[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jasani Realty Private Limited vs Urban Development Department ... on 16 March, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-OS:6675-DB
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8104 OF 2026
1. Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Reg. No.B.O.M/G.N.L. 909
Through its authorized signatory
Having its office at Sankalpasiddhi,
Kai. Gopalbuva Dandekar Chowk,
Khar Danda, Mumbai - 400 052.
2. Danda Koli Samaj
Reg. No.MSM 613, 2014 G.B.B.S.D.
Through its authorized signatory
Having its office at Sankalpasiddhi,
Kai. Gopalbuva Dandekar Chowk,
Khar Danda, Mumbai - 400 052. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Urban Development Department
Government of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Through the Chief Executive Officer
Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
3. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Head Office, Mahapalika Marg,
Opp. C.S.M.T. Station,
Mumbai - 400 001.
4. State of Maharashtra through the
Department of Fisheries
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:32:03 :::
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
Ground Floor, Sir S. R. Marg
J. N. Heredia Road, Ballard Estate,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
5. District Collector, Mumbai Suburban
District, 10th floor, Administrative Bldg.,
Government Colony No.7
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051.
6. Jasani Realty Private Limited
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
Registered Office at 23, Morvi House,
28/30, Goa Street, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai - 400 038.
7. Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti CHSL
A Society registered under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1961 under Registration
No.BOM[W-H-West]/HSG/
[TO]/4277/88-89, Plot bearing
CTS No.D/1105(pt) and 1079(pt)
Khar Danda, Khar (West)
Mumbai - 400 052. ... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.8730 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8104 OF 2026
Jasani Realty Private Limited
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having registered address at
23, Morvi House, 28/30
Goa Street, Ballard Estate
Mumbai - 400 038. ... Applicant
2
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:32:03 :::
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit
Reg. No.B.O.M/G.N.L. 909
Through its authorized signatory,
Having its office at Sankalpasiddhi,
Kai. Gopalbuva Dandekar Chaowk,
Khar Danda, Mumbai - 400 052.
2. Danda Koli Samaj
Reg. No.MSM 613, 2014 G.B.B.S.D.
Through its authorized signatory,
Sankalp Siddhi, Sankalpsiddhi,
Kai. Gopalbuva Dandekar Chaowk,
Khar Danda, Mumbai - 400 052. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. Urban Development Department
Government of Maharashtra
Through Additional Chief Secretary
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
The Chief Executive Officer
Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai - 400 051.
3. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Head Office, Mahapalika Marg,
Opp. C.S.T. Station,
Mumbai - 400 001.
4. State of Maharashtra
Through the Department of Fisheries,
Ground Floor, Sir S. R. Marg
J. N. Heredia Road, Ballard Estate,
Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
3
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:32:03 :::
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
5. District Collector,
Mumbai Suburban District,
10th floor, Administrative Building,
Govt. Colony No.7
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
6. Jasani Realty Private Limited
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956,
Having registered address at
23, Morvi House, 28/30,
Goa Street, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai - 400 038.
7. Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti CHSL
A Society registered under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1961
Under Registration No.BOM[W-H-West]/HSG)
[TO]/4277/88-89
Situated at plot of land bearing
C.T.S. No.1105 [pt], 1079 A [pt]
of village - Danda, MSD, Khar Danda
Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052. ... Respondents
****
Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Shraddha Halapnavar,
for the petitioners.
Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader, for the respondents-
State.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Ms. Aarushi Yadav (Through V.C.), Mr.
Aatish Tayade and Ms. Rutuja Shedge, for respondent No.2-SRA.
Ms. Vaishali Ugale, for the respondents-BMC.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr.
Santosh Pathak i/b. Law Origin, for respondent No.6.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Nimish Lotlikar i/b. Mr. Nimish Lotlikar,
for respondent No.7.
****
4
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2026 20:32:03 :::
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th MARCH, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs.
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.02.2026
at EXHIBIT- B on page 59-86 passed by the Court Appointed
Committee;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.03.2022
passed by the CEO, SRA and the notification dated 17.05.2022 which
is annexed hereto at EXHIBIT- M on page 233-348 to the extent that
the Developer has been permitted to encroach upon the land in
excess of 2397.70 sq. mts. by taking over land including the wall, the
road and the two structures, situated on the land reserved for fish
drying yard and allied activities;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction restraining the Respondents from carrying out any
development work on the land covering the wall, road and the two
structures as shown in map at EXHIBIT-O on page 279 herein;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to carry out appropriate
boundary demarcation of the CTS No. D/1105 by excluding the area
covered by the road, the wall and the two structures from the SRA;
(e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent No. 2 directing the removal of
encroachment made by the Respondent No. 5 (Developer) on CTS
No. D/1105 (Pt);
(f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondent No.5 to restore the original position as
far as the wall, the road and the two structures are concerned;,
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners claim
to be the original inhabitants of the Khar Danda Koliwada Khar
(West), Mumbai 400052 and are members of the fishing
community, primarily engaged in the traditional fishing activities.
In this petition the petitioners are primarily concerned with CTS
No. D/1105. These lands constitute their primary source of
livelihood. The petitioners have been exercising their rights over
the said parcel of land by virtue of customary and easementary
rights. Their village, Danda Koliwada, is a traditional fishing
village in the western side of Khar.
3. The petitioner No.1 is a registered Society under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, established in the year 1980. It
was formed with the objective of promoting the development of
fisheries and the welfare of the fisher community. Petitioner No.2
is also a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 have been actively
involved in implementing various government schemes for the
benefit of the fisherfolk, including subsidies for fishing nets and
diesel for mechanized and high-speed fishing vessels. They have
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
also been engaged in various social welfare activities like raising
and addressing the welfare concerns of the fishing community of
Khar Danda Koliwada.
4. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order and report
dated 24/02/2026 prepared by this Court appointed Committee
('Committee', for short). According to learned counsel, the
submissions of the petitioners have been completely ignored by the
Committee in the fact finding report.
