MANSOOR ALI FARIDA IRSHAD ALI & OTHERSversusTHE TAHSILDAR-I, SPECIAL CELL & OTHERS

                [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1703 : 2025 INSC 276

              Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others
                                v.
              The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others
                      (Civil Appeal No. 3270 of 2025)
                              27 February 2025
   [Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Krishnan Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether the said plot is a MHADA layout; Whether the Slum
       Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) is legally competent to redevelop a
       ‘censused slum’ situated on MHADA land under Regulation 33(10)
       of the Development Control Regulations (DCR); Whether ineligible
       transit camp occupants can delay a sanctioned redevelopment
       project by invoking Regulation 33(5) applicable to MHADA
       layouts; Whether the said plot is a slum area; Whether a separate
       notification is necessary to declare a ‘censused slum’ as a slum
       under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and
       Redevelopment Act 1971 (‘Slum Act’).

                                 Headnotes†
       Appellants challenged notice issued under Sections 33
       and 38 of Slum Act requiring them to vacate premises for
       redevelopment under SRA scheme – Challenge on the ground
       that plot is a MHADA layout and only MHADA can redevelop
       it as per Regulation of DCR – Held that there is no force in
       the argument:
       Held: The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) correctly
       held that this contention has no substance because the MHADA
       has consistently stated that the plot was never a MHADA layout –
       There is no landlord-tenant relationship between appellants and
       MHADA and appellants were paying transit fee and other service
       charges and not rent – Thus, there is no force in the appellants’
       arguments that it is a MHADA layout to be redeveloped under
       Regulation 33(5) of DCR. [Para 11]

       Notice based on earlier 2019 order affirmed by AGRC, which
       had attained finality – Appellants, though aware, failed to

* Author
1704                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    challenge AGRC order and instead raised identical issues
    belatedly before High Court – High Court rejected writ petition –
    Supreme Court upheld findings and dismissed appeal:
    Held: The competent authority issued the initial notice dated
    28.01.2019 by which appellants were directed to vacate the
    premises within 15 days – Appellants filed an application before
    AGRC that was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2019 that was
    never challenged before any forum – After four years, SRA issued
    the second notice against which appellant approached High Court
    without disclosing the earlier notice – There is no satisfactory
    explanation on behalf of the appellants as to why they never
    challenged the AGRC order [Paras 10-14]
    Appellants, originally transit camp tenants and found ineligible under
    the Slum Act, employed dilatory tactics to stall redevelopment –
    Despite later being offered accommodation under the scheme, they
    rejected it, insisting on redevelopment under MHADA regulations
    to claim larger flats, a benefit not ordinarily available to slum
    dwellers. [Para 15]

    Appellants’ contention that no notification has been issued
    under the Slum Act declaring it to be a slum area rejected –
    Land was a ‘censused slum’ since 1981 and therefore
    automatically covered under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR for
    redevelopment – No separate notification needed:
    Held: The project 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 – MHADA has submitted that it is their
    property, but it is not as MHADA layout and it has granted a No
    Objection Certificate to SRA for the redevelopment – 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 is required under the Slum Act. [Para 16]
    Survey revealed 2965 slum structures, of which 2625 were
    eligible for rehabilitation – Bharat Ekta Society, comprising 261
    slum dwellers with over 70% consent, was found to be a bona
    fide society – Redevelopment project duly sanctioned and at an
    advanced stage – Appellants’ objections held untenable, especially
    as most had not even approached the High Court – They could not
    be allowed to derail the scheme meant for the benefit of numerous
    eligible slum dwellers – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 17-21]
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1705

                Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v.
                 The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others

                                List of Acts
     Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and
     Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Maharashtra Housing and Area
     Development Act, 1976; Slum Act and Development Control
     Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991.

