Maharashtra Slum Act | 'Censused Slums' Also 'Slums', No Separate Notification Needed For Redevelopment : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that once a slum area is declared as 'censused slum' i.e., the slums located on land belonging to government or municipal undertaking, than such slums are automatically eligible for redevelopment under the Slum Act without the need for a separate notification under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”).

“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.”, the court observed.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 4 of the Slum Act is to identify and declare slum areas for redevelopment. However, since censused slums are already documented and recognized under the Development Control Regulations ("DCR") framed under the Slum Act, requiring a separate notification under Section 4 would be redundant and unnecessary, the court said.

The bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran heard the case, which involved a dispute over the redevelopment of the slum area in Mumbai under the Slum Act. The appellants challenged the SRA notice to vacate their premises for redevelopment

The dispute arose from a redevelopment project initiated by the SRA in Mumbai under the Slum Act. The appellants were occupants of a plot declared as a censused slum (slums located on land belonging to government or municipal undertaking) and were directed to vacate their premises for redevelopment.

Despite multiple notices and a dismissal of their challenge by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), the appellants refused to vacate, leading to a second notice in December 2022. The Bombay High Court dismissed their writ petition in January 2023, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants, claiming to be a tenant of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (“MHADA”), objected to the redevelopment of the slum arguing that they were tenants of the MHADA, and were rent paying rent, and alleged that the redevelopment scheme lacked the mandatory consent of 70% of the occupants.

The appellants further claimed that the slum area comes under the MHADA jurisdiction and should be redeveloped under MHADA's jurisdiction, not the SRA.

Per contra, the Respondent-Authority argued that the plot was a censused slum and fell under Regulation 33(10) of the DCR, which allows redevelopment by the SRA. They further claimed that the MHADA had given a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) for the redevelopment of the slum confirming that the Slum Area was not a MHADA Layout.

Affirming the Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss the Appellants plea, the judgment authored by Justice Dhulia observed that once the MHADA had granted the NOC for re-development of the Slum Area, then it would be unjustified on the Appellants part to resist redevelopment by the SRA arguing that the slum area should be redeveloped by the MHADA and not the SRA under the Slum Act.

The Court rejected the appellants' claim that they were tenants of the MHADA and were paying rent to the MHADA. Instead, the Court found that the appellants were transit camp tenants and not eligible slum dwellers as they were accommodated during the widening of the Western Express Highway and had no landlord-tenant relationship with MHADA.

“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.”, the court observed.

“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.”, the court added.

The Court clarified that the redevelopment of the Slum has to be carried out under the Slum Act and the Regulation framed therein.

“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.", the court observed.

Lastly, the Court also rejected the Appellants claim that the requisite figure of 70% of the eligible slum dwellers had not consented to the redevelopment project stating the appellants claim to be misconceived and instead observed that “more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a considered decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great deal of progress has already been made in this regard so far.”

Resultantly, the Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the redevelopment of the slum.

Case Title: MANSOOR ALI FARIDA IRSHAD ALI & OTHERS Versus THE TAHSILDAR-I, SPECIAL CELL & OTHERS

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 308

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Shantanu Shetty, Adv. Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati P. Kharde, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv. Ms. Shreshta Ragasandesh, AOR Mr. Junaid Khan, Adv. Mr. Yousuf Khan, Adv. Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajat Gaur, Adv. Mr. Wasim Shaikh, Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR Mrs. Pradnya S Adgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raman Jaybhaye, Adv. Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashish Panwar, Adv. Mr. Omkar Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Gautam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Manohar Shetty, Sr. Adv. (Appearance not given on his behalf) Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shahzeb Hussain, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mrs. Mahima C Shroff, Adv. Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, AOR Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pranjal Chapalgaokar, Adv. Mr. Akash Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Suchitra Atul Chitale, AOR Mr. Sauryapratapsinh Barhat, Adv. Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Adv. Mr. Madhav Chitale, Adv. Ms. Jayati Chitale, Adv.