5. As indicated earlier, the Petitioners are concerned with
Plot No. CTS D/1105 located at Khar Danda, which has been
reserved for the Fish Drying Yard and allied activities under the
various Development Plans from 1966 onwards. There is no
dispute about the reservation of the said plot. Ms. Gayatri Singh,
learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Developer has not
responded to the issue of demarcation of the slum boundaries,
except for saying that the dispute regarding the demarcation
cannot be decided in writ proceedings.
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
6. It is the petitioner's case that the boundary of the slum
has to be demarcated strictly in accordance with the Development
Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 ('DCPR' for short) based
on the reservation shown in the Development Plan. In the written
submissions dated 12/01/2026 filed by the petitioners, along with
the compilation of documents, the petitioners have pointed out
that initially CTS No. 1105, which was earlier numbered as CTS
No. 423, was shown as 'Open Recreation Ground' in the Tikka
Sheet (Survey Sheet) and the said plot of land is owned by the
State Government. The Petitioners have also relied upon the
photographs from 1966 onwards which show that CTS No. 1105
was an open plot of land and was being used by the fisherfolk for
several decades for fish drying and allied activities. Prior to 1966,
the Petitioners have also relied upon a Circular dated 10/12/1963
issued by the Revenue & Forests Department granting non-
agricultural land near the seashore for housing to fisherfolk and
fish and net drying and allied activities. On 10/12/1965, the
Revenue & Forests Department modified the words "near seashore"
with the words "within or adjoining the fishing villages". The
Petitioners have relied upon the subsequent Development Plans to
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
show that the said plot was reserved for the fish drying and other
allied activities. In the Development Plan of 1966, CTS D/1105 is
shown as green open space. In 1981, the plot of CTS D/1105 was
shown as reserved for the fish drying and allied activities.
Subsequent to the reservation, since attempts were being made to
encroach upon the said land, several representations were made
on behalf of the petitioners to various authorities to prevent the
encroachments. Consequent to the said representations being
made on 04/02/1983, the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue &
Forests Department issued a Circular under Section 22 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966 ("MLRC", for short)
authorizing all the District Collectors to allot open Government
land for certain public purposes. The said Circular also specifically
recognized the necessity of earmarking open spaces within
Colonies of fisherfolk for repairing boats and other allied fishing
related uses. The issuance of this Circular was thus initiated to
safeguard the occupational needs of the traditional fishing
community by ensuring that the specific Government lands were
preserved and reserved exclusively for fishing related activities
thereby protecting their livelihood and customary usage of such
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
land.
7. It is further case of the petitioners that in 1986, since the
encroachment started taking place on parts of the reserved plots,
the Assistant Director of Fisheries addressed a letter to Deputy
Collector, Mumbai Sub-urban District (MSD), pointing out that the
said land has been reserved for the fish drying and allied activities
and that necessary action should be taken to remove several
unauthorized encroachments. Again, a letter dated 08/01/1988
was issued to the representatives of the fishing community by the
Revenue & Forests Department stating that the Additional
Collector (MSD) had been instructed to take immediate steps to
allot the subject lands for fishing and allied activities. This was
again reiterated by letter dated 17/03/1988 issued by the Assistant
Director, Fisheries. All these letters and documents regarding the
encroachments on the reserved portion of the land were placed
before the Committee and are included in the list of documents
filed by the petitioners. This was pointed out to indicate that no
attempts were made by the petitioners to prevent the
encroachments.
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
8. Subsequently, Development Plan of 1991 showed the CTS
D/1105 as being reserved for fishing complex, fish and net drying
yard, ice factory, diesel pump and other activities. This reservation
was confirmed by the Minister for Fisheries by a letter dated
27/06/2000 informing the petitioners that the subject land had
been reserved for fisheries and allied activities and that a proposal
for housing on those lands could not be acceded to.
9. In 2018, a substantial modification to Schedule (B) of the
Development Plan of 2034 was proposed under Section 31 of the
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP', for
short). The said modification proposed to alter the reservation of
part of the land bearing CTS No. D/1101/A, D/1102 and D/1105
from 'fish and net drying yard' to 'housing'. This modification,
however, remained merely a proposal and the respondents were
fully aware that the entire plot of CTS No. D/1105 continued to be
reserved for fish drying and allied activities. Reliance is placed on
the Development Plan remarks issued by the BMC. Since
substantial modification was sought by altering the reservation
from 'fish and net drying yard' to 'housing', the petitioners
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
challenged the said substantial modification by filing Writ Petition
No. 2701 of 2019. At the time of filing the said Petition, neither
the Developer nor the Slum Society had moved any application nor
was there any declaration under the Slum Act identifying the
subject land as slum and hence the said land could not have been
declared as SR area under the Slum Act. The proposed substantial
modification covered the same portion of the plot which is now
presently covered under the SR area.
10. It is the petitioners case that the Developer submitted a
proposal sometime in August 2022, during the time when the said
portion was affected by the reservation. The respondent-Developer
and the Society were therefore fully aware that the proposal for
"housing" had not attained any finality and was merely proposed in
2018 to replace the portion of land reserved for 'fish and net
drying activities' with housing. This proposal was finally rejected in
the year 2022.
11. The petition challenging the substantial modification
came up for hearing on several dates and ultimately on
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
18/03/2025 the Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted a
notification dated 12/09/2022 which had rejected the proposal of
converting the reserved portion of land from 'fish and net drying
activities' to 'housing' and consequently, the lands retained their
original reservation of fish drying and allied activities as per the
revised plan of 2034.
