government, or as the case may be, the Competent
Authority may call upon by notice the owner of, or any
other person who, in its or his opinion may be interested
in, such land to show cause in writing why the land should
not be acquired with reasons therefor, to the Competent
Authority shall, with all reasonable despatch, forward any
objections so submitted together with his report in respect
thereof to the State Government and on considering the
report and the objections, if any, the State Government
may pass such order as it deems fit.
1(A) The acquisition of land for any purpose mentioned in
sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose.
(2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official
Gazette, the land shall, on and from the date on which
the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the State
Government free from all encumbrances.”
23. The High Court took notice of the proviso to Section 14 of the Slum
Act which imposes an obligation on the State Government to consider
the SRA’s report as well as the objections that might have been raised
by the owner as regards the acquisition. Based on such material, the
State Government would thereafter proceed to pass an appropriate
order as it may deem fit. The High Court observed that the State
could have proceeded with the acquisition subject to the conditions
prescribed in the proviso contained under Section 14 of the Slum
Act referred to above. The High Court recorded that indisputably
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 325
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the State Government had failed to take steps contemplated under
Section 14(1) referred to above despite the order dated 26.02.2015.
However, according to the High Court, it was too late in the day now for
Jyoti Builders (appellant herein) to assert that the State Government
should be directed to acquire the subject property. In other words,
the finding returned by the High Court is that the respondent No. 5
(Phuldai) was never called upon to develop the subject property in
accordance with Section 14 of the Slum Act. The High Court noted
that Jyoti Builders (appellant herein) had failed to take necessary
steps for a period of seven years i.e. between 2015 and 2022. The
High Court had also returned the finding that the attempt now being
made by Jyoti Builders is to acquire the subject property by back
door entry. If Jyoti Builders at all intended to acquire the subject
property, it could have purchased it. It is when Jyoti Builders failed
to purchase the subject property, then respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers purchased it.
24. The High Court thereafter considered the question whether the
respondent No. 4 herein (Alchemi Developers) had submitted a
scheme for the subject property. According to the appellant herein, the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) is responsible for dragging
one and all to this litigation. The appellant has levelled serious
allegations against the respondent No. 4 alleging that it managed
with the authority concerned. However, the High Court returned
the finding that since the rights of respondent No. 5 (Phuldai), the
owner of the subject property, were yet to be adjudicated upon, the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) would be entitled to submit
its scheme for redevelopment.
25. The third issue that the High Court addressed itself was whether the
subject property was included in the slum scheme. In this regard, the
High Court returned the finding that subject property is not included
in the slum redevelopment scheme.
26. In such circumstances referred to above, the final conclusion arrived
at by the High Court reads thus:-
“14) Additionally, even as per Jyoti the benefits of subject
property were excluded. Furthermore, in light of Citispace
vs. State of Maharashtra (“Citispace”) Order dated 31” July
2002 in Writ Petition No 1152 of 2002 read together with
the Order dated 25th July 2014, no new scheme could be
326 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
implemented on the land reserved for garden. This was
the view of the CEO SRA in Order dated 26th February
2015 where he noted the following:
“Further with regard to the land owned by
Respondent No. 2 viz. Shrimati Phuldai R Yadav,
the record shows that the said land is reserved
for recreation ground and therefore the same
cannot be developed in view of the order dated
31-7-2002 passed by the Honourable High Court
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002
[Citispace v State of Maharashtra]. However
since the land is occupied and encroached
by the Slum Dwellers, they are required to be
rehabilitated as Project Affected Persons and it
is the responsibility of the developer to handover
the RG plot of land to MCGM.”
It was only after 1st March 2022 that an owner could propose
a scheme for such property. Therefore, the question of
Phuldai attempting to propound a scheme post SRA’s
order of 26th February 2015 does not arise.
15) Regarding the contention of Mr. Kadam that, the CEO
SRA whilst passing the Order dated 3rd October 2022 had
reviewed the Order dated 26th February 2015, - we reject
it outrightly. We clarify that the CEO SRA acted solely
in compliance with the Court’s directive to examine the
contentions raised by Jyoti and Alchemi in Jyoti’s Petition
itself, which opposed the implementation of S R Scheme
on the subject property by Alchemi. The CEO SRA’s
role was limited to addressing the rival contentions and
did not involve reopening or reconsidering the earlier
decision. Therefore Mr Kadam’s claim that the CEO
SRA “reviewed” the matter is unfounded and is hereby
rejected. Consequently, the judgements of Kapra Mazdoor
Ekta Union (supra), Deoki Nandan Parashar (supra) and
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (supra) cited by Mr. Kadam will
render no assistance to the Petitioner.
16) We agree with Mr. Chinoy’s argument that Jyoti has
already benefitted from accommodating the slum dwellers
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 327
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
under the scheme by receiving necessary FSI under the
Rules. Therefore, the cost of relocation has effectively
been compensated to Jyoti.
17) The AGRC has rightly asked the SRA to ‘look into’
the matter. We now expect that the SRA will not adopt a
contrary stance, especially after recording that the slum
dwellers on Phuldai’s plot have been already allocated
apartments.
18) Considering the case from another perspective, in our
view, first Harishree and now Jyoti’s intent appears on
usurping Phuldai’s land in some form or manner and to
deprive her of her legitimate benefit under the law.
18.1) It is undisputed that prior to the slum scheme
proposed by Harishree, a MoU was entered into between
Phuldai and Harishree with the intent to purchase Phuldai’s
land for consideration. For reasons unknown, that MOU
failed. However, Harishree proceeded with the slum
scheme, assuming they would acquire Phuldai’s land at a
later stage. A significant portion of the plot (approximately
1905 sq. mtrs.) remained vacant, as evidenced by the MOU.
The LoI’s issued from time-to-time further confirm this fact.
19) A comparison of LoI dated 4th June 2004 and 9th
August 2005 reveals that not only was the area of the
plot reduced, but the number of slum dwellers slated
for rehabilitation was also reduced from 574 to 472. It is
undisputed that the conditions outlined in the LoIs required
Harishree - and later Vikas - to produce title documents
and clear the land concerning Phuldai Yadav’s plot. Since
this was not accomplished, the utilization of the FSI was
kept in abeyance.
