Bombay High Court
Ghatipada Co Operative Housing Soc Thr ... vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority Thr Its ... on 20 November, 2025
Author: N.J.Jamadar
Bench: N.J.Jamadar
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15053 OF 2025
Ghatipada Co-operative Housing Society
(Proposed) and Ors. ... Petitioners
versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ... Respondents
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Mr. Tushar Kochale, Dr. Ajay Jankar, Mr. Yash
Jadhav, Ms. Shubeccha Kasrungand Ms. Pradnya Bhuite, for Petitioners.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Sr. Advocate Mr.
Yusuf Iqbal, Mr. Abhishek Kothari, Mr. Samit Shukla, Ms. Delnavaz Patel, Ms.
Shriya Nalawade i/by Trilegal, for Respondent No.8.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal with Mr. Aarushi Yadav, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5
and 9.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 20 NOVEMBER 2025
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 27 October 2025
passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (R9) in Appeal No.324
of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners - Appellants
assailing the revised Letter of Intents (LOI) dated 30 November 2021, 1
December 2023, 24 May 2024 and order dated 23 July 2025 passed by the
Deputy Collector (R7), directing the Petitioners to vacate their respective
structures, forming part of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Ghatipada CHS
(Petitioner No.1) situated on the plot of land bearing C.S.No.19/1 to 19/13,
Mulund, Mumbai, (subject premises) under Sections 33 and 38 of the
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971, came to be dismissed.
3. The Petitioners claim, one Mr. Ramesh Agarwal had constructed the
units and leased out those units to the slum dwellers, who decided to form the
Petitioner No.1 Society. Atithi Builders had acquired the development rights in
respect of the subject premises. A scheme for redevelopment was submitted
by Atithi Builders. Respondent No.8 claimed to have acquired the ownership
rights from Atithi Builders and is asserting a preferential right to develop the
slum redevelopment project.
4. On the subject premises, there are three slums represented by three
societies i.e. Omsai Hanuman CHS, Swastik CHS and Ghatipada CHS -
Petitioner No.1. It was found that there are 692 slum dwellers in three
societies. Out of them, 437 slum dwellers are eligible. The Deputy Collector
(Special Cell/SRA) has reported that 395 (eligible and undecided) slum
dwellers have executed individual agreements and given consent to the slum
rehabilitation scheme.
5. The Petitioners have assailed the grant of LOIs and the order passed
by the Deputy Collector (R7) directing the eviction of the Petitioner dated 23
July 2025 on the ground that none of the members of the Petitioner No.1
Society has given consent for the implementation of the SR scheme. The
subject SR scheme has been approved on the basis of the aggregate consent
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
of the members of the three societies, though the societies are distinct.
Secondly, the eligibility of more than 40% of the slum dwellers whose names
are included in the Annexure II, has yet not been determined. In substance,
SR scheme is being foisted on the basis of the consent of the members of
other two societies.
6. By the impugned order, AGRC repelled the aforesaid challenges
observing that, there was consent of more than 51% of the occupants in the
subject SR Scheme, the majority of the slum dwellers have vacated their
structures and the scheme cannot be implemented unless the structures in
the occupation of the Petitioners are also vacated.
7. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that
the impugned orders and actions are in clear violation of the Circular No.153A
issued by the SRA, which mandates that if the eligibility of more than 5% of
the total hutment dwellers is undecided, no action be taken on the basis of
Annexure II. In the case at hand, Annexure II indicates that out of 254 slum
dwellers, the eligibility of only 146 occupants has been decided and the
eligibility of 108 occupants is yet to be decided. Thus, when eligibility of more
than 40% of the occupants is yet to be decided, the authorities could not have
taken action on the basis of Annexure II.
8. Secondly, it was submitted that, none of the members of the Petitioner
No.1 Society has given consent. Thus, the question as to whether SR
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
Scheme can be implemented without the consent of even a single member of
the Petitioner No.1 Society on the basis of the majority of the members of two
other distinct societies, warrants consideration.