12. By order dated 18/03/2025, this Court noted that prayer
clause (a) to the petition, which had challenged the proposed
substantial modification, had been worked out in view of the
notification dated 12/09/2022. Meanwhile, the Developer and the
Society on behalf of the slum dwellers sought impleadment in the
said petition by filing separate Review Petitions bearing Review
Petition No. (L) 11201 of 2025 and Review Petition (L) No. 13092
of 2025 respectively. By order dated 18/09/2025, the Review
Petitions filed by the Developer and the Society were allowed and
the order dated 18/03/2025 was recalled and the Petition was
restored to file. Subsequently, the petitioners were allowed to
amend the petition by order dated 19/11/2025, by impleading the
Developer and the slum society as respondent nos. 6 and 7
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
respectively.
13. Meanwhile, during the pendency of Writ Petition No.
2701 of 2019, the SRA, Respondent No.2 passed an order dated
17/05/2022, declaring part of CTS No.D/1105 and CTS
No.D/1079A covering an area of 3449.26 sq. mtrs. as SR area. This
declaration, according to the petitioners, is contrary to the MRTP
Act, the DCPR and the final Development Plan. Even prior to the
declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Act, no survey was
carried out to demarcate the boundary of the slum area and the
area which was reserved for fish and net drying and allied
activities which included the road and the wall. Though reference
is made in the said order that a demarcation has been carried out,
details of the same were not furnished to the petitioners nor was
the boundary demarcation of the slum area done in the presence
of the petitioners.
14. At the hearing before the SRA, objections had been raised
by the petitioners. The SRA was fully aware of the said writ
petition, since a copy of the petition had been received by them
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
much prior to the hearing before the SRA.
15. Despite the existence of statutory reservation, the SRA
arbitrarily decided to declare the said land as SR area by
overlooking the reservation and by not even recording the same.
Even though requests were made to furnish details of the survey
and the boundary demarcation, the same were not furnished to the
petitioners, rendering the hearing a mere formality. The SRA was
duty bound to exercise due diligence and act in accordance with
the sanctioned planning documents.
16. At the hearing before the SRA, it was submitted by the
slum society that the area proposed to be declared as slum
rehabilitation area covered 135 structures, and it was further
wrongly submitted by the slum society that the subject land was
not reserved for fish and net drying and allied activities. The
hearing was conducted on the assumption that the portion of land
on which the SR area was proposed was not reserved for fish and
net drying activities. Subsequently, without considering the
objections of the petitioners and without furnishing details of the
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
satellite map and the survey purportedly conducted by the SRA, a
total area of 3449.26 sq.mtrs. was declared as SR area. This
included 26.41 square meters of land on CTS No. D/1079A.
17. It is the petitioners' case that it was only at the hearing of
the Writ Petition No.2701 of 2019, that the petitioners were
furnished with a copy of a slum plan, which wrongly showed the
slum boundary as including the wall and the road. It was for the
first time that the petitioners came to know that the SR area
covered not only the two structures of the fisherfolk towards the
North of the map but it also covered the road and the wall which
fell within the reserved plot for the fisherfolk. Two of the
structures of the fisherfolk had wrongly been included as slum
structures, even though these structures were being used for fish
drying and storing other equipment. These structures were
illegally demolished on 23/09/2025. Prior to this, attempts were
made to demolish a part of the wall on 08/06/2025 and
subsequently the concrete road. The boundary map prepared by
the Developer and SRA wrongly includes, the two structures, the
wall and the road. As a result, there was a substantial increase in
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
the slum area from 2397.70 sq. mtrs. to 3449.26 sq. mtrs.
18. The petitioners were therefore constrained to file Writ
Petition No. 3698 of 2025 challenging the CEO, SRA order dated
17/05/2022. Since the Developer continued with demolishing the
structures of the petitioners including the concrete access road and
the wall, the petitioners filed Interim Application (L) No. 40997 of
2025 inter alia seeking reliefs to restrain the respondents from
obtaining any development permissions on the said reserved fish
and net drying plot bearing CTS No. D/1105. Both the Writ
Petitions along with Interim Application were clubbed together
and a common order dated 17/12/2025 came to be passed
directing the respondents to maintain status quo and restraining
them from taking coercive action in respect of the disputed plot.
The petitioners allege that the Developer continued the demolition
of a part of the wall, concrete access road used by the fisherfolk
and the two structures. It was also submitted that the Developer
was illegally encroaching upon a portion of the reserved land of
the petitioners which included the wall, the road and the two
structures totally admeasuring about 1500 sq. mtrs.
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
19. After hearing all the parties, this Court by order dated
17/12/2025 disposed of the Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2025 and
Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2019. The said order reads thus:
"1. This is a case where on one hand the Petitioners are asserting
traditional rights in respect of user of CTS No.1105. The land
adjoining to the land used by the Petitioner is developed as slum by
Respondent no.7 by appointing Respondent no.6 as a developer.
Admittedly both the lands appear to be government lands. The State
Government did not protect its lands and therefore by encroaching
upon them slum was formed, and which is a protected slum, is now
being developed in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
(Slum Act') read with Development Control Regulation 33(10) of the
Development Control and Promotion Regulations. The developer
appointed by Respondent no.7 Hanuman Nagar CHS Ltd is Jasani
Realty Private Limited. The dispute in the present proceedings is.
inter alia, of interference with the rights of the Petitioners in part of
the land CTS No.1105, being traditionally used by the Petitioner, for
drying fish and fishing nets, being encroached and/or being utilized
under the slum scheme. A plan to that effect as to what is the nature
of the said encroachment, according to the Petitioner, is annexed at
page 62 of the Interim Application. Such area of the said land used
by the Petitioners for drying fish as also the fishing nets, as
encroached by the slum scheme, is stated to be about 1,500
sq.meters, which according to the Petitioner is a substantial land.
Thus, the dispute is purely of demarcation and as to whether the
traditional rights of the Petitioners, as contended by the Petitioners,
are in any manner affected by the slum redevelopment in question.
