How can private land be declared a slum merely because it is near a slum? Bombay High Court asks SRA

The Bombay High Court recently ordered the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra's Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to personally file an affidavit clarifying how a piece of private land was proposed to be treated as a slum under the Slum Rehabilitation Act merely because an adjoining plot had been classified as one [Ramesh Swaminath Singh v SRA & Ors]..A Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea filed by one Ramesh Singh, a Malad landowner, who alleged that he had been served a notice by the SRA unilaterally declaring his property to be a slum.On September 2, the Court granted Singh interim protection on finding that he had made out a strong prima facie case for the protection of his property rights. The Court ordered that status quo be maintained, preventing Singh’s land from being included in any slum rehabilitation scheme until the matter is finally decided.The Court proceeded to seek a personal affidavit from the SRA's CEO on how Singh's land was proposed to be classified as a slum. "We also direct the Chief Executive Officer, SRA to place on record as to how the petitioner’s land which has 5 to 6 structures could be declared as ‘Slum’ merely because the adjoining land is declared as slum," it said..The Court was also surprised by a submission by the SRA's counsel that such decisions regarding the classification of slums were not taken by the CEO, but by his subordinate officers at the SRA. The Court has ordered the CEO to explain this aspect of the matter as well in his affidavit. "We are quite surprised at this submission. This position also be made clear in the affidavit of the SRA as to whether the officers subordinate to the Chief Executive Officer take such decisions and under what authority in law," the Court said in its September 2 order. .The case was then taken up on September 9, when the Court rejected the SRA counsel's request to accept the authority's Deputy Chief Engineer's affidavit instead of insisting that the CEO file it. "We required the Chief Executive Officer to file an affidavit, as specifically directed by such order. Accordingly, affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer be placed on record within one week from today, so that further appropriate orders can be passed," the Court said, before adjourning the case till September 16. The matter has since been adjourned till September 24. .The petition before the Court challenged a November 2024 notice issued under Section 13 (power of SRA to develop Slum Rehabilitation Area) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. The petitioner contended that his 440 square meter plot in Malad (East) - which contains only 5–6 structures and was earmarked in the city’s Development Plan 2034 for a garden and a DP road - had been wrongly clubbed with an adjoining slum land which accommodates 128 residents..The Court observed that the petitioner’s right to develop his private land had already been affirmed in an earlier order passed in August 2024, and the SRA could not forcibly bring his plot within the slum rehabilitation scheme. It further questioned the legality of designating the land as a slum solely on the basis of a few existing structures.It proceeded to grant Singh interim protection."Pending the final adjudication of this petition, we direct status quo as of today to be maintained in respect of the petitioner’s land, and/or the petitioner’s land shall not form part of any slum rehabilitation scheme being undertaking on the adjoining plot either at the hands of the owners of the adjoining plots or by the developer appointed by any society of slum dwellers," the Court ordered. At the same time, it permitted redevelopment of the adjoining notified slum land, provided the process is carried out in accordance with law..Advocates Sankalp A Sharma and Ameya Vaidya, briefed by Advocate Karthic Iyer, appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Ravleen Sabharwal appeared for the SRA. Additional Government Pleader Rakesh Pathak appeared for the State.Advocate KH Mastakar briefed by Advocate Komal Punjabi represented the BMC. .[Read Orders]