Mandatory Post-2018 Invitation to Owners Before Slum Land Acquisition – Supreme Court Fortifies Preferential Right of Landowners

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Saldanha Real Estate Private Limited v. Bishop John Rodrigues, 2025 INSC 1016, delivers a significant clarification on the functioning of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slums Act”) after the sweeping 2018 amendment. Three appeals – by the slum-dwellers’ proposed society (Shri Kadeshwari CHS Ltd.), their chosen developer (Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.), and the statutory authority (SRA) – assailed a Bombay High Court judgment which had quashed acquisition proceedings over church-owned land in Bandra, Mumbai. At the heart of the controversy lay two intersecting questions:

1. Does the 2018 Amendment, which introduced a 120-day ceiling in s.13 and strengthened s.3C hearings, dilute the preferential right of a private landowner to redevelop a notified Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area)?
2. Was the Slum Rehabilitation Authority justified in proposing acquisition of the land without issuing a separate notice-cum-invitation to the landowner under s.13?

Answering both in the negative, the Court upheld the owner’s preferential right, insisted on a mandatory, separate, post-notification notice under s.13, and invalidated the entire acquisition process.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court dismissed all three appeals and affirmed the High Court’s order that the acquisition was void ab initio.
• Key holding: Even after the 2018 Amendment, the SRA must serve a specific notice inviting the owner to redevelop the SR Area; only on failure to respond within 120 days can the right be extinguished and acquisition contemplated.
• Conduct of SRA, developer and society was found “colourable”, aiming to secure a valuable parcel of land in coastal Bandra at a fraction of its market value.
• The owner (Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount trust) was granted 120 days to file a compliant Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; the SRA must now process that scheme within 60 days.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC, 2018)
   – Recognised the landowner’s preferential right and required a separate notice under s.13. – Formed the central precedent adopted both by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court.
2. Tarabai Nagar Co-op Hsg. Society (Proposed) v. State of Maharashtra (SC, 22 Aug 2025)
   – A co-ordinate Bench (which included Surya Kant, J.) upheld the Indian Cork Mills ratio, laying down a three-step sequence: (i) declare SR Area; (ii) invite owner; (iii) acquire only if owner defaults. – The present Bench expressly applied Tarabai and confined itself to examining the effect of the 2018 Amendment.
3. Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (SC Suo Motu, 2020-2022)
   – Referred to by appellants to argue that pandemic-related extension did not apply to the 120-day ceiling; Court found it unnecessary to decide that point after holding that limitation never started running due to absence of notice.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Scheme Post-2018: Sections 3B, 3C, 3D, 13 and 14 were dissected. The Bench noted that the amendment had added the word “owners” wherever “landholders/occupants” existed, actually reinforcing – not reducing – proprietary participation.
2. Distinct Purposes of ss.3C & 13: – s.3C notice = opportunity to oppose declaration of SR Area; – s.13 notice = invitation to redevelop. They operate at different stages; one cannot substitute the other.
3. Interpretation of 120-Day Ceiling: The period starts only after a valid s.13 invitation. Absent the invitation, the clock never begins. Thus the owner could not be labelled “defaulting”.
4. Waiver Theory Rejected: Waiver of a statutory right must be clear and unambiguous. Continuous correspondence from 2013 onwards showed the Trust’s unwavering intention to redevelop; no waiver could be inferred.
5. Colourable Exercise of Power: The SRA’s haste, rejection of the Trust’s proposal on hyper-technical grounds, simultaneous fast-tracking of the developer’s scheme, and ongoing statutory appeal against s.3C declaration were factors which convinced the Court that the acquisition attempt was mala fide.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• All-India persuasive value: While interpreting a Maharashtra statute, the judgment provides a template for similar urban-slum statutes (Delhi, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu) that combine private ownership with rehabilitation policy.
• Administrative discipline for SRA: The authority must now issue a discrete s.13 notice in every case, maintain a documentary trail, and cannot leapfrog to acquisition.
• Developers’ due-diligence checklist expanded: Private builders must verify that owners received and defaulted on a s.13 invitation; else, projects are vulnerable to quashment.
• Enhanced owner participation: Charitable, religious and educational institutions owning encroached land gain clearer leverage to integrate slum dwellers into holistic development rather than losing land to opportunistic acquisitions.
• Judicial consistency: Confirms that Tarabai and Indian Cork Mills continue to rule the field even after legislative amendments, barring an express statutory override.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area): A land parcel where the State chooses “rehabilitation” (redevelopment in situ) rather than simple eviction. Declared under s.3C.
• Preferential Right: A statutory priority. The private owner gets the first opportunity to redevelop, ahead of SRA, society, or developer.
• Notice-cum-Invitation (s.13): A formal communication delivered after SR Area notification, asking the owner to file a redevelopment scheme within 120 days.
• Acquisition (s.14): Compulsory transfer of land to Government in “public purpose”. Can be triggered only if owner’s right stands extinguished.
• Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC): Appellate body under the Slums Act. Its 2023 renaming (from GRC) has retroactive effect.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court has emphatically reaffirmed that the 2018 amendments to the Maharashtra Slums Act did not dilute the central tenet protecting landowners: no acquisition without first inviting the owner to rehabilitate the slum and waiting out the 120-day period. By striking down the SRA’s manoeuvre in Bandra, the Court has underscored that public authorities may not become instruments of speculative developers, and that social-welfare statutes must operate within constitutional disciplines of fairness, transparency and natural justice. Going forward, the decision will serve as a potent shield for landowners and as a cautionary tale for authorities and developers eager to short-circuit statutory safeguards.