[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
University Of Mumbai Through Its ... vs Chief Executive Officer Slum ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:4845-DB 903.WP(L).21025.2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21025 OF 2025
University of Mumbai through its Registrar Petitioner
versus
1. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA,
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
3. The deputy Collector, SRA,
4. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corpn through
Municipal Commissioner,
5. Track Estates Pvt.Ltd. Respondents
_______
Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar a/w Ms. Raufa Shaikh for the Petitioner in WPL / 21025 /
2025
Mr. Prathmesh Seth a/w Joseph Fernandes a/w Hitesh Kalbate and Trupti Gosavi
i/by Joseph Farnandes for the Petitioner in WPL / 32185 / 2025
Mr. Vinit Naik, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G. P. for the State of
Maharashtra in WPL 21025/2025
Ms. Sheetal Malvankar, AGP for the State of Maharashtra in WPL / 32185 / 2025
Mr. Anil Singh, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Akshay Vyas a/w Ms. Nidhi Chauhan
a/w Mr. Akshay Naidu i/by Mr. Vishwanath Patil for the Respondent No. 1 to 3 /
SRA in WPL / 21025/2025 and for Respondent No. 1 & 2 in WPL / 32185 /
2025
Ms. Pushpa Yadav for the Respondent No. 4 / BMC in WPL / 21025/2025
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rahul Arora a/w Ms. Radhika
Kabani a/w Ms. Shital Mishra i/by Jeet Gandhi for the Respondent No. 5 in WPL /
21025 / 2025 and for Respondent No. 3 in WPL/32185 / 2025
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar (Through V.C.) i/by Akash Gupta for the Respondent
No. 6 in WPL / 21025 / 2025
MANISH Digitally signed by
MANISH
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Sarvesh Dixit i/by Akash Gupta for the Respondent No.
SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.02.23
10:37:55 +0530
7 in WPL / 21025/2025 and for the Respondent No. 4 in WPL / 32185 / 2025.
_______
Page 1 of 5
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:56:39 :::
903.WP(L).21025.2025.DOC
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 20th February 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for following substantive reliefs :
"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the provisions of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
are not applicable to the lands specifically acquired under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, for the designated public use and in the larger public
interest,
B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare Section 3C of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971, as amended, to the extent that it permits declaration of lands owned by the
State Government, local authorities, or statutory public bodies (including
universities) as "Slum Rehabilitation Areas" without the consent or active
participation of such landowning authority, is unconstitutional, being violative of
Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and as such strike it down;
C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold and declare the following part
of Section 3C viz. "...thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, in such Slum Rehabilitation Area, the permission or the
No Objection Certificate of the land-owning authority or agency shall not be
required" as violative inter alia of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of
India, and hence unconstitutional, void and had in law and as such strike it down;
And further,
Any Rule(s), Government Resolution, Circular, Notification or Development
Control Regulation (including but not limited to DCR 33(10) and Regulation
17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034) that dispenses with the requirement of No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the land-owning public authority and/or authorizes
deemed consent for purposes of slum redevelopment on public lands, is ultra vires
the parent Act and unconstitutional and as such strike it down;
D. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold and declare part of 33(10) of
Development Control Regulations 2034 : Part VI : 1.11 viz. "... In addition to
above, the Developer/Co-op. Housing Society shall pay premium at the rate of
25% of ASR of the year of issue of LOI, in respect of SRS proposed to be
undertaken on lands owned by Government, Semi-Government undertakings and
Local Bodies and premium shall go to land owning authority such as MHADA,
MCGM, MMRDA as the case may be, as prescribed by the land-owning authority.
