Bombay High Court
Gulab Shankar Mishra, Chief Promoter Of ... vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 1 October, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2926 OF 2025
Gulab Shankar Mishra, Chief Promoter of
Cuffe Parade SRA CHS Federation (P.) ... Petitioner
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25376 OF 2025
Precaution Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
_______
Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w. Mr. Kartikeya Desa, Ms. Sayli Shinde, Vaibhav More i/b.
Kartikeya and Associates for the petitioner in WP/2926/2025.
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Samit Shukla, Ms. Masira Shaikh
i/b. Trilegal for the petitioner in WPL/25376/2025 and for respondent no. 7 in
WP/2926/2025.
Ms. Savita Ganoo a/w. Ms. Gargi Warunjikar for respondent no. 4 in
WP/2926/2025.
Mr. Shahajirao Shinde a/w. Mr. Kuldip Pawar, Akanksha Bobhate for respondent
no. 5 in WP/2926/2025.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w. Mr. Pavan Patil and Tanmay Deshmukh for respondent nos.
5 and 6.
Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/b. Ravleen Sabharwal for respondent nos. 1 to 3 in
WP/2926/2025.
Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/b. Ravleen Sabharwal for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 8 in
WPL/25376/2025.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 1 October, 2025
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
P.C.
1. These two petitions concern development of very large land of about 33
acres belonging to the State Government, situated at a prime location in South
Mumbai at Cuffe Parade / Colaba. This land is encroached by the slum dwellers
and now is proposed to be developed as a slum scheme. We are informed at the bar
that on such large land, there are 65000 encroachers/slum dwellers, who have now
formed a Society and the land is now sought to be developed by the developer
appointed by them, namely, Precaution Properties Pvt. Ltd., who is the petitioner
in Writ Petition (L) No. 25376 of 2025.
2. We are quite alarmed that such vast land of the ownership of the State
Government can just be made available for slum redevelopment, i.e., not only
rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in skyscrapers but also large scale private
apartments to be constructed in one of the most prime localities in South Mumbai
where land is scarce and requirement of the land for the Government can never
come to an end. Mumbai city is a island city in which it is no more possible to find
government lands to be utilized for public purpose. In such circumstances, in the
prime localities of Mumbai and that too a place like Cuffe Parade/Colaba which are
sea facing lands, they are invaluable for the government utility and/or for any vital
public purpose, which may be innumerable. However, it appears that the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority is too keen for reasons best known to it to permit such
vast government land to be extinguished permanently from the pool of
government lands which could be utilized for public utilities like gardens, open
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
spaces etc., in a city which in any way bursting with unbridle construction
depriving the public of such basic requirements for a humane living. Such largesse
being showered and that too free of cost on 65000 slum dwellers is detrimental to
public interest and long term needs of the city.
3. As a Constitutional Court, we cannot overlook the observations made by
the Division Bench of this Court in High Court on its own motion (In the matter
of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation &
Ors.1; Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority 2
and Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority 3 in regard to
the large Government land State largesse, which is admittedly a public property
being not utilized for any public purpose but being thrown to the development of
slum scheme which involves large private development in the form of free sale
components. The cumulative effect being by virtue of such large scale permissive
encroachment, the Government land is forever lost from any public utility. The
aforesaid decisions are considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Bishop John
Rodriques vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary & Ors. 4. We
find it appropriate to extract the relevant observations of the Court in all these
decisions as set out in the said decision, which reads thus:
"112. ... Unfortunately, it is the State policy which in fact has
encouraged encroachments on all categories of lands and in fact has
resulted in large Government lands being siphoned out from the 'State
pool' and equally private lands being completely lost to its owners.
1 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386
2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719
3 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2933
4 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
Such position is wholly unacceptable when the rights on every
individual/person are conferred by the Constitution and the laws. [See
the observation of Division Bench in Jilani Building (supra)].