20) Pausing here for a moment, we ask ourselves: what
remained on the plot apart from FSI? There were only 34
slum dwellers on a specific portion of the subject property
that needed rehabilitation. It is undisputed that this plot
was reserved for garden and HD purposes, meaning that
the land had to remain open and vacant. The FSI was,
therefore, the only component to be utilised - either on
the same plot or elsewhere.
328 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
21) As the FSI of the said plot was kept in abeyance, it
raised a significant question about the land’s inclusion in
the scheme. The LoIs clearly demonstrate that the SRA
was not convinced about Harishree’s or Jyoti’s title to the
subject property. Even the CEO SRA’s order dated 26th
February 2015 noted that Jyoti will have to give clear title
to MCGM. In our view it meant that Jyoti was required to
acquire it and that which its predecessors had intended
and based on which proposed the scheme.
22) We believe that Harishree and now Jyoti, assumed they
would purchase the land from Phuldai and, in anticipation
relocated the slum dwellers. However, the critical question
is, if someone decides to relocate and clear the slum
dwellers from someone else’s plot, can they subsequently
claim beneficial rights of the plot? In our view, the answer
is in the negative. Notably, Phuldai was never called upon
to develop the subject property as per Section 14(1) of
the Slums Act. There is an inexplicable delay in enforcing
the 26th February 2015 Order.
23) What Jyoti did during seven years between 2015 to
2022? In our opinion, seeking acquisition now appears
to be an attempt at a backdoor entry. If Jyoti intended to
acquire the property, they could have purchased it. They
did not and Alchemi did. Therefore, any benefit or loss
concerning the property rightfully belongs to Alchemi alone.
24) Jyoti cannot claim a right over the property simply
because they rehabilitated the slum dwellers. At best,
they are entitled to compensation, which, in our view, has
already been provided by granting them an equivalent and/
or adequate area for sale.
25) We reiterate that we find no error or illegality in the
AGRC’s findings that would warrant setting them aside.
We thus concur with the findings of the AGRC. In view of
the above deliberation, we find no merits in the Petition
and therefore dismiss it.”
27. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before
this Court.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 329
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
28. Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, broadly submitted the following:-
(a) Subject Property is not excluded from the appellant’s
predecessor’s slum scheme of 1997 and the same continues
to be an integral part of the appellant’s slum scheme till date.
(b) No new slum scheme could have been propounded and/
or sanctioned in favour of the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) as there are no slum dwellers to be rehabilitated.
(c) The SRA does not have jurisdiction to entertain or approve the
respondent No. 4’s scheme.
(d) As per the appellant’s scheme, the entire subject property is
required to be handed over to the MCGM as a Recreational
Ground (i.e. open green land), whereas the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) has applied for slum rehabilitation scheme
under DCPR 2034 and, if the same is approved, then the
respondent No. 4 would construct upon 65% of the RG area
and would keep only 35% vacant as RG. As per the learned
senior counsel, this would lead to reduction of RG in the city
of Mumbai which already has been very low per capita green
spaces. In such circumstances, the respondent No. 4’s scheme
ought not to have been accepted.
(e) A slum scheme in Mumbai was implemented as per Regulation
33(10) of DCR 1991 till 2018 and thereafter as per Regulation
33(10) of DCPR 2034 (both provisions are in pari materia).
Appendix (IV) of DCR 1991 and DCPR 2034 allows redevelopment
of slum properties by slum dwellers (self-redevelopment),
through a developer, owner, public authorities or NGOs. Thus,
consent of owner is not mandatory for implementation of slum
scheme. In the event the owner does not consent or redevelop
the property, it can be acquired by the State Government on
the recommendation of the SRA. The owner gets compensation
as per Section 17 of the Slum Act.
(f) By 2015 Order, the CEO-SRA could be said to have adjudicated
the lis between the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) and the appellant.
After hearing the respondent No. 5 (who belatedly objected
to the continuation of implementation of slum scheme), and
330 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
considering the rival contentions between the parties, by
the 2015 Order, the CEO-SRA held that the slum scheme
of appellant has progressed substantially and therefore the
Subject Property cannot be excluded from the scheme. The
CEO-SRA saying so issued directions to the Dy. Collector
SRA to take steps for acquiring the Subject Property under
Section 14 of the Slum Act for the effective implementation of
the appellant’s slum scheme. There was no challenge to the
2015 Order; the same attained finality; and as such, could not
have been revisited either by the parties or slum authorities
respectively. The respondent Nos. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
and 5 (Phuldai) respectively were aware that the 2015 Order
is binding on them. To overcome this, they have gone to the
extent of misinterpreting the 2015 Order by misconstruing the
words ‘carve out’. The words ‘carve out’ have to be read in the
context of the finding and conclusion of the 2015 Order, which
is to include the same and not exclude from the slum scheme.
As such, the purport of 2015 Order is that the property should
be “demarcated” i.e. carved out for the purpose of acquisition
and handing over the same to BMC. The demarcation was
already undertaken on 6th October, 2016. The 2015 Order does
not in any manner suggest “taking out” the Subject Property
out of the appellant’s scheme.
(g) In such circumstances referred to above, the power of the SRA
under Section 14 of the acquisition is also coupled with duty to
acquire the Subject Property. Such a duty has been recognized
by this Court in the case of (i) State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Jogendra Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 96, and (ii) State of
Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 770.
29. Mr. Divan, the learned senior counsel further highlighted the SRA’s
diametrically opposite stance before and after the respondent No.
4 proposed its alleged illegal scheme which, according to him, is
evident from the following:-
(a) From the year 1997 to 2022:
The SRA’s stand prior to Alchemi Developers coming in picture is
as follows:
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 331
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(i) All the LOIs issued by the SRA clearly show that the
Subject Property is part of the appellant’s slum scheme.
(ii) The SRA included 34 slum dwellers on the Subject
Property in the Annexure II of the appellant’s slum
scheme.
(iii) The SRA directed rehabilitation of the said 34 slum
dwellers in the rehab component of the appellant’s slum
scheme.