9. Mr. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.8, would
submit that all the three slums are in one layout. Therefore, the authorities
were within their rights in granting the LOI on the basis of the consent of more
than 51% of the members of all the three societies. Mr. Samdani would urge,
even the question of consent of the slum dwellers does not arise in the facts
of the case at hand, as the owner of the land is carrying out the
redevelopment. The owner has a preferential right to redevelop the society,
and, in that case, the aspect of the consent of the occupants becomes
insignificant.
10. A very strong reliance was placed by Mr. Samdani on the judgment in
the case of Tarabai Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Soc. (proposed) V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.1, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised the primacy
of the rights of the land owner to redevelop the slums and ruled that, the
landowner has the first right among the stake holders to undertake
redevelopment under the SR Scheme.
11. Mr. Samdani would urge, the Circular restraining the action by the
authorities if the eligibility of more than 51% of the hutment dwellers is
1 2025 SCC Online SC 1795
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
undecided, does not govern the situation after the enforcement of the DCPR
2034. Attention of the Curt was invited to Regulation 33(10) VIII 3.12(A) of
the DCPR 2034, which provides for "Minimum tenement density on the plot
including non-residential units". Therefore, the determination of the eligibility
is not a pre-requisite. Mr. Samdani further submitted, Respondent No.8 is
willing to file an undertaking to the effect that Respondent No.8 would pay the
transit rent to the slum dwellers, in addition to 254 slum dwellers who are
included in the LOI, till their eligibility is decided, and, if they are held eligible,
Respondent No.8 would provide permanent alternate accommodation in the
Scheme.
12. Ms. Sabharwal, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 9,
supported the impugned orders. Supplementing the submissions of Mr.
Samdani, Ms. Sabharwal would urge that, once the consent of more than
51% of the slum dwellers is obtained, the Petitioners cannot be permitted to
stall the redevelopment project. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Sajid Abdul Sattar Urankar and Ors. V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.2.
13. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the respective parties,
the following situation emerges. Three slums form part of one layout. The
three slums are situated at different locations. Ghatipada CHS - Petitioner
2 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 131
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
No.1 is located at CTS No.19/5 (part), and 19/3 (part); Swastik CHS is located
at CTS No.19/3 and Omsai Hanuman CHS is located at CTS No.18/8 (part)
and 19/10 (part). Respondent No.8 claims to be the owner of the entire
subject premises. The members of the Petitioner No.1 Society have not given
consent for the subject SR Scheme. Out of 254 slum dwellers who are
included in the Annexure II, 146 are declared eligible. The eligibility of 108
slum dwellers is yet to be decided. The Circular No.153A dated 31 March
2016 contains an instruction that if the eligibility of more than 5% of the total
hutment dwellers is undecided, no action shall be taken on the Annexure II i.e.
LOI and other permissions.
14. There can be no duality of opinion on the primacy of the land owner to
the redevelop the slum. However, the authorities have proceeded on the
premise that, in view of the consent of the majority of the members of all three
societies, LOI was rightly issued. Therefore, in a situation of the present
nature, where not a single member of the Petitioner Society, which is located
in a distinct survey number, though forms part of the same layout, has given
consent for the subject SR Scheme, the question as to whether the Scheme
can be implemented on the basis of the consent given by the members of the
other two societies, arises for consideration ? Likewise, the issue as to
whether SR Scheme can be implemented when the eligibility of more than
40% of the slum dwellers included in the Annexure II is undecided, warrants
wp 15053 of 2025.doc
consideration. Whether, in view of the provisions contained in DCPR 33(10)
VIII 3.12(A), the determination of the eligibility is not necessary, also warrants
consideration.
15. Prima facie, arguable questions are raised. Hence, issue notice for
final disposal to the Respondents, returnable on 18 December 2025.
16. Ms. Sabharwal waives service on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
9 and Mr. Samdani, learned Senior Advocate, on instructions of the Advocate
on record, waives service on behalf of Respondent No.8.
17. The Petitioners are at liberty to serve the rest of the Respondents by
private service and file an affidavit of service.
18. In the meanwhile, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer
clause (e) of the Petition.
19. In view of the fact that, other slum dwellers have vacated their
respective structures, the parties are put to notice that an endeavour would be
made to hear the Petition finally at the stage of admission.
20. The Respondents are at liberty to file further affidavits in reply within a
period of three weeks.
21. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
22. Stand over to 18 December 2025.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/11/2025 19:37:57
