Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Rights of Landowner – Acquisition Quashed – Sections 3B(4)(e), 12(10), 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Slums Act – Judgment affirms the preferential right of a landowner to redevelop land declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) – Supreme Court upholds High Court’s decision to quash State acquisition of the land owned by Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. (ICM) – Held: SRA and State acted without affording proper opportunity to the landowner – Acquisition was premature, contrary to statutory mandate, and tainted by procedural impropriety and mala fides – Landowner given liberty to submit fresh SR Scheme – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 43, 88–109].

Land Acquisition - Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Landowner – Sections 3B(4)(e), 12(10), and 13 of the Slums Act – Preferential Right Recognized – Chapter I-A of the Slums Act grants a primary right to the landowner to redevelop a notified Slum Rehabilitation Area, which takes precedence over rights of occupants or the SRA – Such right exists until it is extinguished by the landowner’s failure to act within a reasonable time – Held: Landowner’s primacy in redevelopment must be preserved [Paras 45–63].

Notice Requirement – Specific Notice to Landowner – Interpretation of “Reasonable Time” in Section 13 – Mandatory Notice Required – SRA must issue a specific invitation to the landowner to submit an SR Scheme – General publication of Section 3C(1) Declaration is insufficient – Without such invitation, the owner cannot be expected to act or be held to have forfeited rights – Held: Absence of formal notice renders acquisition premature and unlawful [Paras 64–75].

Land Acquisition – Section 14 vis-à-vis Section 13 – Acquisition Subject to Owner’s Preferential Right – State’s power to acquire land under Section 14 read with Section 3D must be exercised only after the landowner’s right to develop stands extinguished – Held: Until landowner has been given opportunity and fails to act, acquisition cannot be justified as necessary under the Act [Paras 76–87].

Application to Facts – ICM’s Willingness to Redevelop – Acquisition Invalid – Evidence showed that Indian Cork Mills repeatedly expressed intent to redevelop the land and sought SRA support – No formal notice or assistance was provided – Held: In absence of cooperation by the SRA and with the landowner’s rights unextinguished, acquisition was premature and invalid [Paras 88–93].

Malafide Conduct – Collusion Between Developer and Slum Society – Procedural Irregularities – Tarabai Society acted at the behest of a private developer and did not engage with the landowner – SRA failed to perform its statutory duties, shifted positions without justification, and ignored landowner’s rights – Held: Entire acquisition process suffered from mala fides and abuse of power, justifying intervention [Paras 94–106].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court Judgment Affirmed – Preferential Right Upheld – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the acquisition – Directed ICM to submit a fresh SR Scheme within 120 days and directed SRA to process it within 60 days – Status quo order vacated and all pending matters disposed of [Paras 107–109].

Civil Law – Consumer Protection – Execution of Orders – Appellant society challenged the order of the National Commission holding execution revision petitions to be not maintainable – Core issue related to whether Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (post 2002 Amendment) permitted enforcement of final orders – Court found that substitution of “every order” with “interim order” in Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act created an anomalous situation from 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 – Held: provision suffered from a drafting error – Applying purposive interpretation, Section 25(1) must be read as permitting enforcement of “any order” as if it were a civil court decree – This interpretation applies to all pending execution petitions during the said period [Paras 18–27, 38].

Consumer Protection Act – Nature of Code – The 1986 Act and 2019 Act are self-contained codes – Both provide remedies for adjudication, enforcement, penalties, and appeals – Even if not explicitly stated, Fora under the Act must be deemed to possess powers necessary to implement their orders – Substitution in 2002 created inconsistency, but legislative intent was always to ensure enforceability of all orders [Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

Interpretation of Statutes – Drafting Error – Use of the term “interim order” in Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act was erroneous – Court applied purposive construction and casus omissus principles to correct the error – Held that “any order” must be read in place of “interim order” – Sub-section (1) must also be read as incorporating CPC Order XXI provisions for enforcement, in line with pre-2002 and post-2019 schemes [Paras 19–24, 25–27].

Execution Proceedings – Remedy – Against order of District Forum in execution, appeal lies to State Commission under Section 15 – Against order of State Commission in execution, no further appeal/revision lies to National Commission – Similarly, no appeal lies to Supreme Court against execution orders of National Commission – Aggrieved parties may avail extraordinary constitutional remedies before High Court – Revision jurisdiction cannot be invoked in execution matters [Paras 28, 31–37, 38.1–38.2].