The premium installment so recovered shall be remitted to concern land owing
authority within 30 days from the date recovery..." as ultra vires of the parent
legislation and further violative inter alia of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India, and hence unconstitutional, void and bad in law and as such
strike it down;
M.S.Thatte
903.WP(L).21025.2025.DOC
E. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold and declare part of 33(10) of
Development Control Regulations 2034; Part VII : 2.8 viz "... As soon as the
approval is given to the Project, the NOC for building permission of the
landowning authority shall be given in respect of that slum located on lands
belonging to any department, undertaking, agency of the State Govt. including
MHADA, or any local self-Government such as the MCGM within 60 days after
the intimation of such approval to the Project is communicated. In the event of its
refusal to grant NOC, reasons thereof shall be stated and in the event of its not
being given within the period, it shall be deemed to have been given "as ultra vires
the parent legislation and also violative inter alia of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India, and hence unconstitutional, void and bad in law and as such
strike it down;
F. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to further hold and declare part of 33(10) of
Development Control Regulations 2034 that defines slum to include those
censused as slum rehabilitation areas for the lands which are acquired for a public
body or institution and for a specific designated use, as ultra vires of the parent
legislation and further violative inter alia of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the
Constitution of India, and hence unconstitutional, void and bad in law and as such
strike it down;
G. Alternatively, read down the aforesaid impugned Act, Sections and
Regulations to not to apply to the lands which are specifically acquired for the
public statutory bodies and institutions like petitioner university and which are
meant and earmarked for the designated land use for larger public interest;
H. Alternatively, declare that the Slum Act and its provisions, including Section
3C, shall not apply to lands owned or acquired for public purposes by statutory
authorities, public institutions, or local bodies, unless :
a. such authority or institution has given its express and informed consent,
and
b. the land is either formally acquired by the State in accordance with Section
14, and alternate contiguous land is allotted;
I. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to, in exercise of its inherent powers under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, issue a Writ of Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the
impugned status of the subject matter lands in Exhibit A as censused slum and
also quash and set aside the impugned slum declaration as made under Section 4
of the Slum Act qua the lands in Exhibit A;
J. Further be pleased to, in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate
direction restraining the Respondents from implementing or proceeding with any
slum declaration and/or slum rehabilitation scheme on lands belonging to the
Petitioner or other public authorities acquired for public purposes, without due
process, including prior notice, consultation, and consent of the landowning
authority, and without necessary compliance with the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966;
K. Alternatively, read down the impugned Act and provisions to require :
M.S.Thatte
903.WP(L).21025.2025.DOC
a. Detailed Guidelines for classifying the land for `Vital Public Project
Purpose',
b. Mandatory notice, consultation and hearing to public landowners for
whose benefit the land is acquired,
c. Prior consent of public authority for schemes on their land,
d. Compensation or premium in all cases of public land use,
e. Judicial review of 'vital public purpose' before acquisition;
L. Further be pleased to, in exercise of its inherent powers under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate direction to the
respondent State of Maharashtra to produce on record the land acquisition awards,
Sanad, office notes and relevant correspondence with respect to the subject matter
lines as mentioned in the Exhibit A and immediate measures to remove the
encroachments from the same land parcels;
M. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to, in exercise of its inherent powers under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India issue a Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or
Direction directing the respondent no.1 to forthwith delete the subject matter plots
(mentioned in Exhibit A) from the impugned Letter of Intent dated 17 th June
2022 and also from Slum Declarations and further issue a Writ of Certiorari
partially or wholly quashing and setting aside the impugned letter of intent dated
17th June 2022 qua the subject matter plots at Exhibit A;
N. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to, in exercise of its powers under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or
Direction directing the respondent no.1, 2 and 8 to forthwith demarcate, delineate
and separate the plots belonging to the petitioner as specified in Exhibit A and to
handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the said plots to the petitioner
university."
2. On the earlier occasion on 17th December 2026, after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, we had passed the following order :
"1. We have heard Mr.Narvankar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the
learned senior counsel for the respondents as length on the present proceedings.
The entire complexion of the issues were discussed. In pursuance of the
discussion, Mr.Narvankar has fairly stated that he would intend to take
instructions from the petitioner-University.
2. Part Heard. Accordingly stand over to 20 February 2026."
3. On the backdrop of the above order, today Mr.Narvankar, learned
counsel for the Petitioner states that he has written instructions to withdraw the
petition, however, the relevant land of the Petitioner as described in the Sanad
dated 26th October 1987 be permitted to be demarcated, in view of certain
M.S.Thatte
903.WP(L).21025.2025.DOC
encroachments. The written instructions dated 20 th February 2026 are taken on
record.
4. There is no objection to such request as made on behalf of the
Petitioner. We accordingly direct the City Survey Officer, to undertake the
appropriate demarcation of the land mentioned in the Sanad, as may be applied by
the Petitioner University. We also direct the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to remove the
encroachments, if any, on the Petitioner-University land as described in the Sanad,
if so identified, after demarcation. We keep open all contentions of the private
respondents in respect of demarcation, in the event of any issue in regard to such
demarcation.
5. Thus, the writ petition does not require adjudication any further in
view of the stand taken by the Petitioner-University. It is accordingly allowed to be
withdrawn, however, subject to the above observations. Interim order stands
vacated. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