(iv) By an Order dated 26th February, 2015, the SRA
directed acquisition of the Subject Property and stated
that the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) would be entitled to
monetary compensation after the acquisition.
(v) In pursuance of 2015 Order, the Subject Property was
demarcated by CTS Officer on 6th June, 2015.
(vi) When the appellant requested for grant of Occupation
Certificate in respect of the Sale Building No. 4, the SRA
(respondent No.1) vide its letter dated 14th March ,2022
stated that the request for Occupation Certificate cannot
be granted as RG is not handed over and that the Subject
Property is yet to be acquired under Section 14(1) of the
Slum Act.
(vii) On 20th April, 2022 the Tehsildar from the office
of SRA gave an opinion stating that necessary steps
towards acquisition should be taken with respect to the
Subject Property as per 2015 Order and in fact enclosed
a draft Notice to be issued under Section 14 (1) of the
Slum Act and sent the same to the CEO-SRA for further
process.
(viii) On 27th May, 2022 the Chief Legal Consultant of SRA
gave his opinion and stated that the Subject Property be
acquired as per 2015 Order.
(ix) From 2015 till 2022, it was a consistent stand of the
SRA that the Subject Property forms part of the appellant’s
scheme and thus was required to be acquired under
Section 14(1) of the Slum Act for the benefit of the Slum
Scheme of the appellant.
332 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(b) Events post Alchemi Developers – respondent No. 4 coming
into picture:-
30. According to Mr. Divan, the moment another builder i.e. respondent
No. 4 came into picture and started pursing its slum scheme on
the Subject Property, the office of SRA made a complete volte face
which can be seen from the following:
(i) On 26th March, 2022 the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) sold the
Subject Property to the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers).
(ii) Thereafter, in March-April 2022, the respondent No. 5 applied
for implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Subject Property
based on fraudulent list of slum dwellers (persons who were
already rehabilitated by the appellant). The true and correct
status of list of the slum dwellers submitted by the respondent
No. 5 in its scheme is set out by the appellant. This list, relied
upon by the appellant at every stage, from CEO-SRA to this
Court, has not been denied by the respondent No. 4.
(iii) After respondent No. 4 started pursuing its slum scheme, the
SRA made a complete volte face and started contending that
the Subject Property is excluded from the slum scheme and
2015 Order need not be implemented, and the Subject Property
should form part of the respondent No. 5’s scheme, despite
holding that all the slum dwellers had already been rehabilitated.
(iv) After the new developer came into picture, the respondent No. 1
(SRA) has taken a stance which is contradictory to the order
dated 26th February, 2015 and the same amounts to review of
its own order i.e. order of his predecessor.
31. According to Mr. Divan, the CEO-SRA (respondent No. 1) could
not have taken the orders passed by his predecessor in review as
no such power is provided under the statute. He would submit that
the order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the CEO-SRA holding that
acquisition of the Subject Property as per the 2015 Order need
not be undertaken amounts to review of the 2015 Order directing
acquisition of the Subject Property.
32. He would thereafter contend that the findings returned by the High
Court to the effect that the appellant had already availed the FSI
benefit insofar as rehabilitation of 34 slum dwellers is concerned
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 333
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
could be said to be perverse. In this regard, he submitted that a
perusal of the LOI would indicate that the entire FSI benefit arising
out of the Subject Property is kept in abeyance. He would submit that
the slum scheme is implemented by the developer under the Slum
Act. The developer gets dual benefit - first rehabilitating the slum
dwellers and secondly entitlement to FSI for implementation of slum
scheme. He strongly contended that the entire FSI for the Subject
Property has been kept in abeyance. He asserted that, on the other
hand, the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) seeks benefit of
the entire FSI without implementing the slum scheme or the clearing
slum. According to Mr. Divan, this is something absolutely illegal.
33. In the last, Mr. Divan contended that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5
respectively have misled this Court by submitting that 34 slum
dwellers on the subject property have been rehabilitated as Project
Affected Persons i.e. PAPs. According to him, the slum dwellers of
the subject property are part of Annexure II issued to the appellant
and therefore they have been rehabilitated in rehab component under
the slum scheme and cannot be rehabilitated as PAPs as per the
orders and directions of the respondent No. 1.
34. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Divan, the learned
senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein submitted
that there being merit in his appeal, the same may be allowed and
appropriate relief may be granted.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 and 2
35. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively vehemently submitted that no
error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been
committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment
and order.
36. It was submitted that the subject property does not form part of the
appellant’s slum scheme. As per Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991 and
Guidelines issued in the year 1997, a slum scheme could have been
submitted only with the consent of the “owner” or after acquiring the
same in accordance with Section 14(1) of the Slum Act.
37. It was argued that indisputably the true and correct position in tabular
format is as under:-
334 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sr. Plot No. Map Area Purpose
No. @ pg. 1004 Sq. m.
1. CTS No. 620/A/1A/1A/3 Dark Green 2700 Owned by
appellant &
included in
Scheme.
Satisfies
the RG
requirement.
2. CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/1 Light Green 2005 Owned by R4
and excluded
CTS No. 620/A/1A/1B/2
from scheme
on 04.04.2000
on request of
predecessor
of appellant
38. It was argued that indisputably the respondent No. 5 namely Phuldai
was the owner of the subject property. According to the learned
counsel, the predecessor in title of the appellant had misrepresented
to have obtained the consent from the owner i.e. Phuldai on the
basis of an unregistered MOU between the appellant’s predecessor
(Harishree Enterprises) and the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai). It was
pointed out that the records reveal that the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai)
had terminated the unregistered MOU in 1995 itself. Such termination
was challenged by Harishree Enterprises before the Civil Court by
filing Civil Suit No. 1514 of 1995 which later came to be dismissed.
39. In so far as obtaining occupation certificate for the Final Sale Building
in Slum Scheme is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that
the appellant is not required to hand over the subject property. It was
submitted that it is absolutely incorrect on the part of the appellant
to say that the appellant has been put to a specific condition to
acquire or hand over the Light Green portion i.e. subject property
(2005 sq. m.) for further compliance of Full Occupation Certificate.
