Supreme Court Refuses Mandamus to Compel Acquisition Under Section 14 of Slum Act; Upholds Owner’s Preferential Right and Validity of New Redevelopment Proposal

Case Name: Jyoti Builders v. Chief Executive Officer & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1372
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 December 2025
Bench: J.B. Pardiwala, J.; K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that no mandamus can be issued to compel the State Government to acquire the subject property under Section 14 of the Slum Act, since the owner’s preferential right to redevelop has not been extinguished. The Court found the High Court correct in concluding that the appellant’s demand for acquisition—seven years after a 2015 SRA order—was belated and inconsistent with the statutory scheme. It further held that the subject property, reserved as Recreational Ground (RG), was excluded from the appellant’s slum scheme, and that the SRA had not reviewed its earlier order but merely acted in compliance with judicial directives. The Court emphasized that the appellant had already derived full FSI benefit by rehabilitating slum dwellers and could not now claim rights over land it neither owned nor acquired. Upholding the owner’s and subsequent purchaser’s preferential redevelopment rights, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Summary: The dispute concerns 2005 sq. mtrs. of land in Malad, Mumbai—reserved as Recreational Ground and originally owned by Phuldai Yadav—over which the appellant claimed rights under a long-running slum scheme. Although the SRA’s 2015 order directed acquisition of the subject property, no action was taken while a High Court injunction (Citispace order) prohibited sanctioning new schemes on RG lands until March 2022. The owner sold the land to Alchemi Developers, who promptly submitted a fresh redevelopment proposal. The appellant, having neither pursued acquisition earlier nor acquired title, approached the High Court in 2022 seeking mandamus to enforce the 2015 order. The High Court rejected the plea, holding that the land was excluded from the appellant’s scheme and that the appellant had already been compensated by FSI utilisation. Before the Supreme Court, both sides advanced extensive arguments on scheme inclusion, Annexure-II slum dweller rehabilitation, FSI abeyance, alleged SRA volte face, and the legality of Alchemi’s scheme. The Supreme Court analysed the Slum Act, MRTP Act, DCR 1991, DCPR 2034, and recent precedents including Tarabai Nagar and Saldanha Real Estate, reiterating that acquisition under Section 14 is conditional upon extinguishment of the owner’s preferential right. The Court concluded that ownership, timing, planning reservations, and statutory priorities all favoured Alchemi and not the appellant.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declining to compel acquisition of the subject property and affirming the High Court’s findings. It held that: (i) the appellant had delayed seeking acquisition for seven years; (ii) the owner’s preferential right remained intact and had passed to the purchaser, Alchemi Developers; (iii) the subject property stood excluded from the appellant’s scheme; (iv) the appellant had already received appropriate FSI benefits; and (v) the SRA had not improperly reviewed its 2015 order. The Court concluded that the appellant could not claim rights over land it neither owned nor acquired, and all prayers—including those seeking Occupation Certificate relief—were rejected. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.