MUMBAI: The Supreme Court, emphasizing the “invisible yet pervasive influence of powerful private developers” involved in land acquisitions under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, has upheld a Bombay High Court ruling that invalidated the acquisition of Church Trust land at Mount Mary in Bandra by the Slum Redevelopment Authority (SRA) on Friday.
The SC noted that the Trust has shown interest in redeveloping the land since 2013.
In a landmark ruling, the SC bench consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan stressed the need for practical and actionable safeguards within a legal framework amid competing private interests. They annulled the acquisition of a 1,596.40 sq. m section of land in Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai, pursuant to the Act. Throughout the proceedings, the SC concluded that the SRA and its CEO seemed to neglect their duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the rights of the landowner.
The Court stated, “The facts reveal a biased attempt by the SRA to undermine both legislative and judicial measures, in favor of Saldanha.” It criticized the actions of this public authority as being “tainted by collusion and motivated by the extraneous profit interests of private builders,” highlighting the risk of bureaucratic manipulations of statutory provisions. The Supreme Court upheld a Bombay High Court order in appeals from Saldanha Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd, and the SRA against Bishop John Rodrigues and others.
The civil appeals addressed the validity of the acquisition of land in Village Bandra under the Slum Act. On June 11, 2024, the High Court ruled in favor of the landowner’s writ petition, declaring the acquisition void and directing the SRA to assess the landowner’s redevelopment proposal. Appeals were filed by the proposed housing society of slum dwellers, the designated developer, and the SRA. The SC’s examination involved a thorough analysis of the legislative policy related to the Slum Act, specifically concerning the landowners’ rights to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) and the corresponding obligations of the SRA. The Court determined that the SRA had exhibited a singular opposition to the Trust’s redevelopment efforts, facilitating Saldanha’s SR Scheme instead. The Trust’s proposal was dismissed over trivial technicalities, while Saldanha’s flawed submission was expedited.
Senior counsels Milind Sathe and Chander Uday Singh, representing the Church Trust, affirmed the correctness of the High Court judgment and highlighted the violation of the Trust’s preferential rights through the acquisition. Senior counsel Nikhil Sakhardande, defending Saldanha, asserted that the proposed acquisition was not an attempt to seize the Church Trust’s land, but rather a genuine effort toward redeveloping the slum, aimed at ensuring reasonable profits.
The SC ruled that the SRA cannot proceed with land acquisitions if the Church Trust’s rights are extinguished due to a failure to submit a redevelopment plan within 120 days.
Concluding its findings, the SC declared that the acquisition proceedings are not to be allowed, confirming that the High Court was right in halting them, thereby safeguarding the statutory rights and interests of the Church Trust over the land and preventing illegal appropriation by the appellants.
The SC has granted the Church Trust the opportunity to submit a redevelopment scheme within 120 days, with the SRA required to provide comprehensive support for surveys and demarcation. The SRA and state authorities must process the Trust’s proposal within 60 days.