40. It was vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively that since the subject property
stood excluded from its Slum Scheme, the respondent No. 1 could
not have insisted on any such condition for the purpose of issuing
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 335
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
the occupation certificate. However, it was clarified that the appellant
was liable to hand over the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. as Recreational Ground (RG).
41. It was argued that in accordance with the direction issued by the
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 26.02.2015 the appellant had
declared the 34 slum dwellers residing on the subject property as
Project Affected Persons (PAPs). In lieu of the appellant handing over
PAP’s to SRA, the appellant has been compensated in accordance
with the policy with equivalent FSI for Sale Component. The appellant
had already utilised such FSI generated against PAP and had
constructed its Final Sale Building.
42. It was next submitted that the appellant had at no point of time ever
challenged the directions issued by the CEO-SRA to rehabilitate the
34 slum dwellers as PAPs. It was argued that the subject property has
now been purchased by the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
from the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) i.e. the original owner of the
subject property and thus, the respondent No. 4 has a vested right
to have the first choice to undertake a slum rehabilitation scheme
and only upon failure to do so, the State Government may acquire
the land. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) as the lawful owner had already exercised its
preferential right and was implementing the scheme by including
the subject property as part of its scheme. In such circumstances
referred to above, there is no question at this point of to acquire
the subject land.
43. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prayed that there being
no merit in the present appeal, the same may be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4
44. Mr. Vikas Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) vehemently submitted that the
subject property has been lawfully purchased by Alchemi Developers
for a valuable consideration. It is alleged that the appellant is trying
to usurp the subject property without paying any consideration. It
was argued that the 34 slum dwellers were part of the scheme in
1996-97. However, they came to be excluded in 2000. The mere
existence of the 34 slum dwellers in the Annexure II would not
336 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
establish anything. Further, the SRA had expressly directed the
appellant to rehabilitate them as PAPs.
45. It was further argued that if there are no slums on the subject property,
the SRA would not have any jurisdiction to acquire the subject property
with a view to hand over the same to MCGM. In the last, it was
submitted that the subject property was never a part of the scheme of
the appellant. The appellant on its own and without any permission from
the planning authority rehabilitated the slum dwellers. The appellant
should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.
46. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned senior counsel
prayed that there being no merit in the present appeal, the same
may be dismissed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NOS. 6 AND
8 RESPECTIVELY
47. Ms. Pallavi Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No. 6 - Gokuldham Ekta SRA Co-operative Housing Society Limited
and the respondent No. 8 - Shree Gokuldham Durgadevi Vikas SRA
Co-op Housing Society Ltd. respectively (“Slum Societies”) submitted
that the 34 slum dwellers who were in the subject property owned
by the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) and also other slum dwellers
on the larger property which was being developed by Harishree
Enterprises had given their consent for slum rehabilitation scheme
by the Harishree Enterprises. The slum dwellers had also executed
agreements for permanent alternate accommodation with Harishree
Enterprises. The respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) had never approached
the slum dwellers to redevelop the subject property.
48. It was pointed out that the appellant herein acquired the rights to
redevelop the property admeasuring 12,606 sq. mts. including the
subject property. All the slum dwellers on the property admeasuring
12,606 sq. mts. have been rehabilitated in the rehab building
constructed by the appellant herein. The main concern expressed
by the Slum Societies is with respect to the loss of the open
recreational ground. According to the Slum Societies, the subject
property is reserved for recreational ground. The slum scheme of
the appellant under the 1991 DCR envisages the subject property
which is in front of the slum rehabilitation building entirely as open
space for recreation as RG.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 337
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
49. However, according to the learned counsel, as per the scheme of the
respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers) which is under DCPR 2034,
the respondent No. 4 proposes to construct on 65% of the subject
property. If the respondent No. 4’s scheme is allowed, the 498 slum
dwellers and even general public would loose 65% of recreational
ground i.e. about 1,303 sq. mts. out of the subject property. This
would cause grave prejudice to the slum dwellers. According to the
learned counsel, this aspect is not considered by the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 respectively including the High Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 5
(ORIGINAL OWNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY)
50. Mr. K. Parameshwar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) fully supported the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers). It was argued that the respondent No. 4
as a purchaser of the subject property from the respondent No. 5
has a preferential right to redevelop the subject property and the
SRA is obliged under law to invite the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) to come forward with a redevelopment proposal. It
was argued that the State should not have ordered to acquire the
subject property before extinguishment of the preferential right. It
was argued that each of the LOIs specifically excluded the subject
property or, in other words, the subject property is not reflected
in any manner as a part of the scheme. It has been admittedly
confirmed by the SRA. The learned counsel provided us with the
details of the LOIs as under:-
“a) LOI dt. 03.09.1997 which was revised (pursuant
to complaints by R5) and a fresh LOI dt. 02.08.1999
was issued in favour of Harishree Enterprises for slum
development of the larger property.
b) Revised LOI dt. 04.06.2004 was issued in favour
of Harishree Enterprises, superseding earlier LOI dt.
02.08.1999 (cl. 39) - see cl. 23, 25, and 35. Cl. 35 is
extracted:
“35. That you shall not claimed FSI of plot adm.
2005.00 sq. mts. Kept in abeyance till the dispute
between Harishree & Smt. Phulday Yadav is
decided by Court.”
338 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
c) LOI dt. 09.08.2005 - see cl. 33:
“33. You shall not claim FSI of plot admeasuring
2005.00 sq. mt. kept in abeyance till the dispute
between M/s Vikas Housing Ltd. & M.s Harishree
Enterprises & Smt. Phuldai Yadav is decided
by Court.”
d) LOI dt. 28.09.2017 in favour of the appellant (i.e., present
developer) makes no mention of the subject property,
as a part of the scheme. A copy of this LOI, however, is
conspicuously absent and suppressed by the appellant in
the present pleadings.”
51. It was submitted that the fact that the subject property does not
figure in the last LOI dated 28.09.2017 has been taken note of by
the High Court in its impugned judgment. The appellant having acted
on this very LOI that excluded the subject property to implement its
slum redevelopment scheme cannot now seek to contest the right
qua the same subject property as it was owned by the respondent
No. 5 and later purchased by the respondent No. 4.
52. In the last, it was submitted that the SRA vide letter dated 04.01.2008
had directed the appellant to submit a revised scheme after excluding
the subject property. It was pointed out that the appellant vide its
letter dated 15.01.2008 had stated in so many words that it was not
utilising or taking benefit of the subject property and therefore there
was no need to submit a revised scheme.
53. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned senior counsel
submitted that there being no merit in the present appeal, the same
may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS
54. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, we would like to address
ourselves on three pivotal issues namely:-
(i) Whether we should issue a mandamus to the State Government
to acquire the subject property in accordance with Section 14(1)
of the Slum Act keeping in mind the order dated 26.02.2015
passed by the Chief Executive Officer-Slum Rehabilitation
Authority?
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 339
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled to full Occupation Certificate
for the final sale building in the slum scheme upon handing
over the portion of land admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. meant
for Recreational Ground (RG) identified as the dark green
portion?
(iii) Whether the appellant has been fully compensated by granting
an equivalent and/or adequate area (FSI) for sale by the State
Government?
55. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either
side, we must look into few relevant provisions of the Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, “MRTP Act”) and the
Slum Act respectively.
56. Section 2(19) of the MRTP Act reads thus:-
“2(19) “Planning Authority” means a local authority; and
shall include:-
(a) a Special Planning Authority constituted or appointed
or deemed to have been appointed under section 40;
and
(b) in respect of slum rehabilitation area declared under
section 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority appointed under section 3A of
the said Act.”
57. Proviso to Section 152 of the MRTP Act provides as under:-
“152. Powers of Planning Authority or Development
Authority to be exercised by certain officers.-
x x x x
..... Provided further that, the State Government may by
a notification in the Official Gazette, delegate any of the
powers exercisable under sections 44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54,
55, 56, 135 and 136 of this Act by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority appointed under the Maharashtra Slum Act
(Improvement, Clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1971
acting as Planning Authority, to the Chief Executive Officer
of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.”
340 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
58. Section 3B of the Slum Act reads thus:-
“3B. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.- (1) The Slum
Rehabilitation Authority concerned, with the previous
sanction of the State Government, shall prepare or
amend the general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for the
areas specified under sub-section (1) of section 3A, for
rehabilitation or relocation of protected occupiers and other
occupiers of the building in such areas.
(2) The general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme prepared
or any amendment to it under sub-section (1), shall be
published in the Official Gazette, by the concerned Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, as draft general Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme or draft amendment to general Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme, for the area specified under sub-section (1) of
section 3A, for the information of general public, inviting
objections and suggestions, giving reasonable period of
not less than thirty-days but not more than forth-five days,
for submission of objections and suggestions, if any, in
respect of the Scheme.
(3) The Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Slum
Rehabilitation Authority shall, within sixty days consider
the objections and suggestions, if any, received within the
specified period in respect of the said draft general Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme or any draft amendment to the
general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and after considering
the same and after carrying out such modification as
deemed fit or necessary, finally publish said general Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme or such amendment to it, with the
approval of the State Government, in the Official Gazette.
(4) The general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme published
under sub-section (3) shall be deemed Development
Control Regulations under the provisions of Chapter III of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
(Mah. XXXVII of 1966), for the said area and the provisions
of the general Slum Rehabilitation Scheme shall prevail
over the Development Control Regulations, published
under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 (Mah. XXXVII of 1966).
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 341
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
(5) The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme so notified under
sub-section (3) shall, generally lay down the parameters
for declaration of any land as the Slum Rehabilitation
Area and indicate the manner in which rehabilitation of
the occupants of the area declared as Slum Rehabilitation
Area shall be carried out. In particular, it shall provide for
all or any of the following matters, that is to say,-
(a) the parameters or guidelines for declaration of
land as the Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(b) basic and essential parameters of development of
Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme;
(c) provision for obligatory participation of the owners,
landholders and occupants of the land declared as
the Slum Rehabilitation Area under the approved
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in the implementation
of such Scheme;
(d) provision relating to transit accommodation
or entitlement of compensation in lieu of transit
accommodation to the slum dwellers pending
development of the Slum Rehabilitation Area;
(e) provision relating to allotment of tenements either
in-situ or otherwise, on development free of cost to
the protected occupiers of the building in such Slum
Rehabilitation Area;
(f) provision relating to allotment of tenements either
in-situ or otherwise, on ownership or on rent, to the
other non-protected occupiers up to the 1st January
2011, subject to the availability of tenements as per
the terms and conditions and guidelines so notified
in the Official Gazette, by the Chief Executive Officer
with the prior approval of the State Government;
(g) scheme for development of the Slum Rehabilitation
Areas under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by
the landholders and occupants by themselves or
through a developer and the terms and conditions
342 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of such development; and the option available to
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for taking up such
development in the event of non-participation of the
landholders or occupants;
(h) provision regarding sanction of Floor Space
Index and transfer of development rights, if any, to
be made available to the developer for development
of the Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme;
(i) provision regarding non-transferable nature of
tenements for a certain period, etc.
(6) The Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, with prior approval of the State Government shall,
regulate procedure for appointment and registration of
developers for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme as per the rules prescribed by the State
Government, from time to time. The Chief Executive Officer
or the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, as the case may be,
may register any person or an association of persons
registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) or
a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 (18
of 2013), as a developer in the prescribed manner for the
implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.”
59. Section 4 of the Slum Act reads thus:-
“4. Declaration of slum areas:-(1) Where the Competent
Authority is satisfied that-
(a) 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; or
(b) the buildings in any area, used or intended to be used
for human habitation are-
(i) in any respect, unfit for human habitation; or
(ii) by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty
arrangement and design of such building, narrowness
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 343
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation,
light or sanitation facilities or any combination of
these factors, detrimental to the health, safety or
convenience of the public of that area,
the Competent Authority may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, declare such area to be a slum area. Such
declaration shall also be published in such other manner
(as will give due publicity to the declaration in the area)
as may be prescribed.