The case of the Petitioners is also that an exercise of the demarcation
of the said land in accordance with law has not taken place and if
any such exercise is undertaken, the same is without notice to the
Petitioners, and cannot be recognized in law. The Petitioner case is
disputed on behalf of Respondent nos 6 and 7 on the basis of reply
affidavit as also on the basis of a recent certificate being issued by the
District Inspector of Land Records annexed as Exhibit B, Page 391 to
the affidavit filed by Respondent no.6, as also on the basis of slum
plan.
2. Be that as it may, we do not intend to delve on the factual dispute
on the boundary of the respective lands, more particularly as both the
lands are belonging to the State Government, in respect of which on
one hand the Petitioner asserts traditional rights and on the other
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
hand the land is being redeveloped a a slum.
3. In these circumstances, the issue needs to be resolved by the
owner of the land i.e. the State Government and in consultation with
the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Officer
4. We accordingly direct the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department along with the Collector, Mumbai
Suburban District and the Chief Executive Officer, Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme, to resolve such issue by granting an
opportunity of hearing to both the parties and also after considering
it appropriate to have fresh demarcation of the Governmentland in
accordance with law considering the traditional rights enjoyed by the
Petitioners. This is imperative for the reason that it is the State
Government's land and it would be the obligation of the State
Government not only in relation to the slum scheme as it is owner of
the land to resolve such issues considering the peculiar facts. It
cannot be that the owner of the land State Government is oblivious to
what is happening to its prime land. We accordingly direct that the
Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department as
also the Chief Executive Officer of SRA shall convene a meeting
within ten days from today with notice to all the parties, as also
undertake a site visit and issue such appropriate orders in accordance
with law, which would consider rights of both the parties.
5. Let the entire proceedings of this petition be made available to the
Committee of the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, the Collector (MSD) and the Chief Executive Officer,
SRA. The Committee would be free to seek appropriate records and
proceedings from the parties.
6. Thus, on one hand it is the rights of the encroachers who have
proposed a slum scheme on Government land and on the other hand
that of the Petitioners who are asserting traditional rights. The
impasse as ordered needs to be resolved by the State Government in
accordance with law. Till appropriate demarcation is made and an
appropriate order is passed, no coercive action shall be taken in
respect of the land in the Petitioner's use. Status-quo in regards to the
subject land CTS No.1105 be maintained till the Committee of Chief
Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Chief Executive
Officer, SRA takes appropriate decision. It is clarified that the status
quo order is in respect of subject patch of land only and not in
relation to any other land.
7. Let an appropriate decision be taken on or before 10 th January
2026. In the event any decision adverse to the Petitioner is taken, the
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
same shall not be given effect to for a period of ten days from the
date of communication of such order.
8. We accordingly dispose of these writ petition in terms of the
aforesaid orders, however, for reporting compliance, we make it
returnable on 10th January 2026.
9. Interim Application and Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
10. In the event need so arises, liberty to the Petitioners to revive the
petitions."
20. Thus the main grievance of the petitioners is that there
was encroachment covering an area of about 1500 sq. mtrs and
that no demarcation of the boundary of the slum area had been
carried out. The Committee constituted by this Court heard the
matter on 06/02/2026.
21. Learned Senior Advocate submits that direction issued by
this Court specifically pertains to the encroachment as shown in
the map produced by the petitioners. It is submitted that the
Committee has failed to consider the issue of encroachment and
has further exceeded its jurisdiction by considering issues not
pertaining to the subject matter of the Petition. The Committee has
wrongly included in its consideration, the area admeasuring
519.30 sq. mtrs. which pertains to a different area claimed by
another Developer and has nothing to do with the area covered in
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
the map relied upon by the petitioners. By doing so, the
Committee has granted development permission to a Developer
whose proposed development scheme did not form a part of the
order dated 17/12/2025 nor were any submissions made in this
regard before the Committee. The petitioners were also not
informed that the plot admeasuring 519.30 sq. mtrs. would also be
considered by the Committee. It is submitted that at the hearing,
the petitioners found it difficult to refer to the documents since the
3-member Committee did not have the written submissions and
documents submitted by the petitioners before them. Yet the
Committee has reproduced at great length the submissions of the
Developer while cursorily referring only to submissions made by
the petitioners in their additional submissions dated 06/02/2026.
The Committee has also exceeded its jurisdiction by considering an
issue not covered in the order dated 17/12/2025, nor has any
report on the site visit been submitted, though photographs of the
visit have been annexed to the report. The Committee has
permitted the Developer to develop the land covering the wall,
access road and the two structures, contrary to the provisions of
the DCPR. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
submitted that the Committee completely ignored the
documentary evidence produced by the petitioners regarding their
customary rights which were shown to have been established not
only during the colonial rule, but were carried forward into the
post-independence era which was when the said customary rights
came to be recognized through various circulars,
orders/notifications by the Government.
22. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the open
land in CTS No. D/1105 has continuously been shown as land
reserved for fish drying and allied activities, which included
Fishing Complex, Fish and Net Drying Yard, Ice Factory, Diesel
Pump and other activities. This reservation can be seen in the
Development Plans of 1991 and 2034. Though this is admitted by
the Committee at Sr. No. 3 of its conclusion, it proceeded to hand
over the excess land to the Developer, contrary to the provisions of
DCPR. Further, though the Committee has also correctly recorded
that the Property Card of the said plot indicates that it is
Government owned property, it nevertheless decided to hand over
the excess land, admeasuring about 3449.26 sq. mtrs., to the
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
Developer without giving any finding regarding the encroachment
by the Developer as shown in map at page 62 of the Interim
Application. Though the Committee has annexed photographs
showing their visit to the site, no findings have been given
regarding the encroachments by the Developer on the road and the
wall, nor was any investigation carried out. The committee was
required to measure the road and the wall which would have
clearly shown that excess land had been encroached upon by the
Developer. Learned Senior Advocate submits that from the slum
plan prepared by the Developer and the SRA, it can be seen that
buildings will be constructed on the land made vacant upon
demolition of the wall and the access road. This area, being non-
buildable, is clearly covered under Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii)
of DCPR, 2034 and the developer is therefore in breach thereof.
