Supreme Court Upholds SRA’s Redevelopment Powers over Censused Slums — “No Right to Obstruct Redevelopment Once 70% Consent Secured”: Dismisses Appeal Against Eviction from MHADA Transit Camp

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Bombay High Court’s decision to deny relief to the petitioners. The Court found no merit in the appellants’ case and held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) acted within its legal powers in issuing eviction notices for redevelopment purposes.

Facts

1. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued a notice on 28.01.2019 under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act), directing the appellants to vacate their premises within 15 days for redevelopment.
2. The petitioners challenged this notice before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), which dismissed their application on 12.06.2019.
3. Despite the AGRC’s ruling, the petitioners did not vacate their premises, leading to a second eviction notice on 06.12.2022.
4. The petitioners approached the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their writ petition on 04.01.2023.
5. The present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.

Issues

1. Whether the SRA’s notices for eviction and redevelopment were legally valid.
2. Whether the plot in question was a MHADA layout, requiring redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) rather than 33(10).
3. Whether the consent of 70% of the slum dwellers was obtained for the redevelopment project.
4. Whether the petitioners were eligible for rehabilitation as slum dwellers.

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. The plot was a MHADA layout, and only MHADA had the authority to redevelop it under Regulation 33(5) of DCR.
2. The SRA could not proceed with redevelopment without obtaining 70% consent from the slum dwellers.
3. The petitioners were tenants of MHADA and were paying rent, which entitled them to rehabilitation.
4. No notification was issued under the Slum Act declaring the area as a slum, making the redevelopment unlawful.

Respondents’ Arguments

1. The plot was not a MHADA layout, and MHADA itself had issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the SRA for redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR.
2. The project had already secured more than 70% consent from eligible slum dwellers.
3. The petitioners were transit camp tenants and were never recognized as MHADA tenants.
4. The area was a ‘censused slum’ since 1981, qualifying it for redevelopment under Regulation 33(10), eliminating the need for a separate notification under the Slum Act.

Analysis of the Law

• The Slum Act empowers the SRA to redevelop slum areas in Maharashtra.
• Regulation 33(10) of DCR allows redevelopment of censused slums, which includes the petitioners’ area.
• The distinction between MHADA layouts and SRA projects was clarified, showing that MHADA never treated the land as its own layout.
• Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act allow eviction in the interest of redevelopment when slum dwellers do not vacate voluntarily.

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on previous rulings that:

• Recognized the authority of the SRA to redevelop censused slums.
• Affirmed that once a slum is categorized as a censused slum, no further notification is necessary under the Slum Act.
• Upheld the legality of evictions under Sections 33 and 38 when due process has been followed.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The plot was legally categorized as a censused slum, making it subject to SRA redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR.
2. The petitioners were not MHADA tenants but were transit camp tenants with no right to remain beyond the redevelopment process.
3. The AGRC had already ruled on these issues in 2019, and the petitioners had not challenged that ruling in a timely manner.
4. Allowing the petitioners to obstruct the project would unfairly delay benefits for over 2600 eligible slum dwellers who had already consented to redevelopment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, allowing the eviction and redevelopment process to proceed.

Implications

• This ruling strengthens the legal authority of the SRA in redeveloping slum areas, reaffirming that censused slums can be redeveloped under Regulation 33(10) without additional notifications.
• It clarifies the distinction between MHADA layouts and slum rehabilitation projects, preventing further legal challenges on similar grounds.
• It reinforces that slum dwellers who refuse to vacate for redevelopment cannot indefinitely delay projects that benefit a larger number of eligible residents.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Dismisses State’s Appeal Against Acquittal in Food Adulteration Case: Upholds Double Presumption of Innocence and Rules That Variance in Public Analyst and CFL Reports Weakens Prosecution’s Case Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954