Explanation.- For the purposes of clause (b), the expression
“buildings” shall not include,-
(a) cessed buildings in the island City of Mumbai as defined
in clause (7) of section 2 of the Maharashtra Housing and
Area Development Act, 1976 (Mah. XXVIII of 1977), or old
buildings belonging to the Corporation;
(b) buildings constructed with permission of the relevant
authority at any point of time;
(c) any building in an area taken up under the Urban
Renewal Scheme.
(2) In determining whether buildings are unfit for human
habitation for the purposes of this Act, regard shall be
had to the condition thereof in respect of the following
matters, that is to say,-
(a) repairs;
(b) stability;
(c) freedom from damp;
(d) natural light and air;
(e) provision for water-supply;
(f) provision for drainage and sanitary conveniences;
(g) facilities for the disposal of waste water;
and the building shall be deemed to be unfit as aforesaid,
if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of the
said matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation
in that condition.
344 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(3) Any person aggrieved by a declaration made under
sub-section (1) may, within thirty days after the date of
such declaration in the Official Gazette, appeal to the
Tribunal. No such appeal filed after the expiry of thirty
days as aforesaid shall be entertained.
(4) When an appeal is presented under sub-section
(3), the Tribunal shall, by a public notice published in a
newspaper in the Marathi language circulating in the local
area in which the slum area situated and also displayed at
some conspicuous place in the slum area, call upon the
residents of the slum area to file their objections, if any,
to the appeal within a period of fifteen days from the date
of publication of such public notice in the newspaper as
aforesaid, either by themselves or through any association
of residents in the slum area of which they are members.
(5) On expiry of the period of fifteen days as aforesaid the
Tribunal shall fix a day for hearing the appeal and inform
the appellant about the same by letter under certificate of
posting and the residents of the slum area by displaying the
notice of hearing at some conspicuous place in the slum
area and upon hearing the appellant and the residents
or representative of their association in the slum area, if
present, or on considering the written objections, if any,
made by such residents or association, if absent, the
Tribunal may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6),
make an order either confirming, modifying or rescinding the
declaration; and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final.
Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-section (4) and this
sub-section, the expression “any association of residents
in the slum area” means a society, if any, of such residents
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (XXI
of 1860) or under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 (Mah. XXI of 1961).
(6) While deciding the appeal the Tribunal shall ignore the
works of improvement executed in such slum area by any
agency of the Government or any local authority after the
declaration thereof as such slum area by the Competent
Authority under sub-section (1).”
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 345
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
60. The scheme of the Slum Act indicates that it is a beneficial legislation
and emphasizes on the protection of the occupiers (slum dwellers) by
making a provision for redevelopment and rehabilitation. Accordingly,
Section 4 of the Slum Act contemplates for an area to be declared
as a ‘slum area’. Section 3B contemplates a Slum Rehabilitation
Authority (“SRA”) to prepare a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, which
shall be deemed to be the Development Control Regulations made
under the MRTP Act.
61. The MRTP Act has been amended to provide that the SRA shall
be treated as a Planning Authority for areas declared as slums
Accordingly, Regulation 33(10) of DCR 1991 has been framed to
deal with SRA Schemes.
62. The DCR 1991, i.e. Regulation 33(10) read with Appendix IV thereto
provides for the redevelopment of the slum dwellers through the
owners/developers/cooperative societies of slum dwellers, whereby
70% consent of the slum dwellers is to be obtained ‘in a viable
stretch at one place to join a rehabilitation scheme’ (Clause 1.15. of
Appendix IV). In lieu of the developer clearing slums, constructing and
handing over flats to the slum dwellers, it is entitled to an incentive
FSI which can be commercially utilized by the developer undertaking
redevelopment by constructing buildings/buildings for sale in open
market known as ‘free sale component’.
63. This Court in Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1795 considered the entire scheme of the Slum Act and held that the
owner possesses a preferential right to redevelop the SR Area; that
the SRA is duty-bound to invite the owner to submit a SR Scheme,
and that any acquisition is not warranted until such right stands
extinguished. The relevant extracts are as follows:
“82. [...] the owner has a preferential right over other
stakeholders to develop an SR Area. If the owner
then chooses to exercise this right by submitting and
implementing a valid SR Scheme, issues involving rights
over the property would not arise. It is, thus, not fathomable
that when the landowner is implementing an SR Scheme
on its own, a necessity to acquire the land could arise.
83. Rather, any process to acquire the land shall have to be
kept in abeyance till such time as the owner’s preferential
346 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
right to develop it stands extinguished. Since it is open to
the owner to file its own SR Scheme within a reasonable
time and the proposal of the owner, if valid and complete,
would take primacy, it cannot be said that there is any legal
necessity to acquire the land. If acquisition is allowed to
take place at this stage, it will jeopardise the preferential
right of the landowner. It is only when the owner declines
to undertake development or to support any third-party
development, thereby foregoing its preferential right,
that such a necessity would actually arise. There can
thus be no doubt that, as long as the owner is willing to
undertake development in exercise of its preferential right,
the acquisition cannot proceed.
84. This can also be harmoniously read in conjunction with
the requirement for a notice-cum-invitation to the owner,
as set out in Section 13.46 Until the SRA has invited the
owner to submit an SR Scheme, the owner’s right to
develop the land cannot be said to have closed. In such a
case, the subsisting preferential right cannot be frustrated
or undermined by initiating the acquisition process.
x x x x
87. When an SR Area has been notified under Section
3C(1) of Chapter I-A51 and its development through an SR
Scheme is conceptualised, whereunder there is an inbuilt
preferential right of an owner to carry out redevelopment,
the power of acquisition under Section 1452 would not
operate in an independent silo; rather, it must derive
meaning and effect from the principles prevailing throughout
the legislative scheme of Chapter I-A”.
64. Following the decision in Tarabai (supra), this Court in Saldanha
Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors., reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794 reiterated these principles. The relevant
paragraphs are extracted for convenience:
“26. This Court in Tarabai (supra) has unequivocally
established that: (i) the private owner of an SR Area has a
preferential right to develop it; (ii) the SRA must invite the
landowner to come forward with a redevelopment proposal
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 347
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
and give them reasonable time to do so before the said
preferential right extinguishes; and (iii) the State or the SRA
cannot move to acquire the land before the preferential
right of the owner is extinguished. These principles will
also apply mutatis mutandis to the case in hand.
