HC Upholds Landowner’s Preferential Right to Redevelop, Quashes Acquisition of Private Land

The matter arose from acquisition proceedings commenced under Section 14 (1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, in respect of privately owned land that had been notified as a slum-rehabilitation area. The owner claimed that although the plot of land was taken up by informal buildings, the government proceeded with acquisition without summoning the owner for redevelopment as required by law. Show-cause notices were issued and reports prepared without proper service or opportunity to protest, leading to an acquisition notice and an award offering a paltry Rs. 12 lakh as compensation. A direction of possession was issued thereafter, leading to this writ petition challenging the legitimacy of the process.

The petitioner argued that the acquisition violated Article 300A of the Constitution and ignored the statutory scheme of the Slum Act, which recognises a preferential right of owners to redevelop their land before the State may invoke acquisition powers. The State and SRA did not dispute that no notice or invitation to redevelop had been given.

Issue Raised: Whether the acquisition of privately owned land under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Act, without first granting the owner an opportunity to exercise its preferential right to redevelop, was valid in law.

HC’s Decision: The Division Bench allowed the writ petition. Referring to the settled law in Indian Cork Mills, Bishop John Rodrigues, and the Supreme Court decisions in Tarabai Nagar and Saldanha Real Estate, the Court held that the owner’s preferential right to redevelop must be recognised and cannot be frustrated by premature acquisition. No valid notice under Section 13 had been served and no opportunity granted; therefore, the acquisition was vitiated by procedural illegality. The Bench observed that Section 14 powers are draconian and must be exercised with caution and fairness, not at the behest of private developers. It warned the authorities to avoid mechanical approvals and to uphold rule-of-law standards before depriving citizens of property rights under Article 300A.

Thus, the impugned notification, award of Rs. 12 lakh compensation, and directions for possession were set aside. The writ petition was made absolute in terms of its principal prayers, and the land was ordered released from acquisition. The rule was made absolute; no costs were awarded.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below