23. It is further submitted that the Committee has failed to
consider the submissions made by the petitioners to the effect that
a Lease Agreement dated 31/07/1992 was signed between
MHADA and the Society of slum dwellers. The Agreement shows
that the slum project was limited to an area admeasuring 2397.70
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
sq. mtrs. MHADA gave its NOC for 2397.70 sq. mtrs. situated on
CTS No. D/1105(Pt). Though this is an admitted fact, there is no
explanation as to how this area was increased from 2397.70 sq.
mtrs. to 3449.26 sq. mtrs. It is the submission of learned Senior
Advocate that though the petitioners had specifically averred that
they were not opposed to the SRA Scheme, so long as such a
scheme does not encroach upon additional land which is used by
the fisherfolk for their livelihood; as also does not violate the
provisions of the DCPR. It is further submitted that though it is an
admitted position that the wall forms a part of the reserved plot of
fish and net drying area, the Developer went ahead and illegally
demolished the wall and soon thereafter started carrying out piling
work on the said plot. The Committee has failed to consider the
encroachment made by the Developer by demolishing the wall.
The map at page 62 of the interim application as well as other
supporting documents clearly show that the wall falls on the side
of the reserved plot and could not be included in the slum area.
The Committee ought to have measured the area from the
boundary of the slum to the wall, which would have shown that
the excess area is about 1077.97 sq. mts. The slum boundary
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
prepared by the Developer and the SRA is illegal and needs to be
redrawn excluding the wall and the road. The satellite images at
Sr. No. 27 of list of documents shows in red the actual boundary of
the slum and the yellow boundary to the west of the red line is the
illegal extension covering the road and the wall while the image at
Sr. No. 28 shows in brown color, the road.
24. It it then submitted by learned Senior Advocate that
with regard to the road, the Committee has accepted the
submissions of the Developer and has failed to consider the
submissions and documents of the petitioners, which were as
under :
(i) There were admittedly no slums on both sides of the road as
can be seen from the satellite map at Sr.No. 26, 27 and 28 of the
compilation of documents;
(ii) The documents and satellite maps clearly show that slums
existed only on one side of the road and not on the other side of
the road and therefore it cannot be said to be an internal road;
(iii) That the existing road was a vehicular road used to access the
fish drying area and was not an internal pathway used by slum
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
dwellers alone as claimed by the Developer. The petitioners have
relied on a photograph at Sr.No.35 annexed to the list of
documents showing a tempo plying through the road. It was
claimed by the petitioners that the road was wide enough for 4-
wheelers and large vehicles to pass through;
(iv) That the Committee has erred in not considering the
traditional and customary rights of the fisherfolk. Though the
Committee has admitted that there is a pathway on the space
adjacent to the wall, it wrongly holds that "it appears necessary for
the slum residents and seems attached to the slum land". This
finding is contrary to the evidence produced before the Committee
by the petitioners and is based on hearsay. However, in the same
breath, it has been stated that there is a "possibility" of a pathway
for motor vehicles thereby admitting the case of the Petitioners
that they have been using the road for plying their vehicles.
(v) That without prejudice to the submission of the petitioners that
the road must be maintained as it originally stood, the Developer
cannot construct residential buildings contrary to Regulations
17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of DCPR, 2034.
(vi) Contrary to the evidence on record, the Committee at Sr.No.7
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
has wrongly held that the road / pathway forms a part of the SR
area and the said finding, therefore, need to be quashed and set
aside.
(vii) That not only does the road and the wall fall within the plot
reserved for fish drying and allied activities and consequently no
construction can be carried out on the said land since it squarely
falls within the Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of the DCPR, 2034.
(viii) That instead of again demarcating the boundaries, the
Committee has merely recorded the fact that the two structures
numbered as 160 and 161 are non-residential sheds. Despite this
finding, it has wrongly affirmed that the land covered by the two
structures has rightly been handed over to the Developer whereas
the documents on record are contrary to the finding of the
Committee. Admitting the claim of Petitioners, the committee has
in a convoluted manner held that the fisherfolk could be
compensated by rehabilitating them in the Rehabilitation Building.
This finding recognizes that the two structures belong to the
petitioners. Further no, details have been given with regard to the
names of the two persons who claim to have been in possession of
the said structures and who are presently being paid rent. The
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
petitioners had specifically asked for details about the persons who
were being paid rent. However, no such details were furnished.
(ix) The Committee has ignored the legal position with regard to
fist and net drying area which are open lands being considered as
non-buildable under the regulation of DCPR 2034. The fact that
fish and net drying areas are non-buildable is accepted by the
Planning Authority (BMC) in its scrutiny of development
proposals. The letter dated 28/10/2025, which was issued by the
BMC has declared fish and net drying areas as non-buildable. This
letter has been annexed to the additional submissions filed by the
petitioners. It was held that the reservation/designation EP 1.1.
(Fish and Net Drying Yard) falls under Primary Activity which
permits only open activities along with related ancillary uses, if
any. No construction can take place on the reserved plot. The fish
and net drying areas are recognized as non-buildable which has
been expressly accepted by the Planning Authority as seen from
the order dated 28/10/2025. By failing to consider the applicable
Regulation of DCPR, 2034, which provides that 35% of non-
buildable reservation must be handed back for the use under the
reservation, the committee itself is condoning a serious breach of
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of the DCPR. The committee has
also failed to consider the judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 in
W.P. No 1152 of 2002, in the case of NGO Alliance for Governance
and Renewal.
(x) That though the petitioners had specifically submitted that
under Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii); a Developer is required to
surrender 35% of the land and/or 65% is to be used for the SR
area since it is non-buildable open space reservation. It is
submitted that Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) would be applicable
and not Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) as claimed by the Architect on
behalf of the Developer.