113. Apart from what has been discussed above, as rightly submitted
by Dr. Sathe, the encroachers on land cannot assert rights to
rehabilitate on the very land albeit the land owner agreeing to
rehabilitate them on the same land. The assertion on the part of the
slum dwellers being made in the present case, which is to the effect as
if the slum dwellers have higher rights on the land than the owners of
the land, so as to presume absolute right of rehabilitation on the very
same land even under the policies of the Slum Act, is totally
untenable. The right of the slums dwellers is only to a permanent
alternate accommodation under the statutory scheme and the State
policies. The slum dwellers cannot have an approach that they become
owners of the land and assert rights to defeat the rights of the real
owners of the land. In our opinion, neither such rights of any
ownership of the land to the slum dwellers are recognized by the Slum
Act nor can such rights be so inferred. We test such assertion of the
slum dwellers on an illustration namely, assuming a Government or
private land which is encroached, is situated at a prime locality namely
at Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Pedder Road or Malabar Hill in
Mumbai. Can the encroachers of such land, in law, assert that they
need to be rehabilitated at the same place or area ? The answer would
be an obvious 'No'. In our opinion, if the State Government or a
public body or a private party is in a position to make available an
alternate land away and even far away from the slum land and
rehabilitate such slum dwellers on such alternate land, in our opinion,
the rights of the slum dwellers in no manner are affected and
prejudiced. The reason being that the rights of rehabilitation of slum
dwellers are recognized under the policies of the State Government
and as envisaged by the provisions of the Slum Act, they cannot have a
recognition over and above the right to property guaranteed to a
person under Article 300A of the Constitution. It would be difficult to
accept that there is an absolute right in slum dwellers to be
rehabilitated at the same place and/or in the same area when such
rights are premised on encroachment and clothed by such
Government policies. Hence, such rights cannot be elevated to an
extent that it will defeat the valuable rights of property of the owners
of the land and merely because effective steps (which is an
impossibility) to remove the encroachment could not be taken. We
ponder was it ever possible for the public bodies to prevent
encroachment on their lands and prevent declaration of such public
lands as slum under the Slum Act and/or to remove encroachment
before the public lands were made available to the slum
societies/developers to be commercially exploited. If this was not
possible to be achieved by the mighty Government machinery, how
can one expect a private person like the petitioner in the present case
to prevent the tyranny of the slum dwellers and the developers.
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
114. .... Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a
planned and sustainable development, the successive Governments
together with the Corporation seem to have unabashedly allowed
mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by encouraging
them not only to encroach more and more of public property but,
simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized
occupation. ....... However, a vicious nexus involving high profile
personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords have created a
situation where public property is first encroached without resistance
being provided by the law enforcing agency, followed by a declaration
of slum gradually progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly
for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the "haves". In
the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the population
including holders of public offices have continued to prosper by
achieving their goals through impure means which are nothing short
of betrayal of the trust that the people of this region have reposed in
those responsible for an able governance. While it was the need of the
hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with
empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to
cater to the needs of the hapless coupled with a complete lack of
sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek. Quite contrary to the ideals
and values embodied in the Constitution which lay down the basic
framework of the social and political structure of the country and sets
out the objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common
endeavor to secure happiness and welfare of every member of the
society and despite taking oath to uphold the laws, actions of those in
power and authority are now invariably driven by political motivations
or other oblique considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the
compassionate Constitution of ours.
116. In the above context, Dr. Sathe would be correct in placing
reliance on the decision in Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari v. The
Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The case of the petitioner in the said
proceedings was quite peculiar, which was to the effect that the
petitioners, who were having their hutments on the Government land
(slums), ought to be rehabilitated either on the same land or in the
vicinity. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court negating such plea,
observed that the slum dwellers cannot elevate their protection to such
an extent that they need to be rehabilitated either on the same land, or
in the vicinity. This was although in the context of encroachment and
formation of the slums on Government land, principles in the present
case would not be different and in fact, when it comes to private land,
the owners constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the
Constitution would get attracted and become more prominent in
recognizing any rights of the slum dwellers. The observations of the
Court are required to be noted which read thus:--
"9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, at the outset, we may observe
that the petitioners, who initially encroached on the
Government land and who had remained on the same for
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
sometime so as to fall within the beneficial policy of the
State Government of being protected slum dwellers, cannot
elevate their protection to such an extent that such slum
dwellers have to be rehabilitated either on the same land, if
any remaining after the project work is completed or they be
provided a permanent alternate accommodation within the
vicinity.
... ..."