                             List of Keywords
     Censused Slum; Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA);
     Redevelopment; Slum Area; Rehabilitation Scheme; Development
     Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai; Maharashtra Housing
     Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC); Eligibility
     for Rehabilitation; Transit Camp Tenants; MHADA Layout;
     Slum-Dwellers.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3270 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2023 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Bombay in WPL No. 38237 of 2022
     With
     Civil Appeal Nos. 3271 and 3272 of 2025

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Anand Dilip Landge, Shantanu Shetty,
     Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Ms. Revati P. Kharde, Sumit Kumar,
     Rahul Prakash Pathak, Ms. Shreshta Ragasandesh, Junaid Khan,
     Yousuf Khan, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Rajat Gaur, Wasim Shaikh,
     Chand Qureshi.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Shyam Divan, Huzefa Ahmadi, Manohar Shetty, Gaurav Agrawal,
     Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Advs., Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar,
     Mrs. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Raman Jaybhaye, Subodh S. Patil,
     Ajay Singh, Ashish Panwar, Omkar Deshpande, Siddharth
     Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Gautam Sharma,
     Shahzeb Hussain, C. George Thomas, Ansh Mittal, Chirag M.
     Shroff, Mrs. Mahima C Shroff, Anand Thumbayil, Samrat Krishnarao
     Shinde, Ms. Gautami Yadav, Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaokar, Akash
     Gupta, Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, Sauryapratapsinh Barhat, Nirbhay
     Singh, Madhav Chitale, Ms. Jayati Chitale.
1706                                                     [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


               Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                               Judgment

     Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1.   Delay condoned. I.A(s) seeking permissions to file Special Leave
     Petitions are allowed.
2.   Leave granted.
3.   These appeals challenge the order dated 04.01.2023 where the
     High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed impugning a
     notice dated 06.12.2022, issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority
     (hereinafter ‘SRA’), directing appellants to vacate their respective
     premises located in the plot of land in question as the same is to
     be redeveloped.
4.   The brief facts of the case are as follows:
     a)   The SRA issued a notice dated 28.01.2019 under sections 33
          and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
          and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter ‘Slum Act’) and
          directed appellants to vacate their respective premises within
          15 days for the reason that appellants were occupying a slum
          area which was to be redeveloped.
     b)   The challenge to the notice dated 28.01.2019 before the Apex
          Grievance Redressal Committee (hereinafter ‘AGRC’) under
          section 35(1A) of the Slum Act was dismissed vide order dated
          12.06.2019.
     c)   Despite the affirmation of notice dated 28.01.2019 by the AGRC,
          appellants did not handover their premises to the developer for
          the redevelopment of the area and thus, SRA issued another
          notice on 06.12.2022 under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum
          Act, directing appellants to vacate their premises within 48
          hours. This notice of 06.12.2022 was challenged before the
          High Court by filing a Writ Petition which has been dismissed
          vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2023. Aggrieved by the
          same, the appellants are before us.
5.   We have heard both sides and perused the material on record.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                     1707

                Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v.
                 The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others

6.   Before we deal with the facts of the present case, we would like to
     discuss some of the provisions of the Slum Act which govern the
     redevelopment of slum areas. The term ‘slum area’ is defined under
     section 2(ga) of the Act, which reads as follows:
           “slum area” means any area declared as such by the
           Competent Authority under sub-section (1) of section 4;
           and includes any area deemed to be a slum area under
           section 4A.”
7.   The Competent Authority, appointed under section 3 of the Slum Act,
     is empowered to declare any area as a slum area under section 4 of
     the Slum Act. The Slum Act is a welfare legislation enacted in 1971
     with the object of rehabilitating slum dwellers in order to improve
     their living conditions. The subsequent amendment to the Slum Act
     in the year 1996 inserted an entirely new Chapter i.e. Chapter I-A
     for the purpose of Slum Rehabilitation. Under Section 3A of this new
     Chapter of the Slum Act, the State has appointed a Slum Rehabilitation
     Authority (‘SRA’) which prepares and implements Slum Rehabilitation
     Schemes as per section 3B of the Slum Act.
8.   There is another State statute relevant here which is Maharashtra
     Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (‘MHAD Act’). The
     Act focuses on providing affordable housing across the State of
     Maharashtra and like SRA which is created under the Slum Act,
     Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (‘MHADA’)
     was formed under MHAD Act. There are well-defined areas in which
     the MHAD Act and Slum Act operate. However, there are some
     overlapping areas as well. Be that as it may, we are not required to
     get into the details of this aspect.
9.   Coming back to the facts of the case, SRA sanctions a rehabilitation
     scheme in 2010 and appoints Respondent No.3 (‘developer’) to
     redevelop the area for Respondent No.9 i.e. the proposed society
     named Bharat Ekta Co-Operative Society (‘Bharat Ekta Society’)
     in terms of the Slum Act and Development Control Regulations for
     Greater Mumbai, 1991 (‘hereinafter DCR’). Under the scheme, the
     plot in question was joined with two other adjoining plots and an
     amalgamated scheme for slum rehabilitation was to be implemented.
     The developer initiated the redevelopment project in two phases.
     After completing Phase-I, when the developer sought to vacate the
     present plot in Phase-II during construction, the present appellants
1708                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