25. We have heard learned AGP for the State, Mr. Ravi
Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.6-Developer
and Mr. Amogh Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7-Society
at length. Reliance is placed on the documents in the writ petition
and those annexed to the Interim Application (L) No.8730 of 2026
filed by the Developer in support of their submissions.
26. Having heard learned counsel, at the outset we must note
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
that the petitioners have specifically averred that they were not
opposed to the SRA Scheme, insofar as such a scheme does not
encroach upon traditional land which is used by the fisherfolk for
their livelihood; and does not violate the provisions of the
Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR). The
question is whether fish and net drying area, which is covered by
slum rehabilitation area, can be developed. DC Regulation 33(10)
reads thus :-
"33 (10) Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum
Dwellers :
I Eligibility for redevelopment scheme:
(a) A person eligible for redevelopment scheme shall mean
a protected occupier as defined in Chapter IB of Maharashtra
Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971 as amended time to time, hereinafter referred to
as Slum Act and orders issued thereunder.
(b) Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual
occupants of the hutment shall be held eligible, and the so-
called structure-owner other than the actual occupant if any,
even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for the
structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the
reconstructed tenement against that structure."
27. Under DC Regulation 33(10), any area covered by a slum
can be redeveloped, subject to and in the manner contemplated by
the DC Regulations. DC Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) read with Item
62 of Table 5 is significant which reads thus :-
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) :
17(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations
Development of Reserved land falling under the various provisions
of Regulation No.33 shall be as under:
(D) Development of reservation in Redevelopment for
Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers under Regulation No. 33(10)
(a) Slums in Residential/Commercial Zone
(4) For other buildable reservations excluding Municipal School
(RE 1.1)/ Primary and Secondary School (RE1.2) or a Higher
Education (RE2.1) on lands under slum, BUA equal to 20% percent
of the area under that reservation in that plot, shall be demanded
free of cost by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for the Municipal
Corporation or for any other appropriate Authority. The relevant
part of the Table under DCR 17 is reproduced below :
Sr Reservation Reservation Sub Users Permitted Applicable
No. main Category conditions
Category for
Code Name Permissible Ancillary
development
uses Activities
62 Primary RP1.1 Fish & Fish & Net Art and 1 or 2 or 3 a)
Activity Net Drying culture Za=15 b)
Drying yards, fish related Zb=15 In
yards drying uses, case of 3,
related Footstalls/ Y=70 and
industries Restaurant, minimum
along with Bank area of
other uses Branch reserved plot
if any, such shall be 1000
as, diesel sq.m.
storage,
Fish
Godown,
Fishing
Related
Industry
28. A reading of the aforesaid Regulation would indicate
that under the reservation, the permissible uses are fish and net
drying yards, fish drying related industries along with other uses if
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
any, such as, diesel storage, fish godown, fishing related industry. A
reading of the aforesaid clause (4) of Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)
would indicate that in respect of an area reserved under the
development plan for fish and net drying, one of the permissible
user is developable under DC Regulation 33(10) subject to a built-
up area (BUA) of 20% of the plot area being provided to the
Municipal Corporation for storage, fish godown, fishing related
industry etc. DC Regulation 33(10) is a provision for the
redevelopment for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. The eligibility
for the redevelopment scheme is provided under Section 33(10)(I)
(a). It provides that a person eligible for the redevelopment
scheme shall mean a protected occupier as defined in Chapter IB
of Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slum Act", for short) as amended
time to time. Clause (II) in Regulation 33(10) provides for the
Definition of Slum, Pavement, and Structure of hut followed by
various clauses provided for applicability, right of the hutment
dwellers, building permission for slum rehabilitation project,
Rehabilitation and Free-Sale Component, provision for temporary
transit camps etc.
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
29. Thus, in respect of an area reserved under the
Development Plan for fish and net drying, one of the permissible
user is developable under DC Regulation 33(10) subject to a built-
up area of 20% of the plot area being provided to the Municipal
Corporation for storage, fish godown, fishing related industry etc.
The MCGM's letter dated 03/07/2025 which is tendered in the
Court confirms that the plot bearing CTS No.D/1105 (Pt.) and
D/1079 (Pt.) is a buildable reservation for fish storage/godown. It
says that a fish storage/godown admeasuring 536.60 sq. mtrs. in
form of premises of 1st and 2nd part with separate entrance is to be
handed over to the MCGM free of cost and free of encumbrance in
compliance with the conditions under the LOI dated 29th May 2023
which imposes the same conditions. We do not find any reason to
fault such an approach of the Corporation or for that matter, if the
Corporation has so understood the provision, the same in our
opinion is not a view contrary to law.
30. Shri Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for the
respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in NGO
Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) and Ors. vs. State
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
of Maharashtra and Ors.1 where a similar provision of DCPR, 2034
Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) has been upheld for the development of
slums on open space reservations for a playground. A reading of
the Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) with the table which has been
reproduced above would indicate that the lands reserved for both
the buildable and non-buildable reservations can be developed for
implementation of SR Scheme. The difference is that the built up
area (BUA) provided when non-buildable reservation is developed
under DCR 33(10) is 35% and in cases of buildable reservations,
the built up area (BUA) to be provided is 20%.
31. So far as challenge to the declaration dated 17/05/2022
of the slum rehabilitation area admeasuring 3449.26 sq. mtrs.
under Section 3C of the Slum Act is concerned, it is pertinent to
note that the petitioners actively participated in the proceedings
before the CEO, SRA dealing with the aforesaid declaration. The
Writ Petition challenging the declaration dated 17/05/2022 was
challenged for the first time in September 2025. Mr. Kadam,
learned Senior Advocate submitted that in the meantime several
steps were taken by the Developer which was to the knowledge of
1 Writ Petition No.1152 of 2002 (OS) decided on 19.06.2025
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
the petitioners. The slum area was declared vide SRA Notification
dated 17/05/2022; the LOI was issued on 29/05/2023; the
MCZMA clearance was obtained on 14/04/2024; the IOA for slum
rehab building was granted on 18/03/2024; the IOA of sale
building was issued on 01/04/2024; CC for rehab building was
issued on 15/04/2025. Mr. Kadam further pointed out that
between 18/03/2024 and September 2025 the entire slum was
vacated and the slum dwellers were put in transit accommodation
by payment of 7.53 Crores. The slum structures have been
demolished. The CC for approval for sale building has also been
obtained on 24/09/2025. Therefore, according to Mr. Kadam there
is gross and unexplained delay and laches in the petitioners
approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition No.3698 of 2025
which was filed on 03/09/2025.
