Summary and Analysis of The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr vs Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr. vs. Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors. (2025 INSC 1016)
Supreme Court Upholds Landowner’s Preferential Right in Slum Rehabilitation; Quashes Acquisition for Lack of Notice and Mala Fide Conduct

Citation:
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr. v. Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors., (2025) INSC 1016, Civil Appeal Nos. [Arising from SLP (C) Nos. 15454, 15711, 16209 of 2024] (Supreme Court of India).

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums Act):
  Section 3C(1): Declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area).
  Section 13(1): SRA’s power to develop if owner fails to submit a scheme within 120 days.
  Section 14: State’s power to acquire land for slum rehabilitation.
  Section 3B(5): Matters to be provided in the General Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

• Maharashtra Slum Areas (Amendment) Act, 2018:
  Introduced a 120-day time limit for landowners to submit rehabilitation schemes.
  Expanded stakeholder inclusion to “owners, landholders, and occupants.”

• Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR 2034):
  Regulation 33(10): Guidelines for slum redevelopment schemes.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd. (Proposed)
  Respondents: Bishop John Rodrigues (representing Church Trust), State of Maharashtra, others

• Courts Involved:
  Bombay High Court
  Supreme Court of India

• Key Dates:
  High Court Judgment: 11 June 2024
  Supreme Court Judgment: 22 August 2025

• Civil Appeal Nos.: Arising from SLP (C) Nos. 15454, 15711, and 16209 of 2024

4. Explanation of the Judgment

The Supreme Court, in The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr. vs. Bishop John Rodrigues & Ors., dismissed the appeals and upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition of land for slum rehabilitation, reaffirming the landowner’s preferential right to redevelop and condemning the SRA’s mala fide conduct.

Background:
The land in question, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust), was declared a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) in 2020. The slum dwellers (Kadeshwari Society) and their developer (Saldanha) pushed for acquisition by the state. The SRA initiated acquisition under Section 14 of the Slums Act without issuing a specific notice to the Church Trust to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The Trust challenged the acquisition, and the High Court ruled in its favor.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the 2018 Amendment to the Slums Act negates the landowner’s preferential right to redevelop.

2. Whether the SRA must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a scheme.

3. Whether the acquisition was valid given the Trust’s willingness to redevelop.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:

• Preferential Right Upheld: The Court reaffirmed the principle from Tarabai (supra) that the landowner has the first right to redevelop an SR Area. The 2018 Amendment did not dilute this right; instead, it strengthened it by explicitly including “owners” as stakeholders.

• Mandatory Notice Requirement: The SRA must issue a specific notice to the landowner inviting them to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The 120-day time limit under Section 13(1) begins only after such notice is issued. Mere publication of the SR Area declaration is insufficient.

• Invalidity of Acquisition: The SRA never issued a notice to the Church Trust. The Trust consistently expressed willingness to redevelop and even submitted a proposal, but the SRA ignored it and favored Saldanha’s proposal. The acquisition was vitiated by mala fide intent and collusion between the developer, society, and SRA.

• Conduct of Parties: The Court condemned Saldanha’s attempts to coercively acquire the land and the SRA’s biased actions. The Trust’s proposal offered better benefits for slum dwellers, yet the SRA rejected it on hyper-technical grounds.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, quashed the acquisition, and directed:

• The Church Trust to submit a fresh SR Scheme within 120 days.

• The SRA to provide full support for surveys and processing.

• The SRA to decide on the Trust’s proposal within 60 days.