[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Cheryl Soares And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal ... on 1 April, 2026
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:15440-DB
13-wp 8254-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8254 OF 2023
Cheryl Soares & Anr. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioners.
Smt. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Rutuja Shedge a/w. Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal for
Respondent Nos.2 & 3-SRA.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 1st APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners claim to be the co-sharers of the land which is
subject matter of this petition admeasuring approximately 2298.6 sq. mtrs.
According to learned counsel for the petitioners, a slum scheme was
submitted by respondent No.4-Society which came to the knowledge of the
petitioners some time in September, 2021. The petitioners, therefore,
applied under the provisions of Right to Information Act seeking details
from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA' for short). The petitioners
have approached this Court for the following substantive reliefs in terms of
prayer clauses (A) and (B) which read thus:-
13-wp 8254-23.doc
"A. That this Hon'ble Court may be please to call for the record
and proceedings in respect of the Slum Scheme submitted by the
Respondent No.4 and 5 and after examining legality and/or
validity and/or propriety of their proposal, the same may kindly be
quashed and set-aside and thereby reject the Respondent No.4 and
5's proposal with costs;
B. That the Hon'ble Court by an appropriate Writ and/or Order
direct the Respondent No.2 to follow due process of law for
implementing the Slum Scheme over the said land."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Slum Scheme
has been implemented on the said society illegally. The petitioners had
approached the SRA but the SRA has refused to furnish any details or take
any action in accordance with the provisions of Slum Act. It is further
submitted that without the consent of the petitioners, who are the owners
of the suit property, the Slum Scheme has been implemented and therefore
appropriate directions be issued in this petition as prayed for.
4. We have perused the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.2 and 3-SRA. The Affidavit has been affirmed by Shri Balasaheb
Tidake, then working as Deputy Collector (Special Cell)/SRA on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 and 3-SRA. In paragraph No.4 (b), respondent Nos.2
and 3 have taken a stand thus:
"(b) The petitioner raised queries and filed letters to Respondent
no.2 regarding the consent of the owner before the land goes for
acquisition. To which the Tehsildar-2 SRA, had issued the letter
dated 03rd March 2022 designated to Ms. Cheryl Sores (not
exhibited by the petitioner in the present petition but attached at pg.
no.88 of the said petition copy) wherein it has been clearly
mentioned that as per the records of SRA the said land was never
acquired by the authorities of SRA under the provisions of Slums Act
And for the details regarding the consent letter of the land owners of
the said land they are requested to approach Executive Engineer III
13-wp 8254-23.doc
SRA. (annexed and marked herewith as "Annexure-A is the copy of
Letter dated 03.03.2022 issued by Tehsildar-2 SRA")."
5. We are afraid that the present petition lacks material particulars to
consider granting any relief in favour of the petitioners. The SRA has
taken a clear stand that the land has never acquired by the SRA under the
provisions of Slum Act. Further, for the details regarding consent letter of
the land owners of the said land, the petitioners are requested to approach
the Executive Engineer III, SRA.
6. The petitioners want this Court to issue appropriate directions to the
SRA for placing on record the necessary information regarding the Slum
Scheme. It is not possible for us in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into such an exercise. The
petitioner may resort to appropriate remedies for gathering necessary
information so far as the said project is concerned. It is also open for the
petitioners to approach the Executive Engineer III, SRA as stated in the
Affidavit. If the petitioners approach the Executive Engineer III, SRA, the
Executive Engineer to process the representation made by the petitioners
expeditiously and in accordance with law.
7. In the light of the stand taken by the SRA in this petition, it is not
possible for this Court to issue any directions against the SRA for action to
be taken in terms of what is prayed for in this petition. The petitioners'
remedy to proceed against the respondent-Society is kept open after they
13-wp 8254-23.doc
secure better particulars before the appropriate authority. It is obviously
open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority for initiating
action as it is the case of the SRA that the said land was never acquired by
the authorities of the SRA under the provisions of the Slum Act.
8. Keeping the contentions in this petition open with liberty to file a
fresh petition, the petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