(emphasis supplied)
117. Also, in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court [G. S.
Patel, J. (as His Lordship then was) and Neela Gokhale, J.] in
Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated
19/20th June, 2023 in a prescient and elaborate judgment authored
by G.S. Patel, J., a similar view was taken by this Court that the slum
dwellers would not have an absolute right to rehabilitate on the very
land where they have encroached and entitled, under the Government
policies or under the slum legislation, for a permanent alternate
accommodation. The observations of the Court read thus:--
"20. In Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari v. Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, a Division Bench of this Court of
Dipankar Datta CJ (as he then was) and GS Kulkarni J
made these observations:
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
supported their actions as assailed. It is their common
submission that the petitioners, being encroachers on the
Government land, only because of the beneficial policies of
the State Government are required to be considered as
protected slum dwellers for rehabilitation by providing of a
permanent alternate accommodation at public cost. It is
submitted that the petitioners cannot assert any right to
remain on the same plot of land and in fact they ought to be
content with their rehabilitation, being made at Hadapsar
and Viman Nagar, which are also areas within the Pune
Municipal Corporation limits. It is their contention that the
petitioners are causing unnecessary obstruction in the
execution of the public project in the absence of any legal
right to remain on the land in question. It is submitted that
this petition is also wholly untenable, as for the same cause
the petitioner-Society has already approached this Court and
the petition is pending. It is, therefore, submitted that this
petition apart from not being bona fide is an abuse of the
process of law, which deserves to be dismissed with cost.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, at the outset, we may observe that
the petitioners, who initially encroached on the Government
land and who had remained on the same for sometime so as
to fall within the beneficial policy of the State Government
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
of being protected slum dwellers, cannot elevate their
protection to such an extent that such slum dwellers have to
be rehabilitated either on the same land, if any remaining
after the project work is completed or they be provided a
permanent alternate accommodation within the vicinity. In
our clear opinion, any encroachment on public land at the
threshold ought not to be tolerated and prompt action is
required to be taken to remove such encroachment, more
particularly when those who are custodians of the public
land are well aware that encroachments for long periods will
clothe the encroachers with rights to seek rehabilitation at
public costs under the prevalent Government policies. It is
not new that valuable Government land on account of the
negligent approach of the officers in charge by not protecting
such lands from encroachment have stood extinguished from
the Government's holding, causing a serious cascading
effect, namely, that whenever land is required for any public
purpose, the Government is required to acquire the same
from private holdings, causing an unwarranted burden on
the public exchequer and a sheer waste of the tax payers
money. This for the reason that the Government despite its
mighty machinery did not protect its valuable land and
permitted to be encroached to be developed by the slum
dwellers and their developer, with the Government nowhere
in the picture. Such inaction, in our opinion, amounts to
grossest violation of the public trust doctrine as a result of
the patent abuse of the powers vested in such Government
machinery in not protecting public property. We also have a
grave doubt about the policy of the State Government which
rewards the encroachers of the public land by a free of cost
accommodation. In our opinion, such policies qua the
Government land not only violate the 'principles of equality'
but certainly fall foul of the doctrine of public trust. We
wonder as to whether at any point of time an audit in regard
to the encroached Government land or lands belonging to
public authorities in the State of Maharashtra was
undertaken. As to how many such lands have vanished due
to encroachment and as to what steps have been taken to
preserve such lands are questions which need to be answered
to "we the people", and accountability fixed for negligence in
this regard. We say so, as there can be no two opinions that
even land for important public institutions and other
government utilities is not available, which certainly has
adversely affected the very functioning of such institutions
in a democratic set up. We hope that the Government
awakens on such issues before it is too late and restores all
the encroached Government lands for the benefit of public
and strictly to be used for public purposes. This would
certainly require a genuine political will and consciousness
towards larger public benefit.
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
10. The petitioners occupying Government land cannot take
such an adamant stand as canvassed by them, when they are
occupying Government land. Mere rights of rehabilitation
cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of
ownership or as if it is some compensation being offered to
the slum dwellers for their encroachment and occupation of
Government land. This is neither the intention nor the
object even of the slum legislation and slum policies of the
State Government. The insistence of the petitioners if
accepted and that too in the context of the 'State'
undertaking such public projects, it would be impossible to
plan any such project using the Government land for the
benefit of the public at large.
