LexSALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED versus BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1379 : 2025 INSC 1016 Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues and Others (Civil Appeal No. 11008 of 2025) 22 August 2025 [Surya Kant* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the validity of the acquisition of land under Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; whether the High Court rightly rejected the Society’s preliminary objection; whether the 2018 Amendment impacts the law laid down in Tarabai’s case; and whether the High Court rightly set aside the public notice and the order approving the acquisition proposal. Headnotes† Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) (Amendment) Act, 2017 – ss.3B, 3C(1) – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – s.14 – Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area – Rights of landowners to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area – Certain land owned by the Church Trust, a public trust – Subject land was part of the larger plot, and the same was encroached upon by hutment dwellers, and a section of it was thereupon declared a Slum Area – Over time, the hutment area (Subject Slum) expanded, and the notification was amended – In the intervening period, the dwellers of the subject slum formed the Cooperative Housing Society – Communication regarding the redevelopment of the Subject Slum between the Church Trust and the Society – Society also entered into an agreement with the developer for the development of the Subject Slum – On the proposal of the Society, the Subject Slum declared a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) in 2020 – Developer and the Church trust filed proposals for redevelopment of the subject slum – Slum Rehabilitation Authority-SRA rejected the Church Trust’s proposal for redevelopment – Society then submitted an application for the acquisition of the Subject Land – SRA issued * Author 1380 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports a public notice calling for objections from all interested parties to the proposal for acquisition – Church Trust submitted its objection, however acquisition proceedings were initiated – Church Trust then filed writ petition seeking quashing of the public notice – During pendency, the CEO, SRA approved the acquisition proposal on the premise that the Church Trust had not filed an SR Scheme within 120 days – Amended writ petition filed by Church Trust seeking setting aside of the order approving the acquisition proposal – High Court set aside the public notice order and the acquisition proposal approval order, declaring the acquisition void; and holding that the Church Trust had a preferential right to develop the subject land, directed the SRA to consider the proposal of the landowner for redevelopment – Correctness: Held: On facts and the colourable conduct of the appellants, the acquisition proceedings cannot be allowed to sustain – High Court rightly set aside these proceedings, protecting the statutory rights and interests of the Church Trust over the Subject Land and preventing the appellants from illegally grabbing it – Preliminary objection by the Society that the public notice was merely an invitation for objections to the acquisition proposal, and the approval order was simply a recommendation to the State fails – Where the solitary object of the notice and order, to acquire the Subject Land, the High Court was justified to intervene at a preliminary stage, in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction u/Art.226 – Not doing so would have invited more complications on account of creation of third-party rights by the private builder and consequential multiplicity of litigation – Notice and the order are traceable to the statutory framework of the Slums Act, and having been issued in purported exercise of statutory power were amenable to judicial review – On a bare perusal of the 2018 Amendment, it seems that no attempt has been made to remove or dilute the preferential right of the landowner to redevelop an SR Area – Tarabai’s case lead to only one conclusion, that the owner has a primary right to undertake development, and none of the provisions have been amended – s.3C(1) declaration is a stage prior to redevelopment being initiated u/s.13, and issuance of a notice u/s.3C is meant to accord hearing to a landowner and invite objections, if any, against declaration as an SR Area – Thus, it cannot be said that the new me
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.