Maharashtra Slum Act: Supreme Court Ruling on Censused Slums and Redevelopment

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a landmark judgment clarifying the status of ‘censused slums’ under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slum Act”). The ruling establishes that once an area is categorized as a censused slum, it is automatically eligible for redevelopment under the Slum Act without requiring a separate notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Decision

1. Censused Slums Automatically Qualify for Redevelopment

The Supreme Court held that censused slums, which are those located on land belonging to the government or municipal authorities, are inherently included under the definition of slums. The Court stated that under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR), censused slums are already considered for redevelopment without the need for additional notification.

The Court clarified:

“If a slum is a ‘censused slum,’ then it is already included in the definition of slums for the purpose of redevelopment under Regulation 33(10) of DCR, and no separate notification is required under the Slum Act.”

This means that requiring a separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act would be redundant and unnecessary.

2. Purpose of Section 4 of the Slum Act

Section 4 of the Slum Act is intended to identify and declare slum areas for redevelopment. However, censused slums are already documented and recognized under the DCR framed under the Slum Act. The Supreme Court, therefore, found that the additional requirement of notification under Section 4 would lead to unnecessary delays in redevelopment projects.

3. Case Background

The case was brought before a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran. The dispute involved the redevelopment of a slum area in Mumbai under the Slum Act. The appellants, who were residents of the slum, challenged the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) notice to vacate their premises, arguing that they were tenants under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and that the redevelopment required their consent.

4. Appellants’ Arguments

The petitioners made the following claims:

• They were tenants of MHADA and were paying rent, making them eligible for redevelopment under MHADA’s jurisdiction instead of the SRA.
• The redevelopment lacked the mandatory consent of 70% of the eligible slum dwellers.
• The slum should be redeveloped under Regulation 33(5) of the DCR rather than Regulation 33(10).

5. Supreme Court’s Response to the Appellants’ Claims

A. No Landlord-Tenant Relationship with MHADA

The Supreme Court dismissed the claim that the appellants were tenants of MHADA. It found that they were transit camp tenants, accommodated temporarily during the widening of the Western Express Highway, and were not paying rent but rather a transit fee and service charges.

“The appellants were never tenants of MHADA. They were just staying there as transit camp tenants. There is no landlord-tenant relationship between the appellants and MHADA.”

B. The Role of MHADA and No Objection Certificate (NOC)

The Court also noted that MHADA had provided an NOC for the redevelopment project, confirming that the slum area was not a MHADA layout. Once the NOC was granted, the appellants’ argument that redevelopment should be conducted under MHADA became invalid.

C. Validity of 70% Consent for Redevelopment

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that the redevelopment lacked the required consent of 70% of the eligible slum dwellers. The Court found that the majority of the slum residents had given their consent for redevelopment and noted that substantial progress had already been made in the process.

“More than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society have taken a considered decision that they want redevelopment of their slums, and a great deal of progress has already been made.”

6. The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Decision

The ruling paves the way for smoother slum redevelopment projects in Maharashtra. Key implications include:

• No Additional Notification Requirement: Developers and government agencies no longer need to issue separate notifications under Section 4 of the Slum Act for censused slums.
• Faster Redevelopment Process: By eliminating bureaucratic hurdles, slum redevelopment projects can proceed more efficiently, benefiting slum dwellers and urban planning initiatives.
• Clear Legal Precedent: The decision sets a precedent for future redevelopment cases, ensuring that transit camp occupants cannot indefinitely delay projects through litigation.

7. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the importance of streamlined slum redevelopment policies in Maharashtra. By classifying censused slums as automatically eligible for redevelopment, the Court has removed a significant procedural barrier. This decision not only accelerates the pace of urban renewal but also ensures that legal ambiguities do not obstruct necessary housing reforms.

The ruling highlights the Court’s commitment to balancing the interests of slum dwellers with the need for urban redevelopment. Moving forward, this decision is expected to facilitate large-scale redevelopment projects under the Slum Act, ultimately leading to better living conditions for thousands of residents in Maharashtra’s slum areas.

https://wp.me/peEAVD-4E6