(emphasis added)
21. In High Court on its own motion (in the matter of) Jilani
Building at Bhiwandi v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal
Corporation, the same Division Bench said:
7. In the above paragraphs, we have noted our previous
directions only to point out the anxiousness of the Court
on the burning issues, with the sole focus of saving
human lives so as to bring about a regime of respectable
and dependable living in the city by having lawful and
authorized structures, only to realize that, for the
concerned law enforcing agencies everything mattered,
except the mandate of law and the Court's orders. We are
seriously concerned about such state of affairs. The
common impression that is being created is that
municipal officers or those who are concerned with
implementing the municipal laws, function on a premise
that for such matters, they are, law unto themselves, and
the regime of "the rule of law" as set down by the
Constitution and the laws, and the binding effect of the
Court orders hardly mattered to them, needs to be
completely wiped out. Any power vested with such
authorities is coupled with a binding duty towards the
society at large. We may observe that the municipal
authorities cannot be pawns at the hands of land mafia,
elected representatives and their own Corporators who
appear to be totally disinterested in taking action against
growing slums which is apparent, considering the large
number of slums in the city. In fact, there is a clear
impression that their action has encouraged slums and
encroachments on public lands, obviously such inaction is
for extraneous reasons. As far as the civic administration
is concerned, in our opinion, primacy has to be given to
the strictest implementation of the municipal laws, so as
to prevent unauthorized and illegal constructions, prevent
land grabbing by slum mafia, protecting government land
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
and land belonging to statutory bodies. Also there is a
need to do away with such policies which confer a
premium illegality in favour of the encroachers, by
granting them a windfall of State largesse, namely, a gift of
valuable government land in the form of tenements on
Government lands wherever situated. This is nothing but
legalizing encroachments on prime public lands, in a
manner nullifying the "public trust doctrine" and catering
to private gains in the teeth of the well established
Constitutional requirements while dealing with State
largesse. By such mechanism, valuable public lands are
gone forever. Given the financial burden on the public
exchequer it is impossible for the government to acquire
such prime land for any public requirement except at an
unimaginable burden on the public exchequer. If such
land acquisition cannot be achieved, in that case, is it not
the duty of the State to save these lands from being
thrown to the encroachers and private gains? Is it
necessary that the encroachers are rehabilitated on the
same land, when others who want to purchase a small
dwelling unit are required to go miles away from such
prime places, where encroachments on public land
happen with impunity? There cannot be such an
imbalance in the societal position in which the citizens are
placed when Article 14 of the Constitution stares at the
State. Merely because the slums turn into potential 'vote
banks' such policy of rehabilitation on hypothetical cut
off dates is being implemented under the garb of slum
rehabilitation. This, in our opinion, is a mockery of the
public trust doctrine. We were constrained to make
theseobservations, as not only these larger issues stare at
us in plethora of litigations reaching the Courts, but also
for the reason that the building collapse with which we
are concerned has taken place in a purported
rehabilitation and/or a slum area.
(emphasis added)
22. We cited Jilani Building in our order of 17 April
2023 in Sapphire Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra. As
a bench of coordinate strength, we are bound by the ratio
in both Patvekari and Jilani Building; but we go further,
lest it be argued that the 'observations' in Patvekari and
Jilani Building are not binding, and we emphatically re-
affirm those observations. We adopt them as our own. It
is our understanding that these are not stray observations
in passing but set out the correct position in law and
under the Constitution.
23. And we go further. We take it as firmly settled that the
right to shelter is part of the right to life.4 But there is no
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
fundamental right to trespass. There is no fundamental
right to squat. There is no fundamental right under the
Constitution to rehabilitation at the very site of trespass
or squatting. Both decisions cited commend the need for
the statute -- the Slum Act -- to revisit this, and point
out that it has no basis at all under the Constitution.
Rather, it is against fundamental Constitutional precepts.
Equally importantly, while the State may have an
obligation to provide shelter, it has no Constitutional
obligation to provide a marketable asset to anyone; and
most emphatically not to someone whose initial entry on
the land is illegal and unlawful. And yet this is precisely
what the existing slum rehabilitation policy contemplates
and promises. We are forced to ask, what is this if not the
distribution of state largesse? One that comes at a very
real public cost? Public lands for common public good are
rendered unavailable. Every slum dweller is now
confident in the assurance that the State will give him not
just shelter but a high value marketable peace of real
estate entirely free of cost."
(emphasis supplied)
118. If this be the position, then certainly, the slum dwellers merely by
forming a society cannot assert that their rights are higher than the
rights of the owners of the land and as successive Division Benches of
this Court has held that the rights of the slum dwellers cannot be
elevated (as if they are the owners of the property), so as to control the
rights of the owners of the land under the garb of rehabilitation and
through the resources of a developer, foist/dictate compulsory
acquisition of land against the owner. The acquisition of the land for
rehabilitation of slum dwellers can also never be on a pedestal and/or
of a status of an acquisition of the land for public purposes in relation
to public project to be undertaken by the State in exercise of its powers
of eminent domain. This for two reasons firstly, it is a private group of
persons (slum developers) who would be the beneficiary of such land
acquisition and the second beneficiary would be the developer who
would reap bonanza of a huge Floor Space Index (FSI) in undertaking
construction of commercial/saleable premises. Thus, the only
beneficiaries of such acquisition of private persons, the Government
would spend a meager amount of compensation to be paid as per
Section 17 of the Slum Act. Despite this clear position, quite
unfortunately, the experience in relation to acquisition under the Slum
Act is quite different. It is completely misunderstood, misapplied,
misinterpreted or abused by the authorities; this considering the
proliferation of litigation in this regard, concerning private lands as
encroached, and what is happening to public lands is a mystery which
can never be resolved."