Directions – Court directed NCDRC to take steps for expeditious disposal of thousands of execution petitions pending since 1992 – Observed that justice must be meaningful and not merely a paper decree [Paras 29–30].

Decision – Civil appeals disposed of – Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act shall be read as permitting enforcement of “any order” for the period 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 – Appeals against execution orders limited only from District Forum to State Commission – No further appeal/revision lies thereafter [Paras 38–39].

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance – Sand Mining – District Survey Report – Supreme Court reiterated that replenishment studies are mandatory for valid DSRs and therefore essential for granting Environmental Clearance (EC) – Following Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629, and reaffirming Satendra Pandey v. MoEFCC, 2018 SCC OnLine NGT 2388, the Court held that no mining activity can be permitted without prior scientific appraisal – The Court also relied on State of UP v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1069, to stress strict adherence to environmental safeguards – Appeals filed by UT of J&K, NHAI and Project Proponent dismissed – NGT’s order setting aside the EC upheld – Held: A DSR without replenishment study is untenable in law – All parties directed to bear own costs [Paras 15-16, 29-33, 35-39, 44].

Role of Appraisal Committees – Regulatory Failure – J&K Expert Appraisal Committee and SEIAA erred in proceeding with environmental clearance despite recording absence of replenishment data – Restriction of mining depth to one metre in absence of replenishment study is no substitute for mandatory scientific assessment – Such conditional ECs amount to abdication of statutory responsibility [Paras 35-37].

Breach of EC Conditions – Use of Heavy Machinery – Project Proponent violated Condition 53 of the Environmental Clearance prohibiting JCBs and heavy excavators – Tribunal rightly directed J&K Pollution Control Board to take action – Direction upheld [Paras 41-42].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – NGT order sustained – Mandatory requirement of replenishment study reinforced as integral to lawful grant of environmental clearance – Supreme Court emphasised that effective environmental protection cannot be compromised by administrative convenience [Paras 39, 44].

Suo Moto - Stray Dog Menace – Suo Moto Action by Supreme Court – Direction to Relocate and Shelter Dogs – Reconsidered – Taking suo moto cognizance of media reports on fatal dog attacks in Delhi-NCR, the Court initially directed municipal authorities to capture and permanently shelter all stray dogs without release – Subsequently, upon challenge by animal welfare organizations citing Rule 11(19) of ABC Rules, the Court partially modified the earlier order, holding that sterilised and immunised dogs (except those with rabies or aggressive behavior) must be released back to their original localities – Direction to prohibit their release was kept in abeyance [Paras 1-33].

Balancing Fundamental Rights – Article 21 vs. Article 19 – Public Safety Prevails – The Court held that interim restrictions on stray dogs' release and regulation of public feeding did not infringe Article 19 rights of animal lovers – Emphasised that protecting the Right to Life under Article 21 of citizens, particularly children and elderly, must be paramount – Directed strict compliance with modified orders and warned of legal action against obstruction by individuals or NGOs [Paras 13, 17, 33(f)].

Animal Birth Control Rules – Rule 11(19) Clarified – Immunised Dogs to be Released Unless Rabid – The Court upheld the essence of Rule 11(19) providing for release of treated dogs to original areas – But carved out exception that dogs displaying rabid symptoms or aggression should be isolated in separate pounds post-treatment – Rejected blanket ban on street return for all dogs [Paras 24-28, 33(b)].

Feeding Stray Dogs – Designated Zones Introduced – Street Feeding Banned – Directed creation of official dog feeding zones in every municipal ward with proper signage – Banned feeding in open streets to prevent public nuisance and danger – Violators to be prosecuted under relevant laws – Dedicated helpline numbers to report violations to be created by all municipal bodies [Paras 33(d)-(e)].

Nationwide Implementation – Scope Expanded Beyond NCR – Recognizing the pan-India nature of stray dog issues, all States and UTs were impleaded through Animal Husbandry and local body Secretaries – Directed Registrar Generals of High Courts to inform about similar pending cases to consider their transfer for uniform handling by Supreme Court [Paras 34-36].

Final Directions – Previous Ban Modified – Partial Lifting of Shelter-only Condition – Aggressive dogs not to be released – Municipal authorities directed to submit compliance reports including availability of personnel, infrastructure, vehicles, and medical professionals – Monetary cost imposed on NGOs and individuals seeking intervention to ensure accountability [Paras 33(g)-(i), 37].

Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work – Contractual Assistant Professors – Minimum of Pay Scale Directed – Lecturers appointed on contractual basis in Government Engineering/Polytechnic Colleges claimed parity with regularly appointed and ad hoc Assistant Professors – Held: When duties and functions are identical, contractual status cannot justify discriminatory treatment – Respondents entitled to minimum of pay scale of Assistant Professors with arrears from 3 years prior to filing of writ petitions – State’s plea of contractual terms rejected [Paras 7, 17, 19-21, 34].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Single Judge’s Excess Beyond Precedent – Division Bench’s Error – Relief Modified – Earlier Division Bench rulings in Acharya Madhavi and Gohel Vishal Chhaganbhai upheld parity only to extent of minimum pay scale – Single Judge erred in granting full parity with regularly appointed faculty – However, Division Bench wrongly dismissed writ petitions outright – Held: Correct course was to dispose of petitions in line with earlier binding decisions – Relief aligned accordingly [Paras 28-30, 34].

Teachers’ Remuneration – Constitutional Values – Court’s Concern – The Court observed that academicians form the intellectual backbone of the nation – Denial of fair emoluments demeans their role and undermines educational quality – Emphasised the need for rationalisation of pay structure by the State – Symbolic invocation of “Gurubrahma Gururvishnu Gurudevo Maheshwarah” must translate into dignified treatment of teachers [Paras 4-5, 18, 33].

Decision – State’s Appeals Dismissed – Teachers’ Appeals Allowed in Part – Supreme Court dismissed State’s appeals against grant of minimum scale, and allowed teachers’ appeals by modifying relief – Contractual Assistant Professors directed to be paid minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors, arrears with 8% interest from 3 years prior to writ petitions – Liberty reserved for further remedies before High Court regarding long service and regularisation – Appeals disposed of accordingly [Paras 23, 34].

Acquisition of Church Trust - Slum Rehabilitation – Preferential Right of Landowner – Acquisition Proceedings Vitiated – Supreme Court affirmed that private landowners retain a preferential right to redevelop slum rehabilitation areas – SRA must issue a specific notice-cum-invitation under Section 13 before initiating acquisition – In present case, no such notice was issued to Church Trust – Acquisition of Subject Land held illegal – High Court judgment quashing acquisition upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 16, 22-24, 26-32, 36].

Impact of 2018 Amendment – No Dilution of Owner’s Rights – Court clarified that insertion of “owners” in Section 3B(5) and Section 13 entrenched, rather than diluted, landowners’ rights – Stipulated 120-day limit for submission of redevelopment scheme begins only after specific notice is served – Section 3C declaration cannot substitute notice under Section 13 – Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society v. State of Maharashtra (2025) followed – Preferential rights remain intact post-amendment [Paras 20-25].

Conduct of Developer and SRA – Mala Fide Attempt to Usurp Land – Evidence showed Saldanha attempted to purchase Subject Land and, upon failure, orchestrated acquisition through Kadeshwari Society and SRA – SRA displayed bias and processed developer’s scheme while rejecting Church Trust’s proposal on technical grounds – Court held process tainted by collusion, colourable exercise of power and mala fides – Acquisition amounted to “land grab” [Paras 37-50].

Judicial Review – High Court’s Intervention at Preliminary Stage Justified – Even procedural steps like acquisition notice/order under Section 14 can be reviewed to prevent arbitrary action – Absence of third-party rights no bar to maintainability – High Court rightly quashed acquisition before completion to prevent abuse of process [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Church Trust granted liberty to file redevelopment scheme within 120 days; SRA directed to assist and process scheme within 60 days – Preferential right of owner reaffirmed; acquisition proceedings quashed as illegal [Paras 53-55].

Election Petition – Defect in Form 25 Affidavit – Maintainability Challenged – Curable Defect – The appellant objected to the maintainability of the election petition on grounds of a defective or absent affidavit in Form 25 supporting allegations of corrupt practices – High Court allowed the respondent to cure the defect post-filing – Supreme Court held that while substantial compliance is sufficient, the High Court failed to analyse whether such compliance existed or whether defect could be cured beyond limitation – Held: Matter remanded to High Court to decide afresh after examining nature and curability of defect [Paras 12–24].

Substantial Compliance – Filing of Affidavit – Proviso to Section 83(1)(c), RP Act – Not Mandatory in Rigid Sense – The affidavit accompanying allegations of corrupt practices must substantially conform to Form 25 – Absence of precise format is not fatal if substantial requirements are met – Court clarified that even if defective, opportunity must be granted to cure defects before trial – Held: Strict compliance not mandatory – Liberal interpretation preferred as per evolving jurisprudence [Paras 15–18].

