Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless

Ownership Claims by Minuscule Number of Occupants: Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea of Tribal Occupants Claiming Title Over Gairan Land The Real Objection Is Not to Redevelopment, but to Claim a Larger Pie Than Other Slum Dwellers: In a significant judgment delivered on April 4, 2025, the Bombay High Court in Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024 and connected matters) dismissed a clutch of petitions filed by individuals claiming tribal status and title over a parcel of land notified for slum rehabilitation. The petitioners had challenged eviction orders and the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on the ground that they were lawful allottees of land bearing Survey No.502/A in Panch Pakhadi, Thane.

The Court, however, held that the petitioners had failed to establish ownership and that their claims could not stall a massive redevelopment scheme affecting thousands of slum dwellers. The dispute centered around 3.39 hectares of land bearing Survey No.502/A, historically classified as Gairan (grazing) land, which was declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area through a notification dated October 27, 2016 under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The petitioners, tribal claimants, asserted that they were lawful allottees of this land pursuant to government orders issued in 1949–50, and that they were wrongly categorized as slum dwellers.

They challenged the said notification, the Letter of Intent dated December 7, 2022, and subsequent eviction orders under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. Despite voluminous documentation including electricity bills, municipal assessments, and a Village Form No.2, their names were never mutated into the 7/12 Extracts, which continued to show the Government of Maharashtra as the landholder.

The main contention was whether the implementation of the slum scheme on Survey No.502/A was valid in light of the petitioners’ alleged title. The petitioners argued:

• The land was allotted to them as tribals.

• The mutation was never effected due to their disadvantaged socio-economic background. 

• Implementation of a slum scheme on Gairan land was impermissible under Supreme Court guidelines and GRs of 2011 and 2022.  

The Court, however, rejected these claims unequivocally:

• “In absence of any document evidencing allotment of land by names of Petitioners and in the light of the revenue authorities repeatedly certifying that no portion of land in Survey No.502/A has been allotted to any of the Petitioners, this Court is unable to recognize any special status for them than that of mere occupiers of structures constructed on Government land.”

Referring to the Tahsildar’s report (Feb 16, 2024) and the Collector’s communication (Oct 15, 2024), the Court noted that:

• “No portion of Survey No.502/A has ever been allotted to any tribal person and Sections 36 and

36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are inapplicable.”

On the issue of whether declaration under Section 4 of the Slum Act was a pre-condition for the Section 3C(1) declaration of a slum rehabilitation area, the Court clarified:

 “The plain language of Section 3C(1) would indicate that the CEO/SRA is empowered to issue declaration as Slum Rehabilitation Area irrespective of the fact whether the land is previously declared as ‘slum area’ under Section 4 or not.”

This view was reinforced by citing the Division Bench ruling in Santosh Tukaram Patil v. SRA, which held that Chapter I-A of the Slum Act is self-contained and does not require a prior declaration under Section 4.

The petitioners heavily relied on Village Specimen No.2, but the Court was categorical:

• “Those documents may prove occupation of structures… However, inference of title cannot be drawn in absence of production of any valid allotment order issued by the Collector.”

Further, it emerged that Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal, the lead petitioner, had previously filed a civil suit in 1986 seeking eviction of an occupant, claiming ownership of the land. That suit was dismissed in 2010, and the appeal was also dismissed in 2014, with findings that:

• “He does not have any title in respect of the land beneath the suit tenement… Survey No.502/A is Government Land for Gurcharan.”

The Court thus observed:

• “Having failed to establish title before the Civil Court, Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal cannot be permitted to scuttle the implementation of slum scheme by raising claim of ownership before AGRC.”

The Court also noted that out of 2319 hutments, 2255 had already been demolished and only 64 remained, making the petitioners a “minuscule” minority attempting to derail a large-scale public project:

• “This Court cannot put implementation of slum scheme of such massive magnitude to risk only because Petitioners want to fulfill their desire of getting larger pie than other slum dwellers.”

• “It is not that upon implementation of SRS and demolition of structures of the Petitioners, they would be rendered homeless.”

The Court noted that many petitioners, despite opposing the scheme, would receive multiple rehab tenements, as their plots hosted multiple structures:

• “The land admeasuring 195 var is not occupied by Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal alone… 13 structures/huts occupied by different persons… 11 are members of Bhuyal family.”

The Bombay High Court dismissed all ten writ petitions, finding no merit in the ownership claims and upholding the orders passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. It also refused to stall the project, emphasizing the public interest and massive scale of the ongoing SRS project in Thane.

• “The implementation of slum scheme has progressed substantially and therefore it would be imprudent to otherwise make any interference in the SRS at the instance of the Petitioners at this belated stage.”

However, considering the fairness of process, the Court recorded a statement by the developer’s counsel that no steps would be taken for two weeks for enforcement of eviction orders.

Date of Decision: 4 April 2025