Supreme Court Upholds Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s Power: Kantabai Vasant Ahir vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 October 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1234

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a Slum Rehabilitation Authority declare an area as a slum rehabilitation area without a prior declaration of that area as a slum under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the powers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The Court held that a prior notification under Section 4 of the Act is not a prerequisite for initiating slum rehabilitation proceedings under Chapter I-A of the Act. This judgment has significant implications for slum redevelopment projects in Maharashtra. The judgment was authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao, forming a division bench with Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area in Pune, Maharashtra. Respondent No. 3 owned land in Survey Nos. 27, 28, and 29, which measured 12,381 sq. mts. On 10 November 1983, an area of 4,123 sq. mts. within Survey Nos. 27 and 28 was declared a “slum” under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971 (the Act). The Act was later amended in 1996 to establish an independent authority for slum rehabilitation.

In 2000, Respondent No. 3 filed a suit seeking the eviction of Appellant No. 1’s husband. Initially, the suit was based on the premise that the area was a declared slum area. However, Respondent No. 3 later amended the suit, arguing that the area was not a slum and therefore no permission was needed to evict the Appellants. This amendment was allowed on 6 February 2006.

On 24 May 2006, Respondent No. 1 declared 5,168.50 sq. mts. in Survey Nos. 27 and 28 as a slum rehabilitation area. This included the previously declared 4,123 sq. mts. and an additional 1,045.50 sq. mts. that was not previously declared as a slum. Subsequently, on 1 September 2009, Respondent No. 2 declared the entire 5,168.50 sq. mts. as a slum clearance area. The Appellants then filed a suit challenging these declarations, which led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Appellants challenged the orders of 24 May 2006 and 1 September 2009 before the Maharashtra Slum Areas (IC & R) Tribunal, Mumbai. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders for 1,045.50 sq. mts. The Tribunal held that the Appellants were not given sufficient opportunity as provided in Section 36 of the Act before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed and that 1045.50 sq. mts. was not a declared area.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, along with Respondent No. 3, then filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, reversing the Tribunal’s decision and upholding the declaration of the entire 5,168.50 sq. mts. as a slum rehabilitation area. The High Court held that a prior declaration under Section 4(1) was not required for proceedings under Chapter I-A of the Act and that no pre-decisional hearing was necessary under Section 3C of the Act. The High Court also rejected the Appellants’ reliance on Section 36 of the Act. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the High Court’s judgment, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. Key provisions include:

• Section 2(ga): Defines a “slum area” as any area declared as such by the competent authority under Section 4(1) of the Act.
• Section 2(h-b), (h-c), and (h-d): Define “Slum Rehabilitation Area,” “Slum Rehabilitation Authority,” and “Slum Rehabilitation Scheme,” respectively.
• Section 4(1): Specifies the conditions under which a competent authority can declare an area as a slum. It states:
  
  “Where the Competent Authority is satisfied that– (a) any area is or may be a source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by reason of the area having inadequate or no basic amenities, or being insanitary, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise; or (b) the buildings in any area, used or intended to be used for human habitation are – (i) in any respect, unfit for human habitation; or (ii) by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors, detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area, the Competent Authority may, by notification in the Official Gazette , declare such area to be a slum area.”
• Section 12: Deals with clearance orders for slum areas. It states:
  
  “As soon as may be after the Competent Authority has declared any slum area to be a clearance area, it shall make a clearance order in relation to that area, ordering the demolition of each of the buildings specified therein, and requiring each such building to be vacated within such time as may be specified in the [clearance order], and shall submit the [clearance order] to the Administrator for confirmation.”
• Section 3A(1): Provides for the appointment of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
• Section 3A(3): Outlines the powers, duties, and functions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, including surveying slum areas, formulating rehabilitation schemes, and implementing them.
• Section 3C: Empowers the Chief Executive Officer to declare any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area after the publication of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
• Section 3D: States that upon publication of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the provisions of other Chapters of the Act apply to the declared Slum Rehabilitation Area, subject to certain modifications. Specifically, Chapter II stands omitted in its application to Chapter I-A.
• Section 36: Specifies the procedure for serving notices, orders, or directions issued under the Act.