Scope of Rejection – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection at Threshold Not Justified – Where the affidavit, though not in strict format, indicates intention and substance of compliance, rejection of petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is unwarranted – Allegations of corrupt practices and electoral irregularities must be tried if they disclose triable issues – Held: High Court was justified in not rejecting the petition outright, but must apply proper scrutiny [Paras 6–8, 22–24].

Procedure and Scrutiny – High Court Rules and Affidavit Examination – Rules 7 and 21, Chapter XXXIII – Affidavit and petition to be scrutinised by designated officer before admission – Court noted that it was unclear whether proper scrutiny and defect-notification took place at time of filing – Held: High Court must consider if initial scrutiny was conducted and if curative opportunity was rightly given before limitation expired [Paras 20–21].

Direction for Remand – High Court to Determine Preliminary Issues – Supreme Court remitted matter to High Court with specific directions to (i) identify defects in the affidavit, (ii) decide whether they were curable, and (iii) assess whether curative action beyond limitation is permissible – Held: High Court to also strike out pleadings agreed by parties and proceed on merits thereafter [Para 24].

Decision – Appeal Disposed – Matter Remitted to High Court – Parties allowed to amend pleadings post deletion – All pending applications also disposed of – Directions issued for efficient disposal of election dispute [Paras 24–26].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption – Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Section 7 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Conviction Upheld – The appellant, a Central Excise Inspector, was convicted for demanding ₹300/- from a factory supervisor for issuing an excise registration certificate – The trial court and High Court concurrently held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved through testimony of PW-2 (complainant), PW-3 (complainant’s brother), and supporting documentary and phenolphthalein test evidence – Supreme Court upheld the conviction and found no merit in challenge to findings of guilt [Paras 2-3.2].

Mitigating Circumstances – Sentence Reduction – Reformative Approach Adopted – Appellant confined challenge to sentence only – Court noted appellant was a 75-year-old widow from a scheduled caste background, had undergone 31 days of imprisonment, and the offence occurred 22 years ago – Relying on precedents including M.W. Mohiuddin (1995), Bechaarbhai Prajapati (2008), Gulmahmad Dall (2015), B.G. Goswami (1974), and others – Held: Sufficient mental and emotional suffering caused by protracted litigation warranted reduction in sentence – Reformative jurisprudence considered more progressive and suitable in such cases [Paras 4-10].

Sentence Modified – Fine Enhanced – Period of imprisonment already undergone treated as adequate – Fine enhanced to ₹25,000/- in lieu of remaining sentence – Non-payment to result in revival of original sentence and requirement to surrender [Para 10.1].

Civil Law – Specific Performance – Material Alteration in Agreement – Plaintiff sought specific performance based on a sale agreement allegedly including two properties – High Court found recitals relating to second property (Item No.2) were written in different ink, indicating material alteration – Held: Plaintiff must succeed on strength of own case – Document found interpolated, tainted, and thus unenforceable – Relief of specific performance rightly denied [Paras 1-2, 6, 8-9].

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Comparison of Handwriting – Applicability – Plaintiff argued alteration required expert evidence under Section 73 – Held: Court may discern interpolation from visual inspection when alteration is obvious – No expert opinion required where use of different inks and inconsistent recitals are apparent on face of record – Section 73 has no application in such circumstances [Paras 4-5, 9].

Civil Procedure – Readiness and Willingness – Specific Relief – Plaintiff claimed readiness based on account statements – Court found shortfall in balance amount if both properties were considered – Discrepancy between recitals and consideration undermined claim – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove continuous readiness and willingness as mandated under law – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 3, 8].

Contract Law – Severability – Plaintiff gave up claim for second property (Item No.2) during trial – Court held that since entire agreement was tainted and included both properties, partial enforcement not permissible – Held: Plaintiff could not selectively enforce a materially altered contract – Entire agreement unenforceable [Para 9].

Appellate Review – Trial Court Decree Reversed – Trial court had decreed specific performance in plaintiff’s favour – High Court reversed decree after scrutinising the agreement – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s reasoning – No ground for interference in second appellate jurisdiction [Paras 4, 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Suit for specific performance based on altered and unreliable agreement rightly rejected – No costs imposed [Para 10].