{"id":7198,"date":"2025-08-25T10:21:00","date_gmt":"2025-08-25T04:51:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/bandra-land-case-sc-reinforces-landowners-preferential-right\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:32:32","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:02:32","slug":"bandra-land-case-sc-reinforces-landowners-preferential-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7198","title":{"rendered":"Bandra Land Case: SC Reinforces Landowner\u2019s Preferential Right"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a pivotal decision by the Supreme Court the Division Bench of <\/span><\/span>Justice Surya Kant<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span> and <\/span><\/span>Justice Ujjal Bhuyan<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span> has struck down the acquisition of Church-owned land in Bandra by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), reinforcing that a landowner’s preferential right to redevelop slum-affected property cannot be bypassed without affording due opportunity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Background: <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The dispute concerned a 1,596 sq. m. parcel forming part of a larger estate held by a Church trust in Bandra. The land had been occupied by hutment dwellings since the 1930s and was notified as a slum first in 1978 and again in 2002. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

In 2019, a Cooperative Society of slum residents tied up with a private developer to undertake redevelopment. The trust, however, sought to integrate redevelopment of this portion into a composite project covering its entire estate and filed its own proposal in May 2021.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The SRA dismissed this on technical grounds and proceeded with acquisition proceedings under Section 14 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The Bombay High Court in June 2024 set aside the acquisition, holding that the landowner’s statutory right had been disregarded. <\/span><\/span>That ruling was challenged before the Supreme Court by the developer, the society, and the SRA.<\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court underscored that the legislative framework gives primacy to the landowner’s role in redevelopment.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The Court noted that the SRA had failed to issue the mandatory notice-cum-invitation under Section 13, which is a prerequisite to enable the landowner to initiate redevelopment.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

In its absence, the preferential right of the trust remained intact. The judges further recorded that the trust had consistently expressed its willingness to redevelop the land, and its proposal could not have been set aside on procedural or technical grounds.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Importantly, the Court also took serious note of the conduct of the SRA and the society acting in tandem with the developer. It found evidence of a concerted attempt to sideline the trust and push through acquisition for private commercial gain. The judgment cautioned against such misuse of statutory powers, remarking that the process had been coloured by collusion and undue influence.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and issued clear directions:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n