    did not cooperate and consequently, the developer requested the
    competent authority to initiate necessary action against the appellants
    among others under sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. The relevant
    portions of these sections are as follows:
         “33. Power of eviction to be exercised by Chief
         Executive Officer.— Where the Competent Authority
         is satisfied either upon a representation from the owner
         of a building or upon other information in its possession
         that the occupants of the building have not vacated it
         in pursuance of any order or direction issued or given
         by the Authority, the Authority shall, by order, direct the
         eviction of the occupants from the building in such manner
         and within such time as may be specified in the order,
         and for the purpose of such eviction, may use or cause
         to be used such force as may be necessary: Provided
         that, before making any order under this section, the
         Competent Authority shall give a reasonable opportunity
         to the occupants of the building to show cause why they
         should not be evicted therefrom.
         38. Order of demolition of buildings in certain
         cases.— (1) Where the erection of any building has been
         commenced, or is being carried out, or has been completed,
         in contravention of the provisions of section 8 or of any
         restriction or condition imposed under sub-section (10) of
         section 12, or a plan for the redevelopment of any clearance
         area or in contravention of any notice, order or direction
         issued or given under this Act, the Competent Authority
         may, in addition to any other remedy that may be resorted
         to under this Act or under any other law, make an order
         directing that such erection shall be demolished by the
         owner thereof within such time not exceeding two months
         as may be specified in the order, and on the failure of the
         owner to comply with the order, the building so erected
         shall be liable to forfeiture or to summary demolition by
         an order of the Competent Authority and the expenses of
         such demolition shall be recoverable from the owner as
         arrears of land revenue: Provided that, no such order shall
         be made unless the owner has been given a reasonable
         opportunity of being heard…”
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1709

                Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v.
                 The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others

     In exercise of its power under the abovementioned sections, the
     competent authority issued the initial notice dated 28.01.2019 by
     which appellants were directed to vacate the premises within 15 days.
10. Against this notice, appellants filed an application before AGRC
    questioning the entire slum rehabilitation project on the grounds that
    the plot is a MHADA layout and only MHADA can redevelop the said
    plot of land as per Regulation 33(5) of DCR. In other words, as per
    the appellants, it is not a project that can be undertaken by the SRA
    under Regulation 33(10) of DCR. In other words, the appellants tried
    to raise doubts about the legality of the slum rehabilitation project
    itself. Appellants also raised a question that the scheme was being
    implemented without obtaining the consent of 70% of occupants which
    is mandatory under the DCR. Moreover, the Appellants claimed that
    they are the tenants of MHADA and are residing there by paying
    rent to MHADA.
11. AGRC in its well-considered order dated 12.06.2019 dealt with all the
    points raised by appellants and dismissed their application. It was
    rightly held that the contention of the appellants to the effect that the
    said plot is a MHADA layout and thus, required to be redeveloped
    by MHADA as per Regulation 33(5) of DCR instead of SRA under
    Regulation 33(10) of DCR, has no substance because MHADA
    has been consistent in its stand that the plot was never a MHADA
    layout. Moreover, the appellants were never the tenants of MHADA
    and they were just staying there as transit camp tenants. There is
    no landlord-tenant relationship between the appellants and MHADA
    and what the appellants were paying to MHADA was not rent but
    transit fee and other service charges. AGRC also observed that
    appellants are ineligible slum dwellers and some of them along with
    others had filed a Writ Petition before the High Court way back in the
    year 2010 raising identical issues and that petition was dismissed
    on 20.07.2011.
12. The AGRC order dated 12.06.2019 was never challenged before any
    forum. After four years of passing of this order when SRA issued
    the second notice dated 06.12.2022 the appellants approached the
    High Court in writ jurisdiction leading to the impugned order dated
    04.01.2023.
13. The High Court notes that the appellants did not approach the Court
    with clean hands inasmuch as they did not disclose the earlier notice
1710                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     even when the later notice of 2022 refers to the previous notice of
     2019.
14. There is no satisfactory explanation on behalf of the appellants as
    to why they never challenged the AGRC order, except for making
    a bald statement that they were not aware of that order. The High
    Court rightly disbelieves this and further notes that AGRC order has
    attained finality. In fact, from 2019 to 2022, instead of challenging the
    AGRC order, appellants were busy filing complaints against Bharat
    Ekta Society i.e., respondent no.9 here, and made an unsuccessful
    attempt to question the credibility of the society by calling it a ‘bogus
    society’. The appellants had challenged the order of AGRC where
    they had participated in the proceeding and ACRC had closed the
    proceedings and reserved its order. Under these circumstances their
    contention of being unaware of the final order, would only commend
    us to conclude that the appellants were not diligent enough. Further
    they cannot feign ignorance of the structures raised before their own
    eyes, wherein settlement of other slum dwellers was carried out.
15. The appellants have only been using dilatory tactics to delay the
    project as they were found to be ineligible slum dwellers since they
    were transit camp tenants, who were given transit accommodation
    during the widening of the Western Express Highway. Some of the
    appellants, who were earlier not eligible though have now been
    found to be eligible and have been offered accommodation under
    the present scheme. However, they have not accepted the offer
    and have stuck to their argument that this being a MHADA layout,
    it should be developed separately and not under Slum Act. The
    reason for this is that in case MHADA develops it, appellants would
    get a larger accommodation which is not generally provided for slum
    dwellers in the redeveloped buidlings.
16. The appellants have also raised a point that no notification has
    been issued under the Slum Act declaring it to be a slum area.
    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. As per Regulation 33(10)(II)(i) of DCR, slums for
    the purpose of redevelopment are defined as follows:
          “…slums shall mean those censused, or declared and
          notified, in the past or hereafter under the Slum Act.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1711

                Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v.
                 The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others

           Slums shall also mean areas/pavement stretches hereafter
           notified as Slum Rehabilitation Areas.”
     ‘Censused Slums’ are defined under Regulation 33(10)(II)(viii) of
     DCR as ‘those slums located on lands belonging to Government, any
     undertaking of Government, or Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
     and incorporated in the records of the land owning authority as having
     been censused in 1976, 1980 or 1985 or prior to 1st January, 1995’.
     In the present case, MHADA has submitted before us as well as
     before the High Court and AGRC that it is their property but it is
     not as MHADA layout and it has granted a No Objection Certificate
     to SRA for the redevelopment of the land under Regulation 33(10)
     of DCR because the site is a slum which had been declared as
     ‘censused slum’ way back in the year 1981. 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 is required under the Slum Act. In other words, a censused
     slum is also a slum as per Regulation 33(10) DCR and a separate
     notification under section 4 of the Slum Act is not required. MHADA
     has also never declared this slum as a part of its layout. It may be
     a MHADA property technically but over the years it has grown as
     a slum and therefore, for purely practical reasons, it needed to be
     developed by SRA under Regulation 33(10) of DCR and not as a
     MHADA layout under Regulation 33(5) of DCR. In fact, as discussed
     earlier, a No Objection Certificate to SRA for the development of the
     said property has already been granted by the MHADA.
     At the risk of repetition, we would like to note that clearly there is
     no force in the appellants’ arguments that it is a MHADA layout and
     had to be redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) of DCR rather than
     Regulation 33(10) of DCR. In our view, this redevelopment, which
     is being carried out under the Slum Act and Regulation 33(10) of
     DCR, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
17. For the present slum area, SRA had pointed out before the High
    Court that there were as many as 2965 slum structures which
    were surveyed and out of these, 2625 were found to be eligible for
    rehabilitation. Also, the record shows that Bharat Ekta Society is a
    bona fide society consisting of 261 slum dwellers and more than 70%
    of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a considered
1712                                                              [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great
     deal of progress has already been made in this regard so far. The
     project has not only been sanctioned but has reached an advanced
     stage and at this stage, the appellants cannot be allowed to disturb
     this ongoing project as it would defeat the whole purpose of the
     redevelopment which is going to benefit a large number of eligible
     slum dwellers.
18. Only four of the present appellants were there before the High
    Court and rest of the appellants are fence sitters who have directly
    approached this Court claiming that they are also affected by the
    order of the High Court, even though they were never a party before
    the High Court. In any case, we find no merit in their case.
19. No relief can be granted to these appellants as prayed. These appeals
    are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
21. Interim order(s), if any, stand(s) vacated.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Harshit Anand, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)