Bombay High Court

Deena Pramod Baldota vs Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) on 22 July, 2025

   2025:BHC-OS:11547

                      Ashwini                                                   37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2025
                                 Deena Pramod Baldota                 ]
                                 Indian Inhabitant, aged 68 years     ]
                                 Residing at 192, Pushpa Kunj,        ]
                                  rd
                                 3 Floor, Station Road, Wadala        ]
                                 (West), Mumbai - 400 031 through her ]
                                 Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Pramod ]
                                 Ratanchand Baldota.                  ]              ...Petitioner
                                 Versus

                                 Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.)           ]
                                 Slum Rehabilitation Authority,             ]
                                 5th Floor, Griha Nirman Bhavan,            ]
                                 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.           ]        ...Respondent


                      Mr. Arun Panicker for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Nishigandh Patil for the Respondent.


                                                             CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
         Digitally
         signed by                                       RESERVED ON : 30th June, 2025.
         ASHWINI
ASHWINI
H        GAJAKOSH
                                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd July, 2025.
GAJAKOSH Date:
         2025.07.22
         16:08:40
         +0530
                      JUDGMENT:

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned Order

dated 10th July, 2024 and consequently prays for restoration of the

Appeal filed by the Petitioner on the file of the Maharashtra Slum

Areas Tribunal and Special Tribunal, Mumbai, for adjudication on

merits and in accordance with law.

2) The only issue that arises for consideration is whether

the thirty-day limitation period for filing an appeal under Section

17(6) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slum Act") is to be computed from the

date of the notice dated 10th February 2023 or from the date of the

Order dated 8th August 2023.

3) The impugned Order dated 8th August 2023, in paragraph

4, refers to the notice dated 10 th February 2023 while interpreting

Section 17(6) of the Slums Act. The said notice was issued to the

landowner, for the purpose of calling for objections in relation to the

compensation determination and directed the landowner to furnish

details of the actual net income derived from the said land.

4) The question that arises is whether such a notice dated

10th February, 2023 qualifies as the "notice" contemplated under

Section 17(5) of the Slums Act. In this context, it is necessary to

examine the provisions of Section 17, which have been extracted for

reference.

5) Section 17 of Slums Act reads as under:

"17. Basis for determination of compensation

(1) Where any land is acquired and vested in the State

Government under this Chapter, the State Government shall

pay for such acquisition compensation, the amount of which

shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this

section.

(2) Where the amount of compensation has been

determined by agreement between the State Government or

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

as the case may be, the Collector and the person to be

compensated, it shall be determined in accordance with such

agreement.

(3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the amount

payable as compensation in respect of any land acquired shall

be an amount equal to sixty times the net average monthly

income actually derived from such land during the period of

the five consecutive years immediately preceding the date of

publication of the notice referred to in section 14.

(4) The net average monthly income referred to in sub-

section (3) shall be calculated in the manner and in

accordance with the principles set out in the First Schedule.

(5) The Competent Authority shall, after holding an

inquiry in the prescribed manner, determine in accordance

with the provisions of sub-section (4) the net average

monthly income actually derived from the land, and publish a

notice in a conspicuous place on the land and serve it in the

manner provided in section 36 and calling upon the owner of

the land and every person interested therein, to intimate to

it, before a date specified in the notice, whether such owner

or person agrees to the amount so determined and if he does

not so agree, what amount he claims to be the net average

monthly income actually derived from the land.

(6) Any person who does not agree to the amount of the

net average monthly income determined by the Competent

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

Authority under sub-section (5), and claims a sum in excess

of that amount may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within

thirty days from the date specified in the notice referred to in

that sub-section.

(7) On appeal, the Tribunal shall, after hearing the

appellant, determine the net average monthly income and its

determination shall be final and shall not be questioned in

any court of law.

(8) Where there is any building on the land in respect of

which the net average monthly income has been determined,

no separate compensation shall be paid in respect of such

building:

Provided that, where the owner of the land and the

owner of the building on such land are different, the

Competent Authority shall apportion the amount of

compensation between the owner of the land and owner of

the building in the same proportion as the market price of the

land bears to the market price of the building on the date of

the acquisition."

[Emphasis Supplied]

6) Section 17 lays down the basis for determination of

compensation for land acquired and vested in the State Government

under the Act. Sub-sections (5) and (6) clearly indicate that after

conducting an inquiry and determining the net average monthly

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

income, the Competent Authority must publish and serve a notice

calling upon the landowner and interested persons to indicate

whether they agree with the amount determined or claim any higher

amount. If any person disputes the amount so determined, they may

prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days from the date

specified in the notice.

7) In the present case, the Competent Authority, after

determining compensation under Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the

Slums Act, issued a notice dated 10 th February 2023 calling upon the

landowner to furnish his response and justifications for any higher

claim.

8) Thereafter, following a hearing, the Competent Authority

passed a final Order on 8th August 2023. The Petitioner preferred an

appeal within 30 days from receipt of this final Order. However, the

Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding

that the thirty-day period commenced from 10 th February 2023 and

not from 8th August 2023.

9) In my view, the impugned Order is based on a clear

misreading of Section 17 of Slums Act. The language of Sections 17(5)

and 17(6) unambiguously contemplates a determination of

compensation after an inquiry, followed by service of a notice calling

upon the landowner to indicate whether they accept the amount

determined. In the present case, the hearing was conducted and a

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

final decision rendered only on 8th August 2023. It is that decision

which must be construed as the "notice" under Section 17(5) of the

Slums Act.

10) Further, if the notice dated 10th February 2023 were to be

treated as a notice under Section 17(5), it raises the question as to

why a further hearing was held on 17 th February 2023 and why a

final decision was passed on 8th August 2023. If the section does not

contemplate a hearing or decision, then the issuance of such notice

itself is legally unsustainable. However, once a hearing was

conducted and a decision rendered, only that decision can trigger the

appeal period under Section 17(6).

11) The impugned Order dated 10th July 2024 fails to

appreciate that the notice dated 10th February 2023 was merely a

procedural communication for conducting a hearing, and not a

determination under Section 17(5).

12) Moreover, once the hearing was afforded to the parties

and a decision was rendered thereon, naturally it is only that

decision which can be construed as a notice under Section 17(5) of

the Slums Act. Consequently, the appeal under Section 17(6)

necessarily has to be filed within 30 days from the decision i.e. 8 th

August 2023 and not from 10th February 2023.

13) A perusal of the impugned Order dated 10 th July 2024

indicates that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the

Ashwini 37-OSWP-1014-2025-J.doc

notice dated 10th February 2023 itself stated it was a notice for

hearing. Therefore, it could not be construed as a decision under

section 17(5) of Slums Act. Besides, the Appellate Tribunal failed to

appreciate that there was a decision dated 8th August 2024 rendered

on the hearing. That decision was simply ignored without comments

- thus overlooked.

14) In view of the above, and after hearing the Advocates of

the Petitioner and Respondent, I find that the impugned Order is

erroneous and is based on misreading of the Section 17 and

consequently erred in holding that the stipulated period of thirty

days would commence from 10th February, 2023 and not 8th August

2023.

15) Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 10th July, 2024 is

quashed and set aside and the Appeal is restored on the file of

Maharashtra Slum Areas Tribunal and Special Tribunal Mumbai for

adjudication on merits in accordance with law.