27. Consequently, there vests a preferential right in favour
of the Church Trust, over and above the SRA, occupants,
or other stakeholders, to develop the Subject Land. The
Trust ought to have been invited by the SRA to submit
a proposal and undertake such redevelopment after the
declaration dated 29.12.2020 was issued. Thus, the SRA
cannot proceed for acquisition of the Subject Land unless (i)
such a notice-cum-invitation is extended, and (ii) thereafter,
the right of the Church Trust is extinguished if it fails to
submit a redevelopment scheme within the prescribed
period of 120 days.
28. The High Court has held that there was no compliance
of these preconditions by the SRA before initiating the
acquisition, and the entire process was liable to be
invalidated. The High Court has further found from the
conduct of the Appellants that the acquisition proceedings
arose from an exercise of power in bad faith. We, therefore,
now proceed to examine whether the High Court was right
in drawing such a conclusion.
x x x x
32. The inevitable consequence of the SRA’s omission
to issue a separate notice under Section 1329 is that the
Church Trust’s preferential right to redevelop the Subject
Land remains intact. In the absence of a valid notice or
opportunity, there existed no legal basis to extinguish this
right. The acquisition was, therefore, vitiated in law, falling
afoul of the prescribed procedure.”
65. It is not in dispute that in the development plan issued by the Town
Planning Authority, the subject property was reserved for the purpose
of Recreational Ground. One order passed by the Bombay High Court
dated 31.07.2002 in Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 titled Citispace
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra was brought to our notice. The
order reads thus:-
348 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“Heard parties.
2. Respondent No. 2 is directed to file an affidavit disclosing
necessary information as claimed in prayer clauses (c)(i)
to (xiii) of the writ petition.
3. Adjourned for four weeks. In the meantime, until further
orders, no new rehabilitation scheme be sanctioned without
the permission of this Court in respect of open spaces
which are reserved for gardens, parks, playgrounds,
recreational spaces, maidans, no-development zones,
pavements, roads and carriageways.”
66. Thus, it appears that the High Court had passed an order of injunction
referred to above on use of lands reserved inter alia for Recreation
Ground meant for the implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
This very fact is also recorded in the order dated 26.02.2015 passed
by the CEO-SRA. Such injunction continued till 01.03.2022. In such
circumstances, there was no occasion for the respondent No. 1 SRA
to acquire the subject property. This fact has been acknowledged
by the appellant and the same is evident from the letter dated
07.03.2022 addressed by the appellant i.e. within 7 days from the
date the injunction referred to above came to be vacated. In such
circumstances, it is clear that till 01.03.2022 nothing could have
been done.
67. In the meantime, the respondent No. 5 namely Phuldai transferred her
title rights in the subject property in favour of the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers). The respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
submitted its proposal for implementation of the slum rehabilitation
scheme. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 (Alchemi
Developers) submitted its proposal for development of the subject
property on 05.04.2022 and the same was accepted in accordance
with law as there was no slum scheme proposal on the subject
property.
68. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant for the first
time on 25.07.2022 filed a Writ Petition (L) No. 23703 of 2022 seeking
a mandamus for the purpose of acquisition of the subject property
relying on the CEO-SRA’s order dated 26.02.2015.
69. We should also take notice of the fact that the respondent No. 5
(Phuldai) had executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 349
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
09.02.1992 with Harishree Enterprises (predecessor developer) to
sell the subject property and granting consent to redevelop the same.
This MoU came to be terminated in 1995. The termination of the
MoU led to filing of a suit being Suit No. 1514/1995 by Harishree
Enterprises on the original side of the Bombay High Court for
specific performance of the MoU. This suit came to be dismissed for
default on 06.04.2000 by the Bombay High Court and thus attained
finality. On 26.03.2022, the respondent No. 5 (Phuldai) executed
a registered conveyance deed in favour of the respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) for the subject property.
70. We are of the view that it is too late in the day, or to put it in other
words, it will be too much if we at this point of time direct the authority
concerned to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Slum Act on
the basis of the CEO-SRA’s order dated 26.02.2015.
71. In such circumstances referred to above, we decline to grant any
relief to the appellant insofar as the prayer for acquisition of the
subject property is concerned.
72. It is well settled that the power of the State Government to acquire land
under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject
to preferential right, if any, of the owner. This issue has been set at
rest by this Court in Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (supra).
In the said case, exactly the very same argument was canvassed
by Mr. Shyam Divan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant therein that even if there is a preferential right in favour
of the owner, the same would not militate against the power of the
State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Slum Act. This
Court while negativing such contention observed as under:-
“77. In this context, we deem it appropriate to clarify at this
stage that Section 1445 empowers the State Government
to acquire land if necessary to enable the SRA to carry
out development under the SR Scheme. It is writ large on
the text of Section 14 that the State can invoke its power
to acquire the land, if it is necessitated, as per the SRA,
for the implementation of a Scheme.
78. To explicate, the SRA, in line with the scheme envisaged
by the Slums Act, is not only authorised but also responsible
for ensuring that development is undertaken in SR Areas.
In furtherance of this objective, it invites developers to
350 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
submit SR Schemes. In the event no developer comes
forward, the SRA can take over the development itself. To
achieve this, it would undoubtedly need to utilise the land
in the SR Area for various purposes, such as preparing
temporary or permanent transit residences, construction
work, setback area, and access roads.
79. However, when tasked with such an endeavour, the
SRA may face instances where the owner is unwilling
to accede to the redevelopment of the land. In such
situations, as per the 1997 Guidelines and Regulation
33(10), a consent or no-objection certificate from the
owner is mandatory for any proposal to be considered. By
withholding such consent, the landowner has the ability
to perpetually stall the entire redevelopment.
80. This instance illustrates how it may become necessary
for the State to acquire land using its eminent domain for
the purpose of facilitating slum rehabilitation. E.3.2 Interplay
with the Owner’s Rights
81. Given the above backdrop, what becomes important
for us to ascertain is whether such necessity can arise
before the landowner’s preferential right to redevelop is
extinguished.