32. It is pertinent to note that this Court has already disposed
of Writ Petition No.3698 of 2025 and hence on the aspect of delay
and laches in filing the petition it is not possible for us to consider
such submission in this petition. Suffice it to observe that this
Court had disposed of the Interim Application No.40997 of 2025 in
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
Writ Petition No.2701 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.3698 of 2025
filed by the petitioners, apart from the other challenges in this
petition.
33. We now come to the main challenge of the petitioners i.e.
to the Committee's report. It is pertinent to note that this Court in
its order dated 17/12/2025 has observed that the dispute is purely
of demarcation and as to whether the traditional rights as
contended by the petitioners are in any manner affected by the
slum redevelopment in question. We find substance in the
submission of Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate that in view of
the order dated 17/12/2025 passed by this Court, the dispute is
limited only to the demarcation of the pathway along the
boundary wall and we cannot enlarge the scope of this petition by
considering the challenge to the SR scheme.
34. We find that the area of 3449.26 sq.mtrs. was declared as
a slum rehabilitation area by the SRA. We further find substance in
the submission of Mr. Kadam, learned Senior Advocate that the
challenge to the slum declaration under Section 3C cannot now be
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
re-agitated in the present petition. This Court moreover in the
order dated 17/12/2025, in paragraph 2, has observed that "Be
that as it may, we do not intend delve on the factual dispute on the
boundary of the respective lands." It is for this reason this Court
referred the matter of demarcation to the Court appointed Special
Committee. The petitioners seek to challenge the Committee's
report in this petition. The Special Committee comprising of the
Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, the Collector,
Mumbai Suburban District and the CEO, SRA was directed to
resolve the boundary dispute.
35. The report of the Committee submitted in Marathi
language, roughly translated reads thus :-
"1. Out of the total area of CTS No. D/1105, an area of
3422.85 sq. mtrs has been declared as Slum Rehabilitation
Area under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 by
order dated 17.05.2022.
- (No legal challenge against this notification appears to
have been filed before any court.)
2. Out of the total land of CTS No. D/1105, an area of
519.30 sq. mtrs, is recorded as a censused/enumerated slum.
3.I. As per the Development Plan 1991, CTS No.1105 is
reserved for: Fishing Complex. Fish & Net Drying Yard, Ice
Factory, Diesel Pump, and other related activities.
3.II. As per Development Plan 2034, the land is reserved as
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
a Fish and Net Drying Yard.
4. For the area of 3422.85 sq. mtrs of CTS No. D/1105,
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Hanuman Nagar Shubh
Shanti CHS has been submitted before the authority by the
developer M/s Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd., and the proposal was
accepted on 11.08.2021.
5. For the area of 519.30 sq. mtrs of CTS No. D/1105,
another scheme of Khar Hanuman Nagar Sea Face CHS Ltd.
was submitted by the developer M/s United Estate (India)
Pvt. Ltd., which was accepted on 21.04.1998.
6.I. Upon examining the Tikka Sheet records, it is seen that
CTS Nos. D/1104, D/1096, D/911, D/1102 contain entries
in the name of Koli Panch Vahivatdar Motiram Govind Patil.
6.II. Whereas CTS No. D/1105 shows entry as "Recreation
Ground (Holder Government)". Further, property records
indicate that CTS No. D/1105 is owned by the Government.
7.I. Between the Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti SRA
Scheme and the open land used by the Koli community for
their traditional fishing activities, there exists a stone fence
wall, which appears to have been constructed by the Koli
community.
7.II. Along the said fence, there is a footpath/pathway,
which is part of the slum rehabilitation area, and the Danda
Koli Fishing Cooperative Society is claiming that this
pathway is their occupation road/ traditional access path.
7.III. However, as per the available records and DP 2034,
no existing or proposed road is shown at this location.
7.IV. Photographs taken before the slum eviction show that
a narrow footpath existed along the wall, which appears to
have been mainly used by slum residents. This pathway
appears unsuitable for vehicular movement and is therefore
unlikely to have been a regular road for vehicles.
7.V. If the Koli community is using this footpath, it is
necessary to keep it intact, and if required, it can be
completed through the Development Control Road.
7.VI. A 12.20 m wide Development Control (DC) Road is
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
proposed on the eastern side of the slum rehabilitation
scheme to serve as a missing link between two existing
roads. Once the DC Road is developed, both ends (ingress
and egress) of the previously existing footpath will be
connected, and the difference in distance will not be
significant.
8. While declaring the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS)
of HNSS, all concerned were informed, and public notice
was issued giving an opportunity to raise objections. The
scheme was declared after considering the views of all
respondents. No challenge to the said declaration has been
filed before any court by the Koli community.
9. Considering the large open land of about 26,000 sq.
meters available in nearby CTS numbers (1095 to 1105)
presently used for the traditional fishing activities of the Koli
community, the committee observed that: land is adjacent to
a 33.80 metre wide Main Carter Road, thereby providing
direct access.
10. According to the property title records, the total area of
CTS No. D/1105 is 9588.50 sq. meters.
10.I. 3942.15 sq. meters is covered under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme (SRA).
10.II. The remaining area is vacant land, which is currently
being used for fishing activities such as fish and net drying
and other related fishing activities.
