Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices

When 70% of Slum Dwellers Approve Rehabilitation, Individual Objections Cannot Derail the Project – Supreme Court Clears Path for Redevelopment. In a landmark ruling the Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal challenging eviction notices issued under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, holding that once a majority of slum dwellers have consented to rehabilitation, a handful of individuals cannot obstruct the redevelopment process. The Court found that the petitioners were ineligible occupants with no legal right to remain on the land, and their repeated legal challenges were nothing more than delay tactics against a project meant for public benefit.

Delivering the judgment in Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali & Others v. The Tahsildar-I, Special Cell & Others, a bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Krishnan Vinod Chandran ruled, "Slum rehabilitation projects are for the larger good of those living in substandard conditions. When 70% of eligible slum dwellers have given their consent, a small group of dissenters cannot claim a veto over the project."

The Court upheld the eviction notices issued under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, ruling that the objections raised by the petitioners had no merit and could not justify further delays.

"Eviction Notices Were Issued After Years of Resistance – Residents Refused to Vacate Despite Clear Legal Orders"

The case originated when the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) issued a notice on January 28, 2019, directing the petitioners to vacate their premises within 15 days to facilitate redevelopment. When the petitioners challenged the notice before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), their plea was dismissed on June 12, 2019.

Despite this ruling, they refused to vacate, leading to another eviction notice on December 6, 2022, granting them 48 hours to leave the premises. Instead of complying, they filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on January 4, 2023. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the redevelopment project was illegal and that they had tenancy rights over the land.

The Court, however, found their claims factually and legally baseless, ruling that their sole intent was to stall the redevelopment by exploiting legal loopholes.

"Supreme Court Rejects Petitioners’ Claims, Finds They Were Transit Camp Occupants Without Tenancy Rights"

The petitioners claimed that the land in question was a MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority) layout and therefore could not be redeveloped by the SRA. They also insisted that they were paying rent to MHADA, proving that they were tenants rather than slum dwellers.

The Supreme Court dismissed these arguments, holding that the land was never a MHADA layout and that the petitioners were merely transit camp occupants. The Court observed:

"The appellants were given temporary accommodation during the widening of the Western Express Highway. What they paid to MHADA was not rent but transit fees. They cannot claim tenancy rights to obstruct redevelopment."

The Court also noted that the petitioners had previously challenged the redevelopment project in 2010, but the Bombay High Court had dismissed their plea in 2011. Instead of appealing that decision, they deliberately chose to file multiple complaints and frivolous petitions to delay the project.

"From 2019 to 2022, instead of challenging the AGRC order, the appellants repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of Bharat Ekta Co-operative Society, calling it a 'bogus society.' Their actions were aimed at delaying the project rather than seeking justice."

"Redevelopment Cannot Be Stopped Once 70% of Slum Dwellers Have Given Their Consent"

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Bombay High Court, which confirmed that more than 70% of eligible slum dwellers had given their consent, thereby making the project legally valid. The Court ruled: "The legal framework governing slum rehabilitation functions on the principle of collective consent. Once 70% of eligible occupants have given their approval, individual objections cannot be allowed to derail the project indefinitely."

Rejecting the petitioners’ argument that the slum was not officially declared as such, the Court observed: "This is a 'censused slum' incorporated into government records since 1981. The requirement of a separate notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act does not arise. The appellants cannot challenge the project on technicalities that have no legal basis."

The Court emphasized that the delay caused by the petitioners had already resulted in severe setbacks to the rehabilitation of genuine slum dwellers, who had consented to the redevelopment in good faith.

"Supreme Court Orders Immediate Eviction, Dismisses Appeals to Prevent Further Delays"

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, ruling: "The petitioners have no legal right to remain on the premises. The redevelopment project, which will provide permanent housing to hundreds of slum dwellers, cannot be held hostage by a few dissenters who have no legitimate claim over the land."

The Court directed that the eviction notices be enforced immediately, stating: "These appeals are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of, and all interim orders are vacated. The authorities shall proceed with the eviction without further delay."

With this ruling, the Supreme Court ensured that the redevelopment project, stalled for years due to baseless objections, could finally move forward.

"No Room for Legal Obstructionism in Public Welfare Projects – Supreme Court Reinforces Collective Rights Over Individual Interests"

This ruling sends a strong message against frivolous legal challenges aimed at delaying slum redevelopment projects. The Supreme Court has reinforced that:

Once 70% of slum dwellers approve a redevelopment plan, individual objections cannot stop it.

Transit camp occupants cannot claim tenancy rights to resist eviction under the Slum Act.

Courts will not tolerate repeated litigation intended solely to delay a public welfare project.

By dismissing the appeals and upholding the eviction notices, the Supreme Court has ensured that eligible slum dwellers receive proper housing while preventing a few dissenters from exploiting the legal system for personal gain.

Date of decision: 27/02/2025