(emphasis supplied)
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
4. We note that the observatons of the Division Bench in Bishop John
Rodrigues (supra) have turned into a reality in the present case and are squarely
applicable as in the present case the slum in question is a slum at Cuffe Parade. The
Division Bench in fact had illustratively made such categorical observations in the
context of the slums at prime lands in Mumbai like Cuffe Parade, Pedder Road,
Malabar Hill etc. which are to the effect 'We test such assertion of the slum dwellers
on an illustration namely, assuming a Government or private land which is
encroached, is situated at a prime locality namely at Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade,
Pedder Road or Malabar Hill in Mumbai. Can the encroachers of such land, in law,
assert that they need to be rehabilitated at the same place or area ? The answer
would be an obvious 'No'.'
5. The decision of this Court in Bishop John Rodriques (supra), which
considers the other decisions which we have referred hereinabove, has been upheld
by the Supreme Court in Saldanha Real Estate (P) Ltd. vs. Bishop John Rodriques5.
6. As noted above, the land in question in the present proceedings is 33 acres
of prime Government land situated at Cuffe Parade/Colaba in South Mumbai,
which was permitted to be encroached and now sought to be privately developed
under the garb of rehabilitation of the slum scheme, i.e., rehabilitation of the slum
dwellers and also construction of resale buildings. This is a usual modus operandi
to siphon off valuable public lands. We need not delve as to what would be the
5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
cost of each unit in a area like Colaba/Cuffe Parade. The value of the land and any
development thereon just needs to be imagined.
7. When such land of about 33 acres is proposed to be utilized for slum
redevelopment, we wonder whether there is any "Cabinet decision" or whether any
approval taken by the SRA from the Cabinet, for disposal of such vast land to be
utilized for the slum scheme considering the settled principles of Constitutional
governance and morality. This irrespective of the fact as to what the Slum Act
would provide. The Slum Act in such context can never override the basic
compliance of what is expected by such constitutional principles and its strict
adherence by those in authority. Thus, under the garb of any schemes under the
Slum Act, such large and valuable public largesse cannot be taken away and
deprived of public utility and public interest.
8. This is a case where the rights of the slum dwellers on such prime
government land cannot outweigh and/or be higher than the public interest, for
such vast land to be utilized only for public/Government purpose. Such prime
land cannot be permanently taken away from the public pool of lands as also been
thrown open for private development, would be the moot question, certainly
arising for consideration. Prima facie any other view would amount to a fraud on
the Constitution.
9. We, accordingly, request the learned Advocate General to appear in the
present proceedings. We also direct the State Government to place on record an
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
affidavit as to whether there is any well considered Cabinet decision for such land
to be allotted for development of slums and/or any attempt on the part of the
Collector, Mumbai to obtain any such decision at the highest level of the
Government. If there is no such decision, we have the gravest of doubt whether
any redevelopment of these slums can at all be permitted to happen, of such prime
government land of 33 acres and more particularly considering the observations
which are made by this Court in the aforesaid decisions as referred by us.
10. We may also observe that the issue which has been brought to the Court is
on account of a strict view of the matter being taken by the Ministry of Defence in
not granting NOC for such development, as assailed in the present proceedings.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all such issues need to be
examined, however, in our opinion, apart from NOC and the location of the land
in question, the concern of the Ministry of Defence would also be quite significant
and on which the Ministry of Defence, Government of India would be required to
be heard considering the location of the land near the defence establishments.
12. Let reply affidavit to this petition be placed on record by the Ministry of
Defence as also of the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and the
the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department of the State Government
as also of the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, within 10
days from today in the light of the observations as made by us hereinabove. Copy
of the reply affidavit be served on the advocate for the petitioner well in advance.
1& 3.WP2926_2025.DOC
13. With the aforesaid observations, we adjourn the proceedings to 15 October,
2025 (H.O.B.).
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Date: 01/10/2025 20:10:28