10.III. Although the land is reserved as "Fish and Net Drying
Yard" in the Development Plan, the proper development of
this reservation has not yet been carried out.
10.IV. Therefore, the Committee has observed that the
reservation should be properly developed and made
available to the Koli community for their traditional fishing
activities by the Municipal Corporation or the appropriate
authority.
11.I. As per Annexure-II issued on 08.02.2023 of the
Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti Slum Society, 160/161 slum
dwellers were declared eligible for Rehabilitation.
Structure No. 160 - Jai Carrom Board Game (non-
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
residential)
Structure No. 161 - Open shed for scrap storage (non-
residential)
(These structures were non-residential sheds.)
11.II. The land on which these structures were located
forms part of the Slum Rehabilitation Area declared under
Section 3A of the Slum Act.
11.III. During the site inspection, it was observed that these
structures have already been demolished.
11.IV. The developer has deposited the rent amount with
the SRA authority, and the same has been paid to the
concerned slum dwellers.
11.V. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that these
structures are not part of the Slum Rehabilitation Area is not
consistent with the official records.
11.VI. If any members of the Koli community were using
those sheds for storage prior to their demolition, then it shall
be the responsibility of the Zonal Authority to provide
alternative arrangements for such storage through the
developer.
12.I. As per the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of the
DCPR, 2034, the 25% land premium/charge recovered from
the developer in lieu of Government land may be utilised for
providing necessary facilities and amenities to the Koli
community on the remaining open land available for their
traditional fishing activities.
12.II. Further, the proposed 12.20-meter-wide Development
Plan (DP) road should be developed on priority at the
earliest, so as to ensure proper access for the residents as
well as the fishermen."
36. It is thus seen that out of the total area of CTS
No.D/1105, an area of 3422.85 sq.mtrs. has been declared as Slum
Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act by order
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
dated 17/05/2022. Out of the total land of CTS No.D/1105, an
area of 519.30 sq.mtrs. is recorded as a censused/enumerated
slum. The total area declared as slum rehabilitation area is
3449.26 sq. mtrs. The Committee had in fact visited the site before
submitting the report. The State Government is the owner of the
land. The high ranking officers of the State Government and the
statutory authorities were part of the Committee.
37. Ms. Gayatri Singh, learned Senior Advocate, on
instructions, admitted that the petitioners do not want to come in
the way of implementation of the SRA scheme and rehabilitation
of the slum dwellers of the respondent No.7-Slum Society, save
and except the disputed portion which is adjacent to the slum
boundary. The issue of two structures claimed by the petitioners,
which are part of Annexure-II and SR Scheme, is given up by the
petitioners.
38. The challenge raised in the present petition is purely in
the nature of fact finding as per the report submitted by the
Special Committee on 24/02/2026. The Committee visited the site
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
on 03/02/2026. The Committee has recorded a finding that the
said portion was never used for any fish drying purpose and/or
any vehicular movement. During the site visit, it was found that
there is a stone wall dividing the area of the slum from the land
used for fish and net drying by the Koli samaj; that the Koli samaj
had constructed this wall; that the slum is inside the wall and the
Koli samaj fish drying area is outside the wall.
39. The Committee has found that despite the claim of a
road, there is no existing road marked in the development plans of
1991 or 2034. The Committee found that what exists is a footpath
being used as a necessary access by the slum dwellers (prior to
demolition) as it is touching the slum and inside the slum wall.
The Committee records that no vehicles can be moved inside
through the footpath. It is further found that the said pathway is
within the natural boundaries of the slum. The Committee found
that the pathway is being used by slum dwellers. The Committee
further observed that though some of the members of the Koli
community may be using pathway, however, under the
development plan there is a provision for 12.20 mtrs. road and
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
hence ingress and egress of Koli community will not be affected.
The Koli community has CTS Nos.1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099,
1100, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1110/A, 1102, 1105 (pt) available to
them for their activities which is approximately 26,000 sq.mtrs. of
open land adjacent to the 33.80 mtrs. wide main Carter Road from
which they have direct access. The Committee has recorded that
no fish drying activity is seen happening on the land. The
Committee has specifically rejected the contention that the
footpath which is inside the slum wall is not a part of the slum
area.
40. Thus, we find that the Committee of high ranking officers
appointed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, actually
visited the site in question and submitted a detailed fact finding
report. The dispute only pertains to the pathway which the
petitioners claim to have been used by them as a traditional access
and that the same has been wrongly included in the slum scheme.
The Committee found that the disputed passage is very much a
part of the slum scheme. The Committee also took into
consideration the fact that there is adequate access to the fish
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
drying areas from the Carter Road. The Committee also records
that there is adequate provision in the development plan for a
proper road.
41. Having regard to the detailed fact finding exercise carried
out by the Committee on the basis of an actual site visit and upon
considering the materials, it is not possible for this Court in the
exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to re-appreciate the findings recorded by the
Committee, though Ms. Gayatri Singh learned Senior Advocate
was at pains to criticise the fact finding report on the grounds set
out in the petition. The owner of the land in question admittedly is
the State Government. The petitioners' challenge will necessarily
entail a detailed fact finding exercise requiring adducing of
evidence. As observed by this Court in the order dated
17/12/2025, the dispute is purely on demarcation as to whether
the traditional rights as contended by the petitioners are in any
manner affected by the slum redevelopment in question. Hence,
we are of the opinion that the dispute which the petitioners have
raised can only be resolved before the competent Civil Court and it
Ingale/Bhogale wpl-8104-2026.odt
is not possible for us to examine such dispute in the exercise of
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We
therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ
petition is dismissed.
42. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim
application does not survive and the same stands disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
43. After the judgment is pronounced, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioners requested for stay of this order. The
request is opposed by the respondents. However, considering that
the interim relief is operating since 17/12/2025, we are inclined to
continue the same for a period of three weeks from today.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