82. As already held, the owner has a preferential right
over other stakeholders to develop an SR Area. If the
owner then chooses to exercise this right by submitting
and implementing a valid SR Scheme, issues involving
rights over the property would not arise. It is, thus, not
fathomable that when the landowner is implementing an
SR Scheme on its own, a necessity to acquire the land
could arise.
83. Rather, any process to acquire the land shall have to be
kept in abeyance till such time as the owner’s preferential
right to develop it stands extinguished. Since it is open to
the owner to file its own SR Scheme within a reasonable
time and the proposal of the owner, if valid and complete,
would take primacy, it cannot be said that there is any legal
necessity to acquire the land. If acquisition is allowed to
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 351
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
take place at this stage, it will jeopardise the preferential
right of the landowner. It is only when the owner declines
to undertake development or to support any third-party
development, thereby foregoing its preferential right,
that such a necessity would actually arise. There can
thus be no doubt that, as long as the owner is willing to
undertake development in exercise of its preferential right,
the acquisition cannot proceed.
84. This can also be harmoniously read in conjunction
with the requirement for a notice-cum-invitation to the
owner, as set out in Section 13. Until the SRA has invited
the owner to submit an SR Scheme, the owner’s right to
develop the land cannot be said to have closed. In such a
case, the subsisting preferential right cannot be frustrated
or undermined by initiating the acquisition process.
85. This Court in Murlidhar Teckchand Gandhi (supra)
held that Sections 13 and 14, as they were couched in
the original framework, are independent provisions, which
can be invoked separately. Mr. Divan, on this premise,
urged that a similar independent power to acquire the land
was traceable under Chapter I-A also. However, such a
contention would merit acceptance only if the object and
scope of acquisition under Section 14, as contained in
Chapter V of the original framework, are similar, if not
identical, to the scope and power of acquisition conferred
under the same provision when proceeding under the
Chapter I-A framework. In this context, it becomes crucial
to analyse the differences herein.
86. Firstly, the original framework and the cited judgement
do not confer or provide any preferential right in favour
of the owner to develop the land, whereas there exists a
definite primacy of the owner’s right to develop the SR
Area under Chapter I-A. Secondly and more importantly, the
scope of acquisition under Section 14 (within Chapter V)
in the original framework48 is much broader than that in
Chapter I-A.49 In the former, the power of acquisition is
wide enough to include improvement works and specific
structures, whereas in the latter, it is restricted only to the
352 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
implementation of an SR Scheme. Thirdly, in Murlidhar
Tekchand Gandhi (supra), this Court had no occasion
to evaluate the scope of Chapter I-A, to which we are
concerned in the present matter. The perceived power
to proceed under Section 14 without responding to the
rights and powers created under Section 13,50 cannot,
thus, be applied mutatis mutandis in a case of an SR
Scheme to be given effect under Chapter I-A. Given
these stark differences, comparing the interpretation of
the original framework and the Chapter I-A framework is
akin to matching apples with oranges. The High Court has
thus rightly distinguished this decision in the Impugned
Judgement.
87. When an SR Area has been notified under Section
3C(1) of Chapter I-A51 and its development through an SR
Scheme is conceptualised, whereunder there is an inbuilt
preferential right of an owner to carry out redevelopment,
the power of acquisition under Section 1452 would not
operate in an independent silo; rather, it must derive
meaning and effect from the principles prevailing throughout
the legislative scheme of Chapter I-A.”
(Emphasis supplied)
73. Insofar as the issue of Occupation Certificate is concerned, the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively have made their stance very
clear that the appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate
for the final Sale Building in the slum scheme. Of course, such
issuance of Occupation Certificate for the final sale building in the
slum scheme is subject to the appellant handing over the Dark
Green Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved for Recreational
Ground (RG).
74. In the aforesaid context, we direct that the respondent Nos. 1
and 2 respectively to issue the Occupation Certificate for the final
Sale Building in the slum scheme within a period of four weeks
from today subject to the appellant handing over the Dark Green
Portion admeasuring 2700 sq. mts. reserved for Recreational Ground
(RG). For the sake of clarity and for easy identification, we set out
herein below a coloured map which carries the “dark green portion CTS
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 353
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
No. 620/A/1A/1A/3”, which the appellant shall handover to the
MCGM:-
75. As regards the third issue, it appears from the materials on record
that the respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 26.02.2015 had
directed the developer to include 34 slum dwellers who were residing
on the subject property as Project Affected Persons (PAPs). In lieu
of the developer handing over the PAP’s to SRA in accordance
354 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with the policy, the developer was compensated with equivalent
FSI for sale component. The materials on record indicate that the
FSI generated in the sale component is equivalent to the Rehab
Component which include the Project Affected Persons (PAPs). The
appellant has already utilised such FSI generated against the PAP
and has completed the construction on the final sale building. Even
otherwise, the LOI dated 28.09.2017 makes it clear that the subject
land is not a part of the scheme.
76. We make it abundantly clear that no construction shall be made on
the subject property of any nature and the same shall be utilized only
as a Recreational Ground (RG). In this regard, a clear statement
was made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 respectively that no construction of any nature would be
permitted on the subject property. We direct the Respondent No. 4
(Alchemi Developers) their successors and assigns that they shall
not put up any type of construction on the subject property and the
same shall be utilized only as a recreational Ground (RG).
77. Our final conclusion is as under:-
(1) 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.
(2) The appellant is entitled to the Occupation Certificate for
the Final Sale Building in the slum scheme on the appellant
handing over the Dark Green Portion admeasuring 2700
sq. mts. reserved for Recreational Ground (RG).
(3) The appellant has been fully compensated by granting
adequate area/FSI for sale.
(4) We direct the Respondent No. 4 (Alchemi Developers)
their successors and assigns that they shall not put up
any type of construction on the subject property and the
same shall be utilized only as a recreational Ground (RG).
78. In view of the aforesaid discussion, nothing further is required to be
looked into in the matter.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 355
Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Ors.
79. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
80. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
81. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 14"Sign in to search