The Supreme Court recently delivered a crucial judgment in the dispute between Tarabai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), the State of Maharashtra, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), and Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. (ICM). The matter centered on the validity of land acquisition under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and the rights of landowners in redevelopment projects.
Background of the Case
The land in question, located in Village Tungwa, Kurla, Mumbai, measuring about 9,054 sq. m., had been partly declared a slum area back in 1979. Over time, slum dwellers organized themselves into the Tarabai Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) in 2002.
The society pressed for acquisition and redevelopment, and in 2011, the SRA declared the entire land a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area). Later, in 2016, the Maharashtra government issued a notification under Section 14 of the Slums Act to acquire the land.
Read also: Kolkata Lawyers Stage Court Boycott Following Brutal Police Attack on Advocate
However, the original landowner, Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd., objected, claiming its right to redevelop the land. The Bombay High Court, in 2018, upheld the owner’s right and quashed the acquisition. This led to appeals in the Supreme Court by Tarabai Society, the State of Maharashtra, and the SRA.
The Supreme Court examined four critical issues:
- Does the landowner have a preferential right to redevelop the land?
- Should the landowner be given a specific notice/invitation before SRA intervenes?
- Is the State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 subject to the owner’s right?
- Was the High Court correct in setting aside the acquisition?
Read also: Supreme Court Sends Odisha Election Dispute Back to High Court for Fresh Review on Affidavit Defects
Justice Surya Kant, writing for the Bench, upheld the Bombay High Court’s view. The Court ruled:
- Landowner’s Preferential Right: “A landowner has the first right to redevelop an SR Area. The SRA can step in only if the owner fails to act within a reasonable time.”
- Mandatory Invitation to Owner: The Court emphasized that the owner must be specially notified and invited to submit a redevelopment plan. Mere publication of a government gazette is not enough.
- Acquisition Linked to Owner’s Right: The State cannot directly acquire the land under Section 14 unless the landowner’s preferential right under Section 13 is first respected.
- On the Facts: Since ICM was never properly invited to submit its Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the acquisition by the State was declared invalid. The Court directed that ICM’s proposal must be considered.
Read also: Delhi High Court Rules Differently in DSSSB Roll Number Bubbling Dispute
“The landholder’s preferential right to redevelop is in line with legislative intent. To deny this right would encourage mala fide proposals and deprive true owners of their property.”
The Court also noted that while slum dwellers’ rehabilitation remains a priority, fairness requires giving landowners a legitimate chance to redevelop before State intervention.
Case Name: Tarabai Nagar Co-Operative Housing Society (Proposed) vs State of Maharashtra & Others
Along with related appeals-
- State of Maharashtra & Another vs Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Others
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority vs State of Maharashtra & Others
Judgment Date: Year 2025