Chapter I-A of the Act was inserted by Act 4 of 1996 to address slum rehabilitation. The High Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was discharging legislative functions while exercising powers under Sections 3A to 3D of the Act.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Appellants argued that the Act applies only to slum areas and that a notification under Section 4 of the Act is a prerequisite for initiating steps under Chapter I-A.
• They contended that since 1,045.50 sq. mts. was not notified under Section 4, the proceedings under Sections 3C and 3D were invalid.
• The Appellants argued that the Slum Clearance Order dated 01.09.2009 is vitiated as it is contrary to Section 12 of the Act as the clearance is made in respect 5168.50 sq. mts. which includes 1045.50 sq. mts. un-declared area.
• They submitted that they were entitled to a notice before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondents argued that the High Court’s judgment was in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that Chapter I-A, Sections 4, 12, and 36 were correctly interpreted.
• They contended that there is no necessity for a notification under Section 4 before a declaration is made under Section 3C.
• They submitted that even encumbered lands can be part of the Slum Rehabilitation Area, relying on the Special Rules and Regulations for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme applicable to Pune.
• They argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Appellants were entitled to a notice before the order under Section 3C was passed.
• They submitted that the phrase “any slum area” in Section 12 is used in general parlance, and in the context of Chapter I-A of the Act, the phrase “slum area” used in Section 12(1) cannot have the same meaning as found in Section 2(ga).

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether a notification under Section 4 of the Act is a prerequisite for initiating proceedings under Chapter I-A.
2. Whether the Slum Clearance Order dated 01.09.2009 is vitiated as it is contrary to Section 12 of the Act.
3. Whether the Appellants were entitled to a notice before the order dated 24.05.2006 was passed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 2(ga) of the Act*: The Court acknowledged the definition of “slum area” but clarified that this definition does not apply to proceedings under Chapter I-A.
• Section 4(1) of the Act*: The Court held that this section is in Chapter II, which is not applicable to proceedings under Chapter I-A.
• Section 12 of the Act*: The Court interpreted the phrase “any slum area” in a generic sense within the context of Chapter I-A, not limited to areas notified under Section 4.
• Section 3A, 3C, and 3D of the Act*: The Court relied on these sections to establish the powers and procedures of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Chapter I-A.
• Section 36 of the Act*: The Court clarified that this section deals with the manner of service of notices, not the requirement of a pre-decisional hearing.
• Special Rules and Regulations for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme*: The Court relied on these rules to support the view that encumbered areas could be included in a rehabilitation scheme.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was heavily influenced by the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, particularly the distinction between Chapter II and Chapter I-A. The Court prioritized the legislative intent behind Chapter I-A, which was introduced to facilitate slum rehabilitation. The Court also emphasized the practical implications of its decision, noting that the entire scheme was being held up by the Appellants, while other slum dwellers had already shifted to transit accommodation. The Court’s reasoning focused on upholding the powers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to effectively implement rehabilitation schemes.

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the submission of the Appellants that the declaration of 1045.50 sq. mts. under Section 3C of the Act is in colourable exercise of power, but did not accept it. The court stated that the disputed area of 1045.50 sq. mts. is adjacent to the declared area and is required for effective implementation of the Scheme.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Section 4(1) of the Act is in Chapter II. Therefore, it is not necessary that an area should be notified under Section 4 as slum area before proceedings under Chapter I-A are initiated.”

“The Slum Clearance Order is passed under Section 3D and Section 12(1) after an area is declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C. Chapter I-A is a self-contained code dealing with Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.”

“There is no requirement of issuance of notice prior to the declaration under Section 3C. The Tribunal committed an error in relying upon Section 36 to hold that the appellants were entitled to a notice before order dated 24.05.2006 was passed.”

Key Takeaways

• A prior notification under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act is not mandatory for initiating slum rehabilitation proceedings under Chapter I-A of the Act.
• The term “slum area” in Section 12 of the Act, when read in the context of Chapter I-A, has a broader meaning than the definition in Section 2(ga), and is not limited to areas notified under Section 4.
• The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has the power to declare any area as a slum rehabilitation area, even if it was not previously declared as a slum under Section 4, provided it is necessary for the implementation of the rehabilitation scheme.
• No pre-decisional hearing is required before the declaration under Section 3C of the Act.
• This judgment clarifies the powers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and facilitates the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in the context of their specific chapters and the overall objectives of the legislation.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, other than dismissing the appeals.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a prior notification under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971, is not a prerequisite for initiating slum rehabilitation proceedings under Chapter I-A of the Act. This judgment clarifies the scope of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s powers and provides a clear interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act. This judgment does not overrule any previous position of law but clarifies the existing provisions of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court clarified that a prior notification under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act is not necessary for initiating slum rehabilitation under Chapter I-A. The Court also held that the term “slum area” in Section 12 has a broader meaning in the context of Chapter I-A. This judgment provides clarity on the powers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and facilitates the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes.