[Cites 41, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Velkar Ramanlal Welfare Association vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Housing ... on 5 May, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2026:BHC-OS:11609
1/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25510 OF 2024
1. Velkar Ramanlal Welfare Association,
a society / welfare association duly
registered under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1860 bearing Registration
Number Maharashtra State,
Mumbai - 2019 G.B.B.S.D. 1719/2019
Having their registered at Ramanlal
Chawl, S. V. Road, Borivali (W),
...Petitioner
Mumbai - 400 092
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Housing Minister, to be served
With Government Pleader,
...Respondent 1
High Court, Bombay.
2. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Having address at Administrative
Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051. ...Respondent 2
3. The Chief Executive Officer
Arjun
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 16:06:22 :::
2/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Having address at Administrative
Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
...Respondent 3
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051
4. The Tahasildar - 2 (Special Section),
Competent Authority,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Having address at Administrative
Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
...Respondent 4
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051
5. Vee Pee Construction Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act
1956, having its registered office at 10,
Shangrila Apartments, L.T. Road,
...Respondent 5
Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400 092
6. Dharti Simran Infrastructure LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership registered
under the Provisions of the Limited
Liability Partnership Act 2008, having its
Registered office at 641, Iimima Complex,
Raheja Metroplex, off. Link Road,
Behind GSC, Malad (West)
...Respondent 6
Mumbai - 400 064
7. Mhatrewadi And Ramanlal SRA CHS
Through the Chairman/ Secretary/ Chief
Arjun
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 16:06:22 :::
3/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Promoter
Having office at Mhatrewadi Ramanlal
Chawl,
S. V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai - 400
092
...Respondent 7
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 25524 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25510 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 18104 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25510 OF 2024
Velkar Ramanlal Welfare Association ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Velkar Ramanlal Welfare Association ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 35 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 25510 OF 2024
Mr. Nishad Suresh Patil ...Intervener/Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Velkar Ramanlal Welfare Association ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
Arjun
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/05/2026 16:06:22 :::
4/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Mr. Vijay Kurle, a/w. Mr. Vikas Pawar, Ms. Sonal Manchekar, Mr.
Jayendra Manchekar, Mr. Sagar Ugale, Mr. Rahul Yadav, Mr. Priyal
Gupta, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate i/b. Ruchi Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No. 2
Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w. Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Mr. Aatish Tayade,
Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
Dr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Tejashree Parab i/b. Rajesh
S. Sharma & Associates, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Viraj Parikh, i/b.
Dharmesh S. Jain, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Ms. Vinodini Srinivasan, i/b. Pranjali Bhandari, Advocate for
Respondent No. 7.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for the Respondent/State
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 2nd February, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 5th May, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J)
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kurle learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
Mr. Vijay Patil learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, Ms.
Ravleen Sabharwal learned Advocate for a the Respondent No. 3, Dr.
Sanjay Jain learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 5, Mr. Naushad
Engineer learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 6 and Ms.
Vinodini Srinivasan learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 7 and
Mr. Manish Upadhye learned AGP for the Respondent - State.
Arjun
5/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
2. On 24.12.2025, the following order was made:-
1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner, Mr. Manish Upadhye, learned AGP for the State, Mr.
Vijay Patil, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 2, Mr.
Milind Sathe, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.3,
Dr. Sanjay Jain, learned Advocate for Respondent No.5, Mr.
Viraj Parikh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.6 and Ms.
Vinodini Srinivasan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.7.
2. On 07.11.2025 this Court had passed the following order
:-
"1. The parties before us have tendered their written
notes of submissions in the light of the earlier order
dated 9th September, 2025.
2. Closed for orders.
3. The ad-interim protection granted earlier would
continue till the pronouncement of the order."
3. After perusing the written notes tendered by the
Advocate for the Petitioner, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7, this Court felt the need for
clarification. As such the matter was listed today under
the caption 'clarification'.
4. When the matter was called out, learned
Advocates appearing for some of the Respondents
made a grievance of they not being served with the
written notes filed on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ
Petition as well as in the Interim Application (L)
No.25524 of 2025. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner submits that he would furnish a copy
of the written notes on all the learned Advocates for
Respondents, within 3 days from today.
5. Mr. Vijay Kurle tenders a paper book comprising of
judgments (127 pages) which are relied upon by him in
the written notes dated 01.10.2025. Copies of the same
are furnished to the learned Advocate for the
Respondents, today.
6. Issues on which clarification is required by this Court
were put to the learned Advocates appearing for the
parties. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate for the
Petitioner submits that he would file written notes in
response to the queries raised by this Court and seeks
time till 5th January, 2026.
Arjun
6/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
7. At the request of Ms. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate
for the Petitioner and by consent of all the parties, list
the matter on 5th January, 2026 for receiving the
written notes (clarifications). Thereafter, the matter
would be closed for judgment.
3. On 05.01.2026, the following order was made :-
1. Considering the change in the constitution of the
Bench, the learned advocates for the respective sides
desire to take steps.
2. In view of the above, remove from the board.
4. The parties to the present Petition moved the Registry for the
constitution of this Bench. At the joint request of the learned
Advocates for the parties appearing in these proceedings, we agreed to
take up the present Petition.
5. On 02.02.2026, the following order was passed:-
1. In pursuance to the order dated 24th December, 2025, the
following parties have tendered their additional written
submissions :-
a) The Petitioner, alongwith case law.
b) Respondent No. 5.
(c) Respondent No. 6.
2. Closed for Judgement.
6. The Petitioner, a Society / Welfare Association of the
residents of Chawl, namely, Mhatrewadi and Ramanlal SRA CHS, is
before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-
Arjun
7/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
a. That Rule be issued;
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to records and
proceedings before the Respondent No. 2 Ld. AGRC and the
Respondent No. 3 CEO SRA.
c. That his Hon'ble Court be please to declare the impugned
Notification dated 17/08/2006 declaring the Slum under section 4
(1) of the SRA Act to be non-est and the same may be pleased to
quash and set aside.
d. That this Hon'ble Court be please to quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 09/09/2023 issued by the Respondent No.
3 CEO SRA under section 3C (1) of the SRA Act and all the actions
consequential to the aforesaid Notification under actions
consequential to the aforesaid Notification under section 4 (1) and
order under section 3C (1) of the SRA Act including LOI issued
dated 10/01/2022 and Notice under section 33 and 38 of the SRA
Act as exhibited at Exhibit 'T' and 'U' respectively in this Petition
alongwith all the approvals, if any, consequential to the said LOI ar
given by the Respondent SRA.
e. That this Hon'ble Court be please to direct the Respondent
No. 3 to take appropriate action on the representation made by the
Petitioner dated 04/09/2023 at Exhibit 'P' Colly for action on all the
concern who have erected the 5 x 5 sq. ft each of total 45 illegal
structures in the month of May 2021 and included in the Slum
Scheme for unlawful gain of approximately Rs. 100 Crores and to
usurp the majority of the members of the Society in Favor of the
Developer for implementation of Scheme
f. That this Hon'ble Court during pendency of this Writ
Petition be please to stay proceeding under section 33 and 38 of the
Slum Act before Respondent No. 4 under impugned Notices dated
24/07/2024 at Exhibit 'U'.
g. That this Hon'ble Court be please to also stay the operation
and implementation of the impugned order dated 28/06/2024 by the
Ld. AGRC, Notification under section 4(1) declaring Slum,
Arjun
8/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
impugned order under section 3C (1) by the Respondent CEO SRA
and the LOI dated 10/01/2022 issued in the name of the Developer
as Exhibited at 'T' during pendency of this Writ Petition;
h. Ad-interim in terms of the prayer clause 'f' and 'g' may be
please to grant;
i. Any other order, direction may be please to grant as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
7. On 10.10.2024, the following order was made:
1) Mr Patil, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2 seeks time to take instructions. At his
request, stand over to 21st November, 2024.
2) Till next date, parties are directed to maintain status
quo as of today, with respect to the suit structures of the
Petitioner.
3) Period to file reply in pursuance of Order dated 26th
September, 2022 is extended by two weeks from today.
8. The interim order dated 10.10.2024 remains in force.
9. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of
the parties, the petition is heard finally.
10. The facts, in the form of a "concise list of dates" as referred
to in the written submission dated 01.10.2025 filed by the Respondent
No. 6, are extracted below in verbatim for convenience:
On 19.04.88 : Respondent No. 5 acquires title in all that piece and
parcel of land bearing Final Plot Nos.62 - 64
corresponding CTS Nos. 109(Part), 109/1 to 35, 54 to
78, 118, 119, 120 and 121(part), Village: Kanheri,
Arjun
9/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Taluka: Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District situated
at S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai- 400 092
admeasuring 9,435.90 sq. meters. ("Larger
Property").
On 10/02/03 The Chief Surveyor conducted inspection and
and 12/02/03 : prepared a site survey report recording there are 196
huts standing with only eight toilet blocks, with an
open nala, with narrow lanes, and no public
bathrooms.
On 17/08/06 : The Additional Collector (Encroachment/Removal),
Mumbai Western, Suburban District, issues a
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 ("Slum Act"), declaring an area of 5,224 sq.
meters of the Larger Property as Slum land.
On 02/07/20 The Dy. Collector conducts a visit of the Larger
and 09/07/20 : Property and prepares a Survey Report. The findings
of the Report are inter alia as follows:
(i) The Subject Property has one public
toilet structure consisting of 9 toilets for 200
structures.
(ii) Open and narrow sewerage lines that
overflow during monsoons and enter
occupants' houses.
(iii) Roads and footpaths are narrow.
(iv) Public clinic, balwadi, prayer hall, public
bathroom, are not available.
On 31/07/20 : The Deputy Collector (Encroachment/Removal),
Arjun
10/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Borivali-2, issues Notification under Section 4(1) of
the Slum Act declaring an additional area of 880.43
sq. meters of the Larger Property as Slum land.
In 2021 : Twenty-one (21) person (being members of the
Petitioner association) including Yogesh Mansukhlal
Shah (who is a Trustee of the Petitioner Association)
file 21 separate appeals against the Section 4(1)
Declarations, before the Special Tribunal under
Section 4(3) of the Slum Act.
On 02/03/21 The Deputy Collector conducts a visit of the Larger
and 15/03/21 : Property and prepares a Survey Report. The findings
of the Report are inter alia as follows:
(i) There are no proper facilities from health
perspective.
(i) Infrastructure is poor.
(ii) There are kuccha and pucca structures.
(iii) Huts are densely packed.
(iv) Internal roads form narrow trails.
(v) There is waterlogging during floods.
(vi) There is lack of sunlight and ventilation.
(vii) There are various dilapidated structures.
viii) Public toilets exist. But are inadequate.
On 04/08/21 : The Executive Engineer conducts a visit of the Larger
and Property and prepares a Report. He concludes that the
12/08/21 : conditions for declaration of the Subject Property as
Slum Rehabilitation Area, exists on site.
On 09/09/21 : The CEO, SRA, passes an Order under Section 3-C
(1) of the Slum Act declaring an area of 6,104 sq.
meters (5224 + 880.43) of the Larger Property as a
Slum Rehabilitation Area Property"). ("Subject
Property")
Arjun
11/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
On 08/10/21 : The Petitioner Association files Appeal No. 176 of
2021 under Section 3-C (2) of the Slum Act before
the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee challenging
the Order dated 9th September 2021.
On 30/11/21 : The Special Tribunal passes an Order dismissing the
Appeals challenging the Section 4(1) Declarations. In
its Order, at paras. 18 to 22 [at pg. 264], the Special
Tribunal records its findings on the Slum-like
conditions existing on site on the basis of the Survey
Report dated 9th July 2020.
On 10/01/22 : Letter of Intent is issued by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority ("SRA") in favour of Respondent No. 6 for
the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme ("SRS") of the
Subject Property. 123 of 201 occupants have given
their consent to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
On 21/03/23 : Writ Petition filed by Yogesh Mansukhlal Shah
(trustee of the Petitioner Association) before this
Hon'ble High Court challenging the Order dated
30/11/21 of the Special Tribunal (which upheld the
Section 4(1) Declaration) is dismissed. This Hon'ble
Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 3 that
"Section 4 notification was issued after the authority
was satisfied that conditions existed on site
warranting the declaration of an area and its
notification as a slum area" and in para. 4 that "the
real intent of the Petition is clear which is to oppose
the redevelopment and possibly extract some benefit
or gain out of it."
On 13/07/23 : Writ Petition (L) No. 19288 of 2023 is filed by the
Petitioner Association seeking to challenge:
(i) The Section 4(1) Declaration dated 17/08/06.
Arjun
12/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
(ii) The Section 4(1) Declaration dated 31/07/20.
(iii) The Section 3-C (1) Order dated 09/09/21.
On 01/08/23 : This Hon'ble Court passes an Order directing that no
coercive steps are to be taken against the members of
the Petitioner on the grounds that a solution is
possible to the entire dispute. The Order was
continued from time to time.
On 24/01/24 : The Association Petitioner withdrew Writ Petition (L)
No. 19288 of 2023 with liberty to exercise alternative
remedy. Ad-interim relief was not continued by this
Hon'ble Court.
On 30/01/24 : Order dated 24/01/24 was clarified by this Hon'ble
Court and Petitioner was given liberty to approach
AGRC for seeking grant or continuation of interim or
ad-interim relief.
On 28/06/24 Final Order was passed by the AGRC dismissing
Appeal No. 176 of 2024. Till date, there is no
challenge to the AGRC Order.
On 02/07/24 : Writ Petition (L) No. 20550 of 2024 filed by the
Petitioner Association impugning notices issued
under Section 33 r/w 38 of the Slum Act for eviction
for some of its members for the Slum Scheme.
On 15/07/24 : Order passed by this Hon'ble Court disposing off Writ
Petition (L) No. 20550 of 2024 setting aside the
Impugned Notices dated 03/06/24 with liberty to SRA
to issue fresh notices and with liberty to the Petitioner
association to challenge the AGRC Order dated
28/06/24.
On 13/08/24 : Present Writ Petition is filed before this Hon'ble
Court.
Arjun
13/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
11. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, in
the written submissions in support of his challenge raised in this
petition has submitted that the Conveyance Deed dated 19.04.1988
indicates that the tenements occupied by the respective members of
the Petitioner have existed since the year 1946, which admission
according to him conclusively establishes, that the said tenements are
authorized structures as they predate the Statutory Datum Line
01.01.1962 prescribed under the relevant Development Control
Regulation. Thus, according to him, the existence of the tenements
cannot be treated as encroachers or unauthorized slum dwellers. He
submits that the communication exchanged between the Respondent -
Developer and the occupant members of the Petitioner confirm that
the members' right as lawful tenants, stands recognised by the
Respondent themselves. He submits that the said communication
would therefore imply that the members of the Petitioner cannot be
equated with casual slum dwellers or encroachers. He submits that the
rights of the members of the Petitioner to redevelopment of their
respective tenements flow independently and directly under
Regulation 37 (7)(A) of the DCPR 2034 which protects and
empowers such tenements by granting them entitlement to enhanced
freehold permanent rehabilitation tenements. According to Mr. Vijay
Kurle, this entitlement is absolute and accrues irrespective of whether
Arjun
14/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
the tenant or their spouse holds any other ownership or rental
premises within the limits of Mumbai. He submits that, in stark
contrast, the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Regulation 33(10) of
the DCPR 2034, is a welfare scheme of restricted scope, envisaging
the rehabilitation of slum dwellers and encroachers who lack secure
housing. He submits that eligibility under this provision is strictly
confined to those who do not own or occupy any other tenement in
Mumbai in their own name or in the name of their spouse. He submits
that the maximum permissible Rehabilitation area under Section
33(10) is restricted to 300 sq. meters reflecting the welfare-oriented
nature of the scheme. He submits that the Respondent-Developer,
who subsumes the Petitioners' lawful tenancy rights under the
restricted framework of regulation 33(10), amounts to a cross-
infringement of their vested legal rights. He submits that the crucial
issues about infringement of legal property rights of the members of
the Petitioner raised for adjudication before the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee (AGRC) were not dealt with in the manner
required, consequently, the AGRC erroneously proceeded to pass the
order dated 28.06.2024. He submits that the AGRC, instead of
exercising its appellate jurisdiction in a judicious manner,
mechanically endorsed the stand of the Competent Authority, thereby
lending legitimacy to a process tainted with malafides, arbitrariness
and non-application of mind.
Arjun
15/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
12. Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, in
his written submissions challenging the order dated 28.06.2024
passed by the AGRC, has raised the following contentions which are
transcribed herein below in verbatim :-
7. That as regards the fact 'a' among the aforesaid main grounds
taken into consideration by the Ld. AGRC for rejection of the
Statutory Appeal, it is respectfully submitted that the very
foundation of such reliance is ex facie unsustainable, inasmuch
as there was no valid or subsisting 'Slum' declaration in
existence until the year 2019. This is evident from the
following admitted and unrebutted facts:
a. That the information furnished under the Right to
Information Act, placed at Exhibit - D (pages 48 to 51),
categorically states that no purported Slum Declaration in
respect of the subject land existed till the year 2019. The
RTI disclosures, being official communications of the
Competent Authority, conclusively demolish the
Respondents' reliance on any alleged Notification of
2006.
b. That the so-called proposal dated 05/09/2002 in the
name of "Mhatrewadi Rahivashi Sangh" for declaration
of the subject land as a slum, relied upon by Respondent
No. 5 (who claims to be the owner of the scheme land),
and annexed at Exhibit-C (pages 46-47 of the Writ
Petition), stands demonstrated to be forged and
fabricated. This purported proposal has remained wholly
unrebutted by the Respondents despite being specifically
challenged, which itself amounts to an admission of its
falsity.
c. That the Office of the City Survey, Borivali, by its
Arjun
16/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
letter dated 31/01/2004, at Exhibit-D (page 1096 of the
Rejoinder), officially informed the Competent Authority
under the Slum Act that no such entity as "Mhatrewadi
Rahivashi Sangh" ever existed at the site of the alleged
slum scheme. This official denial completely undermines
the basis of the so-called 2002 proposal.
d. That the Reply filed on behalf of the State through the
Competent Authority, Smt. Sheetal Deshmukh, at pages
936 to 960, further confirms that the proposal submitted
by Respondent No. 5 through one Amubhai Shah, was
forged and fabricated. The said proposal even contained
signatures of purported members at Sr. Nos. 3 and 6, who
were admittedly deceased much prior to the date of the
alleged proposal. This is a clinching circumstance
evidencing fabrication and fraud.
e. That the said Amubhai Shah is a habitual white-collar
criminal, indulging in systematic acts of forgery and
cheating for more than three decades, with the sole
motive of usurping immovable properties. He has a
history of cheating hundreds of innocent tenants in the
vicinity of the subject scheme and other parts of the city,
leaving them homeless and destitute. A detailed list of
his criminal antecedents is annexed hereto and marked
as Annexure - A.
f. That it is also pertinent to highlight that the
Respondents have not placed on record a single
document evidencing any slum improvement work
undertaken by the Slum Improvement Board after the
alleged declaration of the land as slum in 2006, till date.
This omission is fatal, for the prime object of declaring
an area as a slum under Section 4(1) of the Maharashtra
Slum Act is to carry out statutory improvement works.
The absence of such evidence clearly demonstrates that
Arjun
17/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
no genuine or bona fide slum declaration ever existed.
g. That one of the Member of the Petitioner also had
approached before the Hon'ble City Civil Court at
Dindoshi under S.C. Suit No. 1871 of 2007 in respect of
the grievances about her tenement against the MMRDA.
The Hon'ble City Civil Court has identified and declare
the Petitioner's Member to be the bona-fide lawful
tenants and the Suit is decreed in her favour by order
dated 26/10/2015 at Exhibit-B at 14 to 21 in IA (st) No.
18104 of 2025 in this Writ Petition.
h. That the Respondent No. 5 claimed to have ownership
title of the Subject Slum Scheme Land had taken out the
Chamber Summons to intervene and add as the party to
the aforesaid Suit filed by the Member of the Petitioner
claiming himself to be the Owner of the Suit Property.
However, the Respondent No. 5 could not place on
record any of the document showing that he is the owner
of the Suit Property which is the Subject Slum Property
and the Chamber Summons was dismissed by order
dated 18/07/2013. This clearly demolish the claim of
Respondent No. 5 of having clear ownership title of the
Slum Land Property for the purpose of the Development
of the Slum Property by the Respondent No. 5 in the
capacity of the Owner of the Slum Land. This dispute
over the ownership also establishes the claim of the co-
owner of the Slum Property who has filed Interim
Application No (L). 35 of 2025 for intervention in this
Writ Petition. Copy of the said order dated 18/07/2013 is
annexed herewith as Annexure - B.
8. That as far as fact 'b' is concerned, it is evident from the
material on record that the same represents nothing but a
colourable exercise of power. The declaration of a small parcel
of land admeasuring merely 882 sq. mtrs. as a slum was
Arjun
18/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
orchestrated with the oblique motive of subsequently
introducing so-called fresh survey reports to cover the entire
tract of land admeasuring approximately 6000 sq. mtrs.. This
stratagem was adopted without following the mandatory due
process of law, and by resorting to manipulation of survey
records. It is further submitted that in the absence of any
genuine or contemporaneous survey report in respect of the
alleged 2006 declaration, the Respondent Authorities had no
jurisdiction to proceed under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra
Slum Act. Yet, despite this patent illegality, the impugned order
declaring the entire land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under
Section 3C(1) came to be passed by the Respondent CEO and
was mechanically confirmed by the Respondent AGRC. Such
action, founded on fabricated and retrospective records, is
wholly arbitrary, mala fide, and liable to be quashed.
9. That in paragraph 86 of the impugned order, the Respondent
AGRC has erroneously observed that Respondent No. 5 is the
lawful owner of the slum land by virtue of the Conveyance
Deed dated 19.04.1988, and thereby qualifies to sponsor the
scheme. However, the Ld. AGRC has completely overlooked
the crucial and admitted fact that the very same Conveyance
Deed unequivocally records at Page Nos. 393 and 394 of Reply
by the Respondent No. 5 and Page Nos. 671 and 672 of the
Reply Affidavit of the Respondent No. 6 the existence of the
Petitioners and their predecessors as lawful tenants of the
chawls constructed by the erstwhile Imla Malik since as far
back as 1946. Thus, the Petitioners occupation is lawful and
protected in law, and they cannot be branded or equated as
"encroachers." The reliance placed on ownership in isolation,
while ignoring the Petitioners' long-standing tenancy rights
recognized in the title deed itself, demonstrates non-application
of mind and renders the finding perverse. At the same time the
aforesaid order of the Hon'ble City Civil Court clearly
establishes that the Respondent No, 5 had no ownership title of
Arjun
19/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
the Slum Land till year 2015 to sponsor the subject slum
scheme. The said order also proves the falsity of the claim of
the respondents about existence of Slum Declaration of the
year 2006. Because suit in any court is barred under section 22
and 42 in respect of the disputes in respect of the slum land.
10. That in paragraph 87 of the impugned order, the Ld. AGRC
has erroneously observed that the Petitioners have exhausted
all legal remedies merely because certain individual members
of the Petitioners' Association had, in their personal capacity,
initiated separate proceedings in respect of the same slum
scheme. Such an observation is ex facie unsustainable in law.
The exercise of individual rights by some members cannot
deprive or extinguish the collective statutory and constitutional
rights of the entire body of Petitioners, nor can it be treated as a
bar to maintainability of the present appeal.
It is further submitted that the Ld. AGRC has conveniently
ignored a most material circumstance on record- namely, that
this Hon'ble Court, upon considering the same set of facts and
documents, has already found a strong prima facie case in
favour of the Petitioners and has granted interim protection by
its order at Exhibit-F, page 78A of the Writ Petition, thereby
restraining any coercive demolition action against the
Petitioners' authorised tenements. In fact, the said order not
only protected the Petitioners but also directed that an
opportunity be extended to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (the
alleged owner and developer respectively) to put forth their
stand.
The AGRC's approach of brushing aside such binding judicial
protection, while mechanically concluding that remedies stand
exhausted, amounts to a gross error apparent on the face of
record, a violation of judicial discipline, and an abdication of
its appellate responsibility. The impugned finding, therefore,
stands vitiated by perversity and non-application of mind.
Arjun
20/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
11. Thereafter, this Hon'ble Court, by order at Exhibit-G (pages
79 to 82), specifically recorded that the Petitioners are not
encroachers and directed them to place on record their rent
receipts. In compliance, the Petitioners duly filed the requisite
rent receipts evidencing their lawful tenancy. However,
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in blatant contradiction to their own
earlier communication at Exhibit H (pages 83 to 85), wherein
they had demanded rent from the Petitioners after purchasing
the subject slum land property, falsely disputed the authenticity
of such rent receipts. It is pertinent that the Petitioners, by letter
dated 23/03/2021, immediately responded to the said demand
for rent. Despite this, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not
furnished any reply till date. Instead, they have colluded with
the officers of the Respondent Public Authorities and are
attempting to forcibly push through the impugned slum scheme
illegally and fraudulently.
12. The Ld. AGRC, being the only substantial appellate remedy
available to the Petitioners against any arbitrary, illegal, or
unreasonable actions. of the Respondent CEO, was under a
statutory and judicial obligation to address each and every
issue raised by the Petitioners. However, despite the Petitioners
having placed impeachable evidence on record-including rent
receipts, official communications, and judicial orders the Ld.
AGRC failed to consider or deal with these vital aspects.
Instead, the AGRC confirmed the arbitrary, illegal, and
unreasonable order of the Respondent CEO, thereby enabling
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to perpetuate their illegality and
fraud. This approach has resulted in a direct infringement of the
Petitioners' vested property rights protected under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India, as well as their statutory tenancy
rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
13. The Petitioners have further submitted a detailed Feasibility
Report at Exhibit - S (pages 349 to 352), which demonstrates
that their respective tenements are eligible for rehabilitation
Arjun
21/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
under the applicable Regulation 33(7A) of the DCPR, 2034,
thereby entitling each Petitioner to a permanent rehabilitation
tenement of more than 500 sq. ft. in area. The Respondents
have not rebutted or denied this Feasibility Report, and
therefore the contents stand admitted. This fact alone
establishes that the impugned action of the Respondent CEO
under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, and its confirmation by
the Respondent AGRC, constitutes a gross infringement of the
Petitioners' legal and statutory entitlement. Instead of granting
them their rightful enhanced area under Regulation 33(7A), the
Petitioners are being illegally restricted to a mere 300 sq. ft.
under the impugned Slum Scheme framed under Regulation
33(10). Such an outcome is not only arbitrary but also violative
of the principles of equality and fairness guaranteed under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. That apart from the aforesaid infringements, the Ld. AGRC
and the Respondent CEO have also failed to consider a
substantial illegality relating to false affidavits of eligibility
filed by certain so-called tenants in support of the impugned
slum scheme. As per law, every beneficiary tenant seeking
rehabilitation is required to file a sworn affidavit declaring that
neither they nor their spouse hold any other tenement whether
on ownership or on rent within the limits of Mumbai City and
Suburbs. The Petitioners specifically brought to the notice of
the Ld. AGRC, by placing on record Exhibit-O (pages 284 to
307), a detailed list of such tenants who were supporting the
impugned scheme despite being ineligible, as they admittedly
hold other tenements in Mumbai. These persons had filed false
affidavits of eligibility, which were nevertheless illegally
accepted and relied upon by the Respondent Authorities in total
derogation of statutory provisions. The acceptance of such false
and fraudulent affidavits, instead of disqualifying the
deponents, amounts to a colourable exercise of power and a
direct violation of the rule of law.
Arjun
22/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
15. That on the other hand, the majority of the genuine
Petitioners also own or occupy other small tenements solely to
accommodate their growing family members, which is a
practical necessity in a metropolitan city. In such
circumstances, they would stand disqualified from
rehabilitation under the impugned slum scheme, as per the very
statutory criteria. It is humbly submitted that no public
authority or even a Court of law in this country can compel
lawful tenants to submit false affidavits in order to claim their
rightful rehabilitation. Forcing citizens to adopt such illegality
strikes at the root of constitutional governance, offends the
dignity of the Petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, and renders the entire process arbitrary and
unsustainable.
16. That further, the Respondent CEO and the Ld. AGRC have
also deliberately ignored the grave issue of the fraudulent
construction of 45 bogus cubicles measuring 5 x 5 sq. ft. each,
which were hurriedly erected in May 2021 with the oblique
motive of inflating the number of occupants and fabricating a
false majority consent in favour of the developer. The
Petitioners have placed on record live photographic evidence of
the said bogus structures at Exhibit-N (pages 277 to 283),
captured during the course of their actual construction. This
fraudulent exercise, carried out in collusion with the
Respondent Developer, has resulted in a wrongful gain of
approximately ₹100 crores to the private Respondents at the
cost of the public exchequer. The AGRC's failure to take
cognizance of such glaring evidence of fraud, despite its duty
as the sole appellate safeguard, amounts to a complete
abdication of its statutory responsibility.
17.Last but not the least that the Respondents going hand-in-
glow with each other are also indulge in serious illegalities to
perpetuate their fraud for wrongful gain out of the subject slum
scheme. The subject slum scheme admittedly being under
Arjun
23/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
section 3C(1) of the Slum Act, the eviction of the occupants
can be done only by the clearance order under section 12 r/w
section 3D of the Slum Act issued by the CEO of the SRA and
not by way of use of powers under section 33 and 38 by the
Competent Authority. It is evident from the face of record that
the respondents in gross violations and in complete derogation
of the statutory provision of the law are desperate to remove
the Petitioners from their authorised tenements abusing
authority under section 33 and 38 in place of the clearance
order as required under the section 12 and 3D of the Slum Act.
This very fact clearly establishes that the subject slum scheme
is pushed by the respondents arbitrary, illegally and
unreasonably by infringing the legal rights of the Petitioner
occupants.
13. Respondent No. 3 in the written submissions submits that
the challenge of the Petitioner to the Notification dated 17.08.2006
(hereafter "2006 Notification") as fraudulent, need not be gone into, as
according to them, Section 3C is autonomous and independent of a
declaration under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Slums Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereafter
"Slum Act, 1971"). It is submitted that the declaration under Section 4
is not a precondition or sine qua non for an order under Section 3C to
be passed. It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to make out any
cogent grounds warranting interference against the order dated
09.09.2021 passed under Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971. It is
submitted that the CEO has recorded satisfaction under Section 3C,
based on concurrent site reports and reasoned findings indicating a
Arjun
24/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
slum-like situation on the ground. It is submitted that the contention of
the Petitioner that its members are not encroachers but tenants /
residing on the subject property is wholly irrelevant to a challenge
under Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971. It is submitted that the
inquiry under Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971, is confined to
whether slum like situations are prevailing on the ground and the CEO
SRA is not required to examine the status of the members of the
Petitioner as contended by them. It is submitted that one of the criteria
for the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area is that the land
answers the description of a slum under Section 4 on account of
unhygienic and unsanitary conditions, therefore, the argument that the
Section 4 declaration of 2006, which the Petitioner believes to be
fabricated and forged, is misconceived.
14. Respondent No. 5 in the written submissions dated
01.10.2025, has relied upon the concise list of dates submitted by
Respondent No. 6 and adopted the written submissions filed by
Respondent No. 6. In addition, Respondent No. 5 has denied the claim
of tenancy raised by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 5 submits that
none of the rent receipts relied on by the Petitioner are issued by Vee
Pee Constructions or the Original land owner, Gajanan Vinayak
Velkar.
15. Respondent No.6, in their written submissions dated
Arjun
25/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
01.10.2025, has submitted that the contention of the Petitioner that the
2006 Notification under Section 4 of the Slum Act, 1971, is forged or
fabricated, is frivolous and baseless. Reliance is placed on the
Affidavit dated 08.07.2025 and the Gazette dated 17.08.2006, filed by
the State Government. Respondent No. 6 submits that the Competent
Authority followed the detailed procedure before publishing the 2006
Notification.
16. It is further submitted that the challenge to the 2006
Notification is barred. It is submitted that the Petitioner, in its earlier
Writ Petition (L) No. 19288 of 2023, though challenged the 2006
Notification, withdrew the same on 24.01.2024 with liberty to
challenge before the appropriate forum, which remedy, according to
Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner has not exercised. It is submitted that
the present Petition suffers from gross delay and laches. It is submitted
that the 2020 Notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971,
has attained finality. It is submitted that the records indicate that a
slum-like condition exists on the subject property, which has been
considered and examined by the order of the CEO, SRA, dated
09.09.2021. It is submitted that the Petitioner is attempting to call
upon this Court to re-appreciate the facts on whether a slum-like
condition exists on the suit property, which exercise, according to
Respondent No. 6, cannot be undertaken in the exercise of writ
Arjun
26/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
jurisdiction, more so on the face of the concurrent finding by the
Competent Authority and the Slum Tribunal.
17. The allegation of the Petitioner in this Petition that
Respondent No. 6 has erected 45 bogus structures of 5 x 5 feet
dimensions, is denied and disputed. It is submitted that the Petitioner
has not challenged Annexure-II, which reflects 201 structures on the
subject property. Respondent No. 6, without prejudice, has submitted
that Respondent No. 6 is a lawful Developer and that the
Tenants/Occupants have no right to stall the development or
redevelopment as authorised by law and that, if eligible, the members
of the Petitioner Association would be entitled to the alternate
premises provided in terms of the Slum Act, 1971. It is further
submitted that more than 60% of Occupants have duly consented to
development under the Scheme. It is submitted that the members of
the Petitioner Association, who are minority occupants, cannot hold
the majority occupants and the landowner to ransom. Respondent No.
6 has submitted that 122 structures have been demolished, 84
occupants are living in transit camps, and 38 occupants are living on
transit lands. Respondent No. 6 submits that the obstruction created by
the Petitioner is detrimental to the majority who are already out of
their homes. They rely on the following decisions :-
Arjun
27/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
a) Jokim Vincent Gomes v. State of Maharashtra,1
b)Vivek Chandrakant Mayekar v. State of Maharashtra2
c) Taj Mohamed Yakub v. Abdul Gani Bhikan3,
d) Laxmi Ram Pawar v. Sitabai Balu Dhotre4,
e) Santosh Tukaram Patil v. Slum Rehabilitation
Authority5
18. Respondent No. 7 has raised contentions identical to
those of the contesting Respondents herein and has opposed the
Petition filed by the Petitioner.
19. The Petitioner has submitted additional written notes of
clarification dated 04.01.2026, urging contentions, which are set out
below in verbatim :-
1. That The present Writ Petition, after having been closed
for orders, was listed on 24 December 2025 for the
purpose of clarification on the following two issues:
A. Whether a Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Maharashtra Slum Act, 1971 ("Slum Act") is required to
be examined, if the genuineness and legality of an
impugned Declaration under Section 3C(1) is to be tested
independently; and
B. Whether the issue as to whether the Petitioners are
1 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 148
2 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1872
3 1990 SCC OnLine Bom 373
4 (2011) 1 SCC 356
5 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2552
Arjun
28/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
encroachers, tenants, or otherwise, is required to be
considered by the Competent Authority while passing an
order under Section 3C(1) of the Slum Act.
2. ISSUE 'A':
i. The Petitioner humbly submits that, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the impugned
Declaration under Section 3C(1) cannot be tested in
isolation, without examining the genuineness and legality
of the alleged Notification dated 2006 issued under
Section 4(1) of the Slum Act.
ii. Both the Competent Authority (CEO, SRA) and
the Appellate Authority have primarily and substantially
founded their conclusions upon the said alleged
Notification under Section 4(1). In such circumstances, the
legality of the Section 3C(1) Declaration must necessarily
stand or fall with the validity of the foundational
Notification.
iii. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commissioner & Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405, at paragraph 8,
has authoritatively held that when a statutory authority
makes an order based on stated reasons, its validity must
be judged solely on those reasons and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons later through affidavits or
otherwise. An order invalid at inception cannot be
validated subsequently by additional grounds. Applying
the above settled principle, the impugned Declaration
under Section 3C(1), being wholly predicated upon the
Notification under Section 4(1), cannot be tested
independently or in abstraction.
iv. Further, both authorities have completely
ignored substantial material placed on record
demonstrating the Petitioners' lawful rights under the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and DCPR 2034, and
have instead relied exclusively on the alleged Section 4(1)
Notification. Such an approach results in a direct
infringement of the Petitioners' property rights protected
under statutory law and Article 300A of the Constitution
of India.
v. Without prejudice, even assuming that a valid
Notification under Section 4(1) of the year 2006 exists, the
issuance of a fresh Declaration under Section 3C(1)
Arjun
29/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
becomes wholly unnecessary for implementation of the
Slum Scheme. The impugned Declaration is therefore ex
facie redundant, arbitrary, and demonstrative of gross
abuse of statutory power.
vi. Additionally, a Declaration under Section 3C(1)
cannot be given effect to independently without being
coupled with a Clearance Order under Section 3D(b)(ii)
(A) of the Slum Act before issuance of LOI. The statute
expressly provides an effective and substantive appellate
remedy under Section 3D(b)(ii)(D) only after issuance of
such Clearance Order affecting demolition and eviction.
vii. The Appellate Authority is statutorily obligated to
examine whether substantial rights and interests of
affected persons are prejudiced. In the present case, the
Respondents, with an oblique motive, have deliberately
bypassed the statutory process by not issuing any
Clearance Order, yet proceeded to obtain an LOI and
resort to coercive actions under Sections 33 and 38 of the
Slum Act, thereby depriving the Petitioners of their
statutory remedy.
3. ISSUE 'B':
i. In respect of Issue (b), the Petitioner submits that the
Competent Authority is mandatorily required to consider
whether the Petitioners are encroachers, lawful tenants, or
otherwise, while passing an order under Section 3C(1).
The answer to this issue is unequivocally in the
affirmative.
ii. Rehabilitation and redevelopment of encroachers and
bona fide tenants are governed by distinct statutory
regimes. Encroachers on public or private land are
governed under the Slum Act read with Regulation 33(10)
of DCPR 2034, which is a social welfare scheme subject
to strict conditions and limitations.
In contrast, bona fide and protected tenants recognized
under the Rent Control Act, tolerated structures under the
MMC Act existing prior to 1 April 1962, and
redevelopment under Regulation 33(7A) of DCPR 2034,
confer substantially higher and vested rights, including
freehold rehabilitation without the restrictions applicable
to slum rehabilitation.
iv. These categories are statutorily distinct, confer different
Arjun
30/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
legal entitlements, and result in materially different
rehabilitation benefits. Any decision under Section 3C(1)
which ignores this distinction directly infringes the vested
legal rights of lawful tenants, including entitlement to
enhanced rehabilitation area up to 500 sq. ft., as opposed
to the restricted 300 sq. ft. under slum rehabilitation.
V. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain Ghadialy &
Ors. (as relied upon by the Petitioners at page 17,
paragraph 5 of the Written Arguments) has categorically
held that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for
doing a thing, it must be done in that manner alone, and all
other modes stand impliedly prohibited.
vi. Accordingly, where rehabilitation and redevelopment
are governed by distinct statutory frameworks, the
Respondents cannot circumvent the law by misclassifying
lawful tenants as encroachers through a blanket invocation
of Section 3C(1).
4. In view of the aforesaid clarifications, the Petitioner
humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow
the present Writ Petition and grant all the reliefs as prayed
for therein, in the interest of justice.
20. The Petitioner has relied upon the following decisions :-
a) Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Assn. of
India v. DG of Civil Aviation6,
b) Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P.7,
c) Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd.8,
d) Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy9,
e) Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti v. State of Maharashtra10,
f) Ameya Housing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Sai Pawan SRA
6 (2011) 5 SCC 435
7 (2013) 2 SCC 398
8 (2013) 5 SCC 470
9 (2010) 8 SCC 383
10 (2024) 13 SCC 620
Arjun
31/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
CHSL & Ors11,
g) Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi12,
h) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath13,
i) State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati14, \
j) Hussein Ghadially v. State of Gujarat 15,
k) A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.16,
21. Respondent No. 5 has filed an additional note dated
05.01.2026. Respondent No. 6 has filed a clarification note dated
05.01.2026, and Respondent No.7 has submitted a written submission
dated 05.01.2026. The additional notes/clarifications submitted by
Respondent Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are further explanations of the arguments
made in their initial written submissions.
22. Perused the records. We have considered the rival
contentions.
23. Respondent No. 3 has contended that the issues, or some
of the issues, raised in the present Petition were the subject matter of
challenge in Writ Petitions as well as in the Appeals provided under
11 Review Petition (L) No. 20289 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 1197 of 2023
12 (2012) 1 SCC 476
13 (1994) 1 SCC 1
14 (2019) 19 SCC 626
15 (2014) 8 SCC 425
16 (2007) 4 SCC 221
Arjun
32/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
the Slum Act, 1971. At page 14 of the written submissions filed by
Respondent No. 3, there is a flow-chart showing the proceedings. For
convenience, the said flow-chart is copied here under:-
FLOWCHART SHOWING REPEATED UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS
TO CHALLENGE THE SECTION 4 NOTIFICATIONS BEFORE
VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
Portion of land admeasuring
5,224 sq.mtrs Portion of land admeasuring
880.43 sq.mtrs
17th August 2006 (5224 sq. mts) ↓
Section 4 Notification under Slum Act. It was
published in the Gazette. Even the Petitioner
31st July 2020 (880.43 sq mts)
cannot deny that it learnt of Section 4
Notification on 9th September, 2021, as the
Section 4 Notification under Slum Act.
Notification is referred to in the Section 3C Order
of even date.
↓ ↓
13th July 2023
Writ Petition (L) No.19288 of 2023 filed by the 21 Appeals filed before the Slum Tribunal by the
Petitioner challenging the Section 4 Notification Petitioner's Trustees
↓
24th January 2024 ↓
Writ Petition withdrawn with liberty to exercise
alternate remedy
30th November 2021
↓
Alternate remedy not exercised qua Section 4 Appeals dismissed
Notification
↓ ↓
Present Writ Petition filed challenging the same
Section 4 Notification
Petitioner's Trustee files a Writ challenging the
Order of the Slum Tribunal
↓
21st March 2023
Writ dismissed
↓ ↓
→ ←
th
9 September 2021
Arjun
33/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Section 3 C Order passed by
the CEO, Sra declaring the
entire 6, 104.43 sq. m. (5,224
+ 880.43 )Slum
Rehabilitation Area"
24. The Petitioner has challenged the 2006 Notification
issued under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, in the present
Petition, alleging that the said notification is fraudulent. To be precise,
in the words of the Petitioner that, the 2006 Notification, issued under
Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, by which the portion of the
subject property admeasuring 5224 sq. mtrs was declared a Slum
Area, is forged and fabricated. The claim appears to be based on a
response to an RTI query of July 2019 which is transcribed herein
below in verbatim :-
जाक्रंझोपुप्रा/उजिज/कार्याा/टेडि ६ शामाअ५४९१ A/१९/५८२
प्रडि ,
श्री. राकेश पटेल,
६०२, पाक व्हर्याू नाटकवाला. लेन.
एस व्ही रो , बोरीवली (प), मुंबई ४०० ०९२.
विवषर्याः- माविह ीचा अडि8कार अडि8विनर्याम २००५
संदर्भ:- आपला विद. २९/०७/२०१९ रोजीचा अज
Arjun
34/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
उपरोक्त विवषर्यााबाब चा आपला विद. २९/०७/२०१९ रोजीचा अज र्याा
विवर्भागांक े संदर्भान्वर्याे प्राप्त झाला आहे. सदर अजा आपण प्लॉट नं.
६२,६३ व ६४ टी. पी. एस ३ ही विमळक स्लम डि क्लेअर म्हणून घोविष
झाल्र्याचे पुरावा राजपत्र व अन्र्या माविह ी विमळणेबाब विवनं ी आहे. री
प्राडि8करणाच्र्याा उपजिजल्हाडि8कारी कक्षा ील अभिर्भलेखाची पासणी केली
अस ा सदर विमळक झोप पट्टी पुनवसन क्षेत्र घोविष झालेले नाही.
सेच महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी (सू.विन.व.पु.) अडि8विनर्याम १९७१ चे
कलम ४ (१) अन्वर्याे संबंडि8 सक्षम प्राडि8कारी- था-उपजिजल्हाडि8कारी
(अडि /विनष्का) बोरीवली-२ र्याांना गलिलच्छ वस् ी क्षेत्र घोविष करण्र्यााचे
अडि8कार आहे . सबब आपण त्र्याांचे कार्याालर्यााशी संपक सा8ून माविह ी
प्राप्त करून घ्र्याावी. आपला अज कलम ६ (३) नुसार, जन माविह ी
अडि8कारी, सक्षम प्राडि8कारी था उपजिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि /विनष्का)
बोरीवली-२, बृहन्मुंबई महानगरपालिलका मं ई, ळमजला, रुस् मजी
कॉम्पलेक्स, जर्यावं सावं माग, दविहसर (प), मुंबई - ४०० ०६८. र्याा
कार्याालर्यााक े वग करण्र्याा र्याे आहे. सबब माविह ी प्राप्त करून घेण्र्याासाठी
वरील कार्याालर्यााक े परस्पर संपक करावा.
कलम १९ (१) अं ग प्रथम अविपलीर्या अडि8कारी अडि8कारी, मा.
हजिसलदार, झोपड़पट्टी पुनवसन प्राडि8करण, प्रशासविकर्या इमार , ५ वा
मजला, अनं काणेकर माग, बांद्रा (पू), मंबई ४०० ०५१ हे आहे .
SD/-
(विदनानाथ म्हात्रे)
जन माविह ी अडि8कारी था अव्वल कारकून
झोप पट्टी पुनवसन प्राडि8करण
25. The State Government has filed an Affidavit of the
Competent Authority SRA dated 08.07.2025, to which, are the survey
of the subject property conducted on 10.02.2003 with a detailed
Panchanama (Exhibit B, at page no. 952); the Survey Report dated
12.02.2003 submitted by the Chief Surveyor to the Competent
Authority (Exhibit C at page no. 945); the Report dated 21.04.2003 of
the Competent Authority indicating the status of the living conditions
in the subject property submitted to the State Government (Exhibit-D
at page no. 949); Approval received by the Competent Authority vide
Arjun
35/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
letter dated 16.06.2006, declaring the portion of the subject property
admeasuring 5224 sq. mtrs., as slum lands (Exhibit E at page no.
954); the order dated 11.07.2006 declaring the portion of the subject
property admeasuring 5224 sq. mtrs. as a slum (Exhibit F at page no.
955); and the Notification published in the official Gazette dated
11.07.2006 (Exhibit G at page no. 958).
The said documents as appended to the Affidavit are transcribed herein
below :-
a. The detailed Panchanama (Exhibit B) reads as under :-
एस. व्ही रो
मुबईं -४०००९२
विदनांक - १०/२/२००३
पंचनामा
आम्ही खाली सही करणार पंच सवजण राहणार वरील प्रमाणे मा.
सह उपनगरे मुबंई र्याांनी व त्र्याांचे क ील प्रमुख र्भूमापक व र्भूमापक
र्याांनी प्रत्र्याक्ष जागेवर र्याेवन
ू विवचारणे करून आमची वसाह विह
गलिलच्छ वस् ी म्हणून घोविष करणेकामी सवeक्षण /पाहणीव सव
पहाण चौकशी करून विवचारणी करून सत्र्या प्रडि ज्ञेवर पंचनामा लिलहून
दे ो की
आज विदनांक १०/०२/२००३ रोजी वरील कमचारी हे मा.
अप्पर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि /विनष्का) उपनगरे मुबंई र्याांचे क ील पत्र
क्रमांक पथक ३ /कार्याा -६ वशी ६७९/२००२ विदनांक
१६/०९/२००२ अन्वर्याे मौजे कन्हेरी न र्भू क्र.१०९(पै
)१०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८न.र्भू क्र. ११८ ,११८/ १ े १३,
११९ (पै) ११९/१० े ३४ १२०, १२०/ १ े ६ र्याा
विमळक ीवरील म्हात्रेवा ी रहीवशी संघ एस. व्ही रो , बोरीवली,
Arjun
36/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
(प), मुबईं -४०००९२ र्याा नावाने ओळखल्र्याा जाणाऱ्र्याा
झोप पट्टीची गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करणे कामे सवeक्षण/पाहणी/
चौकशी करणे कामी प्रत्र्याक्ष जागेवर आले हो े.
सदरची कामाची वसाह ही मौजे -बोरीवली न र्भू क्र. १०९(पै ,
१०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७५ ,११८, ११८ / १ े १३, ११९
(पै ),११९/१० े ३४ १२० ,१२०/ १ े ६ ,१२१ पैकी र्याा
विमळक ीवर वसलेली असुन ी म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ र्याा
स्थाविनक नावाने ओळखली जा े . वसाह ी एकूण १९३
झोप पट्ट्या आहे व अंदाजे ९८० े १००० एवढी लोकसंख्र्याा
असावी . वसाह ी खालील प्रमाणे च ु : सीम आहे .
पुवeस - स्वामी विववेकानंद रो
पडिpमेस - शीव बोरीवली न र्भू क्र १०८
दडिक्षणेस - न र्भू क्र१२२ व मौजे बोरीवली शीव
उत्तरेस - न र्भू क्र १११ ,११२अ ,११७
वसाह ी खालील प्रमाणे सुविव8ा आहे .
१) सावजाविनक शौचालर्याे - वसाह ी दोन विठकाणी सावजाविनक
शौचालर्याे असून त्र्याामध्र्याे ८ शौचकूप आहे व काही झोप ी8ारकांचे
झोप ी शौचालर्याे बां8ून त्र्यााचा वापर करी आहे .
२) सावजाविनक पान्र्यााचे - प्रत्र्याेक झोप ी8ारक झोप ी पान्र्यााचे
नळाची सोर्या आहे.
३) सां पान्र्यााची व्र्यावस्था - वसाह ी म8ून एका नाळा जा असून
गटारे उघ ी व बंद अवस्थे आहे .
४) रस् े व पार्यावाटा - वसाह ीचे एका बाजूस मुख्र्या रस् ा असून
बाजूस अरुंद गल्ली बोळे आहे.
५) सावजाविनक विदवाबत्ती- वसाह ीचा बाजूस असलेल्र्याा मुक्ख्र्या
रस्त्र्याावर स्ट्रीट लाईट आहे व प्रत्र्याेकाचे झोप ी लाईटची
व्र्यावस्था आहे.
६) सावजाविनक दवाखाना - वसाह ी सावजाविनक अथवा खजगी
दवाखाना नाही.
७) बालवा ी व शाळा - वसाह ी बालवा ी व शाळा नाही
८) सावजाविनक प्राथना स्थळे - वसाह ी एक महाकाली मंविदर
आहे. इ र प्राथना स्थळे नाही .
९)सावजविनक वाचनालर्या:- वसाह ी सावजविनक वाचनालर्यााची
सोर्या नाही.
१०)सावजाविनक स्नान गृहे - वसाह ी सावजाविनक स्नान गृहे
नाही .
आमचे वसाह ीस विमळ असलेल्र्याा नागरी सुविव8ाचा व
लोकसंख्र्याेची विवचार केल्र्याास आम्हाला विमळ असलेल्र्याा नागरी
सुविव8ा फारच अपुऱ्र्याा प्रमाणा आहे. त्र्याामळे आमची वसाह ही
Arjun
37/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
गलिलच्छ वस् ी म्हणून घोविष झाल्र्याास आमचे जीवनमान उं चावर्याास
मद होईल, री कृपर्याा आमची वसाह ही महाराष्ट्र गलिलच्छ वस् ी
(सु8ारणा, विनमूलन व पुनर्विवकास) अडि8विनर्याम १९७१ कलम ४(१)
चे र ुदी नुसार गलिलच्छ वस् ी म्हणून घोविष करणे र्याावी म्हणून
जागेवर प्रत्र्याक्ष हजर राहून वरील पंचनामा आम्ही राजी खुशीन
लिलहून दे आहे.
नावे स्वाक्षरी
1. Amubhai D. Shah sd/-
2. Manjulaben Pandya sd/-
3. Bhavanaben R. Shah sd/-
4. Dipakbhai Pandya sd/-
5. Bharatbhai Raval sd/-
6. Sureshchand M. Desai sd/-
b. The Survey Report dated 12.02.2003 submitted by the Chief
Surveyor to the Competent Authority (Exhibit C) reads as under :-
मुंबई, विदनांक १२/२/२००३
प्रडि ,
मा. सहाय्र्याक विनर्यांत्रक गलिलच्छ वस्त्र्याा,
पडिpम उपनगरे मुबईं
विवषर्या :- मौजे-कन्हेरी, ालुका - बोरीवली, न.र्भू.क्रं-
१०९(पै), १०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८ ,
११८/१ े १३/११९ (पै) ११९/१०
े ३४,१२०,१२०/१ े ६ १२१ (पै)
म्हात्रेवा ी रहीवाशी संघ गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष
करणे बाब .
संदर्भः मा. अप्पर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि /विनष्का) र्याांचे विद.
६/२/२००३ चे विटपणी वरील आदेशा प्रमाणे
उपरोक्त विवषर्याडि8न संदर्भ अन्वर्याे मौजे - कन्हेरी ा
बोरीवली र्याेथील न र्भु क्रं. १०९(पै), १०९/१ े ३५
व ५४ े ७८,११८, ११८ /१ े १३/११९ (पै)
११९/१० े ३४,१२०,१२०/१ े ६ व १२१ (पै)
जे जमीनीवर असलेल्र्याा म्हात्रेवा ी रहीवाशी संघ
Arjun
38/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
झोप ीची गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करणे कामी पाहणी
व चौकशी करून खालील प्रमाणे अहवाल सादर करी
आहो .
१) गलिलच्छ वस् ीचे नाव :- म्हात्रेवा ी रहीवाशी संघ ए
स. व्ही. रो बोरीवली (प)
मुबईं - ४०००९२.
२) वसाह ी खालील न. र्भू. क्र.:- मौजे-कन्हेरी, ालुका -
बोरीवली, न.र्भू.क्रं- १०९(पै),
१०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८
११८/१ े १३/११९ (पै)
११९/१० े ३४,१२०,१२०/१ े
६ ,१२१ (पै)
३) पात्र अपात्र झोपड्या व
पात्र झोप ी8ारकांची संख्र्याा- विवषर्याा8ीन न.र्भु. क्रमांकावर १९६
झोपड्या आहे व अंदाजे ९८०
१००० एवढी लोकसंख्र्याा असावी ४५
बोरीवली विव8ानसर्भा विनवाचन क्षेत्राच्र्याा
१९८३- १९८५......
झोप ी8ारकांची नावे झाली आहे
म दार र्याादी त्र्याांचे नावास
अ8ोरेलिख केलेले आहे
४. जमीन मालकाचे नाव :- विमळक पवित्रके प्रमाणे
न र्भू. क्र. 8ारक
१०९, १०९/१ े १. श्री.म. नेत्रा अजिज विवजर्याकर
३५ २. वरूणा श्रीकां ांबे
व १०९/५४ े ३. अविन ा रघुनाथ म्हापसकर
न. र्भू. क्र. १२०,
१२०/१ े ६
न र्भू क्र. ११८,
११८/१ े १३
न र्भू क्र. ११९(पै)
११९/१० े ३४
न. र्भू. क्र. १२१
(पैकी)
Arjun
39/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
५. सुविव8ांचा पशील :-
१. सावजविनक शौचालर्याे:- वसाह ी दोन विठकाणी सावजविनक
शौचालर्याे असून त्र्याामध्र्याे आठ शौचकूप
आहे काही झोप ी8ारकांनी स्व ंत्र
शौचालर्याे बां8न
ू त्र्यााचा वापर करी
आहे .
२. सां पाण्र्यााची व्र्यावस्था :- वसाह ी म8ून एक नाळा जा असून
गटारे उघ ी आहे .
३. पाण्र्यााची व्र्यावस्था :- प्रत्र्याेक झोप ी8ारकांचे झोप ी
पाण्र्यााच्र्याा नळाचे सोर्या आहे.
४. रस् े व पार्यावाटा :- वसाह ींचे एका बाजूस मुख्र्या रस् ा
असून आ ील बाजूस अरूंद गल्लीबोळ
आहे .
सावजविनक विदवाबत्ती :- वसाह ीचे बाजूस असलेल्र्याा मुख्र्या
रस्त्र्याावर स्ट्रीट लाईट आहे व
प्रत्र्याेकाचे झोप ी लाईटची व्र्यावस्था
आहे.
दवाखाने :- वसाह ी सावजविनक दवाखाना नाही
बालवा ी व शाळा :- वसाह ी बालवा ी अथवा शाळा नाही
प्राथना स्थळे : वसाह ी एक महाकाली मंविदर आहे
सावजविनक वाचनालर्याे:- सावजविनक वाचनालर्या नाही
सावजविनक स्नानगृहे : सावजविनक स्नानगृहे नाही .
मुद्दा क्रमांक ५ प्रमाणे वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करण्र्याास
असणारी परिरस्थिस्थ ी :-
७) घोविष करार्याचे क्षेत्र क्षेत्र
न र्भू.क्र.
१०९ पै १०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े २४९४-१ चौ.मी.
११८, ११८/१ ं १३ ३२१-७ चौ.मी.
११९ (पै) ११९/१० े ३४ १०३५-० चौ.मी.
Arjun
40/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
१२० ,१२०/१ े ६ २१७-७ चौ.मी.
१२१ पैकी ८७९-७ चौ.मी.
८ )घोविष करावर्यााचा क्षेत्रापैकी
मोकळे क्षेत्र :- घोविष करावर्यााचा क्षेत्रामध्र्याे मोकळे
क्षेत्र अं र्भू केले नाही .
९)घोविष करावर्यााचा क्षेत्राचा
संर्याक्त
ु मोजणी नकाशा :- संर्याक्त
ु मोजणी नकाशा अजदार र्याांनी
सादर केले ला नाही. मात्र जागेवरील
वस् ुस्थिस्थ ी दशविवणारा झोपड्यांचा
नकाशा सोब जो ले ला आहे.
१० )घोविष करावर्यााचा क्षेत्रावर
असणारे आरक्षण - अजदार र्याांनी ी पी रिरमाक प्रकरणी
सामील केलेला आहे. मात्र े फार्यानल
प्लॉट प्रमाणे आहे . कृपर्याा अवलोकन
होण्र्याास विवनं ी आहे.
सदरहू वसाह ीस खालील प्रमाणे च ू: सीमा आहे
पुवeस - स्वामी विववेकानंद रो
पडिpमेस - शीव बोरीवलीची व न .र्भू .क्र १०७
दडिक्षणेस - न .र्भू .क्र.१२२ व मौजे बोरीवलीची शीव
उत्तरेस - न र्भू क्र १११, ११२अ, ११७
वसाह ी १९६ झोप ी8ारक असल्र्यााचे आढळू न आले आहे.
त्र्यााप्रमाणे झोप ी8ारकांची नावे विवचारून नावांची र्याादी र्याार केली
आहे. व त्र्याांचे नावासमोर म दार र्याादी अढळ झालेले अनुक्रमांक
नमूद केले आहे . व म दार र्याादी त्र्याांचे नावास अ8ोरेखी करुन
र्याादी ील अनुक्रमांक नमुद केले आहे . प्रकरणी सामील केलेल्र्याा
झोपड्यांचे नकाशाचे आ8ारे जागेवर चौकशी केली असून त्र्यााच्र्याा
आ8ारे चौकशी केलेल्र्याा र्याादीच्र्या व नकाशाच्र्याा चार प्रडि सेच
चौकशी केले बाब केलेला पंचनामा र्याा सोब जो ू न वरील प्रमाणे
अहवाल सादर करी आहो . री पसं ीनुरूप पुढील र्याोगर्या ी
कार्यावाही होणेस विवनं ी आहे. सोब मुळ प्रकरणासह घा ांक १ े
असे.
१) sd/-
२) sd/-
Arjun
41/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
c. The Report dated 21.04.2003 of the Competent Authority
indicating the status of the living conditions in the subject
property submitted to the State Government (Exhibit-D) reads as
under :
क्रमांक पथक-३ कार्याा-८ वशी ६७९/२००३
अप्पर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि क्रमन /विनष्कासन]
पडिpम उपनगर जिजल्हा र्याांचे कार्याालर्या,
प्रशासकीर्या इमार , ७ वा मजला
बांद्रा [पूव] मुंबई- ४०० ०५१.
विदनांक: २१/०४/२००३.
प्रडि ,
मा. प्र8ान सडिचव,
गृहविनमाण विवर्भाग,
मंत्रालर्या, मुंबई- ४०० ०३२.
विवषर्या: मौजे कन्हेरी ालुका - बोरिरवली.
न. र्भू. क्र. १०९ पै, १०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८
११८,११८/१ ,१ े १३ ,११९ पै,११९/१० े
३४,१२०, १२०/१ े ६,१२१ पै म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी
संघ.गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करणे बाब .
महोदर्या,
उपरोक्त विवषर्यााबाब म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ एस. व्ही. रो ,
बोरीवली र्याांनी र्याा कार्याालर्याां त्र्याांची झोप पट्टी महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी
[सु8ारणा, विनमुलने व पुनविवकास] अडि8विनर्याम १९७१ चे कलम ४ [१]
अन्वर्याे गलिलच्छवस् ी घोविष करणेबाब केलेल्र्याा विवनं ीनुसार मुद्देविनहार्या
अहवाल खालील प्रमाणे सादर करणे र्याे आहे.
१] वसाह ीचे नाव - म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ.
एस. व्ही. रो , बोरीवली.
२] वसाह ी ील न. र्भू. क्रं:- १०९ पै १०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८
११८,११८/१ े १३ ११९ पै ११९/१० े
३४ १२०, १२०/१ े ६ ,१२१ पै
३] पात्र, अपात्र सदरहू वसाह ीमध्र्याे एकूण १२६ झोपड्या
झोप र्याा व पात्र असुन त्र्याापैकी ८३ झोप ी8ारकांची नविव
Arjun
42/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
झोपड्या ील सन १९८३, १९८५ व १९९५ चे म दार
लोकसंख्र्याा :- र्याादीर्भाग क्र. ७०,११६ मध्र्याे आढळ ा
त्र्याानुसार एकूण ८३ झोप ी- 8ारक पात्र
ठरवू शक ा व ११३ झोप ी8ारक अपात्र
ठरू शक ा . पात्र झोप ी8ारकांची
लोकसंख्र्याा अंदाजे ४०० असून अपात्र
झोप ी8ारकांची लोकसंख्र्याा अंदाजे ५८०
आहे. एकूण झोप र्याांची लोकसंख्र्याा ९८०
आहे.
४] जविमनीचे मालक :- मौजे कन्हेरी ालुका- बोरीवली र्याेथील
न.મૂ.क्र. :- १०९,१०९/१ े ३५ व १०९
/५४ े ७८ ११८,११८/१ े १३ ११९ पै
११९/१० े ३४ १२०, १२०/१ े ६ व
१२१ पै र्याा जविमनीचे विमळक पवित्रकेच्र्याा
उ ा-र्याानु ार खालील विमळक ीचे मालक १]
श्रीम ी नेत्रा अजिज विवजर्याकर २] वरूणा
श्रीकां ांबे ३] अविन ा रघुनाथ म्हापसकर
आहे .
५) सुविव8ा पशील:-
सुविव8ा पशील:- वसाह ीमध्र्याे उपलब्8 असलेल्र्याा सुविव8ा मानकाप्रमाने सुविव8ाची कमी
सुविव8ा
आवश्र्याक
अ) शौचालर्याै :- वसाह ीमध्र्याे दोन विठकानी असून त्र्याामध्र्याे आठ ११ ३
शौचकुप आहे .
ब:] सावजविनक नळ सावजाविनक नळ नाही परं ु प्रत्र्याेक झोप ी पाण्र्यााचे २ २
नळाची सोर्या आहे.
क)गटारेः- सां पाणी वाहून नेणारी गटारे उघ ी आहे . _ गटारे बंद
नाही .
Arjun
43/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
) पार्यावाटाः अरुंद पार्यावाटा ६ फुटापर्या¢ पार्यावाटा रुंद
पार्यावाटा रुंद असणे
असणे आवश्र्याक
आवश्र्याक
इ) रस् े :- एका बाजूला मुख्र्या रस् ा आहे. रस् ा असणे रस् े नाही .
आवश्र्याक
सावजविनक मुख्र्या रस्त्र्याावर स्ट्रीट लाईट आहे परं ु सावजविनकविदवाबत्ती सावजविनक
विदवाबत्ती: विदवाबत्तीची सोर्या नाही. असणे विदवाबत्ती
आवश्र्याक नाही.
६]कलम ४(१) म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ र्याा वसाह ीमध्र्याे रहाणा-र्याा लोकांची लोकसंख्र्याा विवचारा
च्र्याा र ुदीनुसार घे ल्र्याास लोकसंखेस मानपादं ा प्रमाणे सुविव8ा पुरशे ा प्रमाना नाही . सेच अरुंद
वसाह घोविष रस् ा सावजविनक सुविव8ांचा अर्भाव असल्र्याामुळे सदर वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष
करणेसाठी असणारी करण्र्याा सारखी परिरस्थिस्थ ी आहे
परिरस्थिस्थ ी:-
७]घोविष करावर्यााचे न. र्भू. क्र.
क्षेत्र :- १०९,१०९/१ े ३५ व ५४ े ७८ ३२२२.६ चौ. मी
११८, ११८/१ े १३ ४२६.२ चौ मी.
११९, पै. ११९/१० े ३४ १०३५. ० चौ. मी
१२०, १२०/१ े ६ २१७.७ चौ. मी.
१२१ पै ३२२.५ चौ. मी.
५२२४. चौ मी.
[पाच हजार दोनशे चोवीस चौ.]
८]घोविष घोविष करावर्यााच्र्याा क्षेत्रामध्र्याे मोकळे क्षेत्र अं र्भू केले नाही.
करावर्यााच्र्याा
क्षेत्रापैकी मोकळे
असणारे क्षेत्र :-
९. प्राथविमक नोटीस वरील विमळक ीचे संबंडि8 जमीन मालक श्रीम ी नेत्रा अजिज विवजर्याकर, वरूणा
कारवाई केल्र्याानं र श्रीकां ांबे, अविन ा रघुनाथ म्हापसकर र्याांना सदरची गलिलच्छवस्थिस् घोविष का करू
प्राप्त झालेल्र्याा नर्याे र्याा आशर्यााचे प्राथविमक नोटीस विदनांक :- २७/०२/२००३ रोजी विनगविम केल्र्याा
हरक ी व त्र्याा वरील होत्र्याा
कारवाई:- वरील नोविटसा विनगविम केल्र्याानं र जमीन मालक १] श्रीम ी नेत्रा अजिज
विवजर्याकर २] वरूणा श्रीकां ांबे ३] अविन ा रघुनाथ म्हापसकर र्याांनी र्याा
Arjun
44/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
कार्याालर्याा ील विदनांक - १०/०३/०३ रोजी लेखी विनवेदन सादर केले असून
त्र्याामध्र्याे त्र्याांनी असे नमूद केले आहे की. आर्थिथकदृष्ट्या े गरीब असल्र्यााने
झोप ी8ारकांना प्राथविमक सुविव8ा पुरवू शक नाही. सदर विमळक गलिलच्छवस्थिस्
घोविष करण्र्याास हरक नाही. थाविप त्र्याांचा मालकी हक्क अबाडि8 राविहले पाविहजे
त्र्याा बदल हो ा कामा नर्याे.
१०]घोविष र्याा कार्याालर्याां ी र्भूमापक र्याांनी प्रकरणी र्याार केलेला नकाशा सोब जो ला आहे.
करावर्यााचा
नकाशा:-
११]घोविष अजदार र्याांनी वरील विमळक ीबाब चे ी. पी. रिरमाक सादर केले नसल्र्यााने
करावर्यााच्र्याा क्षेत्रावर आरक्षणाबाब उल्लेख कर ा र्याे नाही.
असलेले आरक्षण :-
१२]अप्पर सदर प्रकरणी मौजे - कन्हेरी ालुका बोरिरवली न. र्भू. क्र . १०९ पै. १०९/१ े ३५
जिजल्हाडि8कारी:-[ व ५४ े ७८,११८, ११८/१ े १३, ११९ पै. ११९/१० े ३४, १२०, १२०/
अडि क्रमण १ े ६, १२१ पै. र्याांचे क्षेत्र ५२२४.०० चौ. मी. असून सदर क्षेत्रावर एकूण १९६
विनष्कासन] र्याांचे झोपड्या आहे . त्र्याांपक
ै ी -८३ झोप ी8ारकांची नावे सन -१९८३-१९८५,
अभिर्भप्रार्या १९९५ च्र्याा म दार र्याादीमध्र्याे आहे. सदर झोप ी असलेल्र्याा सुविव8ा माणकाप्रमाणे
पुरश
े ा नाही . सेच झोपड्या / बां8कामे ही र्याोजनाबद्ध नाही . अरुंद रस् े,
सुविव8ांचा अर्भाव त्र्याामुळे र्भौगोलिलक परिरस्थिस्थ ी मानवी जीवनास अपार्याकारक आहे.
सेच जमीन मालक र्याांनी सदरच्र्याा झोप पट्टी सुविव8ा देऊ शक नाही परं ु त्र्याांनी
त्र्यााचा मालकी हक्क अबाडि8 राविहल्र्याास त्र्याांची गलिलच्छवस्थिस् घोविष करण्र्याास हरक
नाही. असे लेखी विनवेदन विदले आहे र्याा कारणास् व सदरची वस् ी गलिलच्छवस्थिस् घोविष
करणे आवश्र्याक आहे.
सेच सदर विमळक ीबाबाद श्रीम ी - शां ाबाई ल म्हात्रे र्याांनी न. र्भू. क्र १२१,
११९, १०८ र्याा विमळक ी बाब त्र्याांना विवचारल्र्याा भिशवार्या गलिलछवस् ी घोविष करू
नर्याे असे त्र्याांनी लेखी विनवेदन र्याा कार्याालर्याा सेच मा. सडिचव, गृहविनमाण विवर्भाग र्याांना
२-४-२००२ रोजी देण्र्याा आले आहे.
री सदर विमळक महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी [ सु8ारणा विनमूलन व पुनर्विवकास]
अडि8विनर्याम - १९७१ चे कलम ४[१] अन्वर्याे घोविष करणे आवश्र्याक आहे. री
प्रकरणी गलिलच्छवस्थिस् शासन विनणर्याानुसार घोविष करण्र्यााबाब प्रकरण मान्र्या ेसाठी
सादर करण्र्याा र्याे आहे.
सोब संडिचका पान १ े ६१७ सादर करणे र्याे आहे.
आपला विवश्वासू
sd/-
अप्पर जिजल्हाडि8कारी [ अडि क्रमण / विनष्कासन]
Arjun
45/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
मुंबई उपनगर जिजल्हा [पडिpम उपनगरे. ]
d. Approval received by the Competent Authority vide letter dated
16.06.2006, declaring the portion of the subject property admeasuring
5224 sq. mtrs., as slum lands (Exhibit E) reads as under :-
क्रमांक : गवसु. २००३/प्र.क्र.२१०/झोपसू-१
गृहविनमाण विवर्भाग, मंत्रालर्या, मुंबई-४०० ०३२.
विदनांक : १६.०६.२००६
अडि रिरक्त जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि ./विनष्का.),
पडिpम उपनगरे,
नवीन प्रशासकीर्या र्भवन, ७ वा मजला,
सरकारी वसाह , वांद्रे (पूव),
मुंबई-४०००५१.
विवषर्याः मौजे-कन्हेरी, ा. बोरीवली, न.र्भू.क्र.१०९ (पै), १०९/१ े
३५ व ५४ े ७८, ११८, ११८/१ े १३, १९९ (पै),
११९/१० े ३४, १२०, १२०/१ े ६ व १२१ (पै), म्हात्रेवा ी
रविहवाशी संघ, एस. व्ही. रो , बोरीवली ही झोप पट्टी महाराष्ट्र
झोप पट्टी (सु.विन.व पु.) अडि8विनर्याम, १९७१ चे कलम ४(१)
अन्वर्याे गलिलच्छवस् ी घोविष करण्र्यााबाब .
संदर्भः (१) आपले पत्र क्र. पथक-३/कार्याा-८/वशी-
६७९/२००३,विद.२९.४.२००३.
(२)क्र.अजिज/अडि /विन/पथक-३/कार्याा./८/ग.व./एसआर.३७/
०५, विद.२३.९.२००५.
(३)क्र. अजिज/अडि /विनष्का./पथक-३/कार्याा-८/ग.व./एसआर.
३७/०५, विद.१४.१२.१००५
महोदर्या,
मौजे-कन्हेरी, ा. बोरीवली, न.र्भु.क्र.१०९ (पै), १०९/१ े ३५ व
५४ े ७८, ११८,११८ /१ े १३, १९९(पै), ११९/१० े ३४,
१२०, १२०/१ े ६ व १२१ (पै), म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ, एस.
Arjun
46/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
व्ही. रो , बोरीवली ही झोप पट्टी महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी (सु.विन.व पु.)
अडि8विनर्याम, १९७१ चे कलम ४(१) अन्वर्याे गलिलच्छवस् ी घोविष
करण्र्यााबाब (क्षेत्र ५२२४.०० चौ.मी.) संदर्भा8ीन पत्रासोब
पाठविवलेल्र्याा प्रस् ावास मान्र्या ा देण्र्याा र्याे आहे.
विवषर्याांविक र्भूर्भाग "गलिलच्छवस्थिस् " म्हणून घोविष करण्र्यााबाब ची
कार्यावाही करण्र्याा र्याावी व से शासनासही कळविवण्र्याा र्याावे ही
विवनं ी. सोब मूळ संडिचका पाठविवण्र्याा र्याे आहे.
सहपत्र : वरील प्रमाणे.
SD/-
आपला विवश्वासू,
(संजर्या खे ेकर)
कक्ष अडि8कारी, महाराष्ट्र शासन
e. The order dated 11.07.2006 declaring the portion of the subject
property admeasuring 5224 sq. mtrs. as a slum at Exhibit F reads as
under :-
क. पथक-३/कक्ष-८/४ (१)/ग.
व/एसआर-३७/०५
अपर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि /विनष्कासन)
पडिpम उपनगरे, मुंबई र्यााचेकार्याालर्या
प्रशासकीर्या इमार , ७वा मजला,
बांद्रा (पूव), मुंबई ४०० ०५१
विदनांकः / ०७ /२००६.
वाचले
१) शासन पत्र गृहविनमाण विवर्भाग, मंत्रालर्या क्र.गवसु-
२००३/प्र.क्र.२१०/झोपसु-१/ विदनांक १६/६/२००६.
महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी (सु8ारणा, विनमूलन व पुनर्विवकास) अडि8विनर्याम,
१९७१ म8ील कलम ४ (१) नुसार कार्यावाही-
Arjun
47/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
आदेश:
म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ, एस. व्ही. रो , बोरीवली (पडिpम),
मुंबई-९२ र्याांनी मौजे-कन्हेरी, ालुका-बोरीवली र्याेथील नगर
र्भूमापन क्रमांक १०९ (पै), १०९/१ े ३५, ५४ े ७८, ११८,
११८/१ े १३, ११९ (पै), ११९/१० े ३४, १२०/१ े ६ व
१२१ (पै) र्याा र्भूखं ावर असलेली वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी म्हणून
घोविष करावी असा अज र्याा कार्याालर्याा सादर केला हो ा.
सदर अजाची प्रमुख र्भूमापक र्याांचेक ू न प्राथविमक चौकशी करुन
पंचनाम्र्याासह अहवाल र्याा कार्याालर्याा विदनांक १२/२/२००३
रोजी सादर केला आहे. त्र्याानुसार सदर वसाह ी नागरी सुविव8ाचा
अर्भाव असुन नागरी सुविव8ा र्याोग्र्या व पुरशे ा प्रमाणा नाही . रस् े,
गटारे, सावजविनक विदवा बत्ती र्याांची पुरश
े ी व्र्यावस्था नाही असे विदस े.
सदर वसाह घोविष करण्र्याापूव« नगर र्भूमापन क्रमांक १०९
(पै), १०९/१ े ३५, ५४ े ७८, ११८, ११८/१ े १३.
११९ (पै), ११९/१० े ३४, १२०/१ े ६ व १२१ (पै) च्र्याा
जविमन मालक श्री म. नेत्रा अजिज विवजर्याकर, वरुणा श्रीकां ांबे व
अविन ा रघुनाथ म्हापसकर र्याांना प्राथविमक सुनावणीची नोटीस
बजावण्र्याा आलेली हो ी. त्र्याांनी गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करणेस
हरक घे ली परं ु जमीन मालक र्याानी सदर वसाह ीमध्र्याे
कोणत्र्यााही सुविव8ा न पुरविवल्र्यााने त्र्यााची हरक ग्राहर्या 8रलेली नाही
र्याा वसाह ीची सक्षम प्राडि8कारी र्याांनी समक्ष जागा पहाणी केलेली
आहे वसाह ी नागरी सुविव8ांचा अर्भाव असल्र्यााची खात्री झाली
आहे परं ु शासन विनणर्या गृहविनमाण विवर्भाग विदनांक २८/५/२००१
नुसार खाजगी जागेवरील वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी म्हणून घोविषत्र
करावर्यााची असल्र्याास सदर प्रस् ावास शासनाची मान्र्या ा घेणे
आवश्र्याक असल्र्याामुळे मौजे कन्हेरी, ालुका-बोरीवली र्याेथील नगर
र्भूमापन क्रमांक १०९ (पै), १०९/१ े ३५, ५४ े ७८, ११८,
११८/१ े १३, ११९ (पै), ११९/१० े ३४, १२०/१ े ६
व १२१ (पै) वरील वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी घोविष करणे बाब चा
प्रस् ाव शासनाक े विद.२९/४/२००३ रोजी सादर करणे आला
हो ा. त्र्यााप्रमाणे सदर प्रस् ावास शासनाक ू न शासन पत्र गृहविनमाण
विवर्भाग विदनांक १६/६/२००६ अन्वर्याे सदर वसाह गलिलच्छ वस् ी
घोविष करणेस मान्र्या ा विमळालेली आहे
सबब मी, अपर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि क्रमण/विनष्कासन) था
सक्षम प्राडि8कारी, पडिpम उपनगरे, मला महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी
Arjun
48/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
(सु8ारणा, विनमुलन व पुनर्विवकास) अडि8विनर्याम, १९७१ म8ील
र ुदीनुसार प्रदान केलेल्र्याा अडि8काराचा वापर करुन मौजे-
कन्हेरी, ालुका-बोरीवली र्याेथील नगर र्भुमापन क्रमांक १०९ (पै),
१०९/१ े ३५, ५४ े ७८, ११८, ११८/१ े १३, ११९
(पै), ११९/१० े ३४, १२०/१ े ६ व १२१ (पै) क्षेत्र
५२२४.०० चौ. विमटस क्षेत्रावर वसलेली म्हात्रेवा ी रविहवाशी संघ ही
वसाह महाराष्ट्र झोप पट्टी (सु8ारणा, विनमूलन व पुनर्विवकास)
अडि8विनर्याम १९७१ म8ील कलम ४(१) नुसार गलिलच्छ वस् ी
म्हणून घोविष करी आहे. शी अडि8सूचना विनगविम करुन
राजपत्रा प्रजिसध्दी साठी पाठविवण्र्याा र्याावी.
SD/-
अपर जिजल्हाडि8कारी (अडि /विनष्कासन), व
सक्षम प्राडि8कारी, पडिpम उपनगरे, मुंबई
f. The Notification dated 11.07.2006 (Exhibit G) reads as
follows:
"BY THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR
(ENCROACHMENT/REMOVAL)AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI WESTERN SUBURBAN
DISTRICT
No. Unit-3/Desk-8/4(1)/SR-37/05. - Whereas,
the Additional Collector (Encroachment / Removal),
Western Suburban District, Mumbai has been appointed as
Competent Authority under section 3 of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 in respect of classes of all
lands and of Western Suburban; And whereas, on the basis
of information about the slum area available, the
Competent Authority hereunder (hereinafter referred to
"the said Area") are source of danger to the health, safety
or convenience of the public of that area and of its
neighbourhood by reason of the area having inadequate
basic amenities, overcrowded and being insanitary, squalid
and/or otherwise;
And whereas, the Government in Housing
Department, Mantralaya vide letter No. Gavasu 2003/P. K.
210/Zopasu-I, dated 16th June, 2006 has issued direction
to declare the area shown herein under admeasuring
Arjun
49/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
5224.00 sq. mtrs., as Slum Areas.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred on me, under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 I Additional Collector
(Encroachment/Removal) and Competent Authority,
Western Suburban Mumbai District, declare the said areas
to be as Slum Areas
Schedule of Areas
Local Name of the Area and Village Mhatrewadi,
Rahiwasi Sangh, S. V. Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400
092. Village Kanheri
S. No. Area in Sq. meter
C.T.S. No.
M.S.D.
109 (pt)
109/1 to 35
54 to 78,
118,
118/1 to 13, 5224.00
119 (Pt),
119/1 to 34
120/1 to 6 and ____________
121 (Pt) Total.. 5224.00
Description of Boundaries :-
East. - C.T.S. S. V. Road.
West - O.T.S. No. 105.
South - C.T.S. No. 122.
North - C.T.S. No. 111, 112A, 117
SD/-
H. B. UDHAN
Additional Collector (Enc./Removal)
And Competent Authority,
Mumbai Western Suburban District"
26. The aforesaid factual matrix does not support the
contention of the Petitioner that the 2006 Notification is fraudulent.
Arjun
50/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
27. Respondent No. 6, in their written submissions, have
submitted as follows :-
8. Therefore, it is patently erroneous for the Petitioner
to suggest that the 2006 Declaration was passed in any
secretive manner. In fact, the record reveals that various
members of the Petitioner association were aware of the
procedure for declaring the Subject Property in 2003
itself and had addressed objection letters to the
Competent Authority. (R6, COD, Pg. 26 - 34)
28. The 2006 Notification was challenged by the Petitioner in
Writ Petition (L) No. 19288 of 2023. The order dated 24.01.2024
passed by this Court in the said Petition reads as follows:
1. Mr Kurle states that the present Application for
contempt may be dismissed as withdrawn but with a liberty to
the individual namely, Vimla C Shah/Lalit C Shah to file a
separate Contempt Application/Petition for identical reliefs and
the same reasons. This Interim Application is disposed of in
these terms.
2. After some arguments and on instructions, Mr Kurle
seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to pursue
the alternative remedy including any appeal that might have
already been filed.
3. Leave granted with liberty as prayed. All contentions
are expressly kept open.
4. The Petition is disposed of in these terms. We have
declined to continue the previous ad-interim order. That relief
may be sought in the appellate forum.
29. Respondent No. 6, in paragraph No. 9 of its written
submission, has submitted that although a Statutory Appeal under
Section 4(3) of the Slum Act, 1971 was available to challenge the
Arjun
51/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
declaration before the Slum Tribunal, the Petitioner did not exercise
that remedy even after withdrawing the Writ Petition (L) No. 19288
of 2023.
30. Respondent No. 6 would therefore be justified in
contending that the challenge to the 2006 Notification in this Petition
would be barred. In addition, Respondent No. 6, by referring to the
order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the CEO, SRA, submits that the
Petitioner was aware of the 2006 Notification since 2021. This
Petition is filed in the year 2024 (i.e., after 3 years), without any
cogent explanation for the delay. Respondent No. 6 is on record to
state that, in the interregnum, a Slums Scheme has been approved and
123 structures have been vacated and the Occupants are living on
transit rent/in transit camps. Respondent No. 7 is on record to state
that there are a total of 201 Occupants on the subject property and that
at the time of LOI, 123 out of the 201 Occupants accorded their
consent to the Slums Scheme, of which 84 are in transit camps and 38
are on transit rent.
31. The subsequent Notification dated 31.07.2022 issued
under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act, 1971, by which the portion of the
subject property admeasuring 880.43 sq. mtrs was declared a Slum
Area was challenged by the Petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition
No. 1578 of 2023. The said petition was dismissed on 21.03.2023, by
Arjun
52/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
the following order:-
"1. The Petitioner has no locus whatsoever. He
claims to be an occupant of one room in a chawl at village
Kanheri, Taluka Borivali. He admittedly has no ownership
interest in the land on which that chawl stands. The entire
property, spread over several CTS numbers and
admeasuring over an acre and a quarter, is the property of
the 2nd Respondent which is developing the area as a slum
project or a slum scheme. The challenge in the Petition is
to an order of 30th November 2021 of the Maharashtra
Slum Areas Tribunal. The Appeal was under Section 4(3)
of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
and Redevelopment) Act 1971 ("the Slum Act"). Before
the Tribunal, the Petitioner assailed an order dated 27th
July 2020 and sought to assail every action following a
notice of 24th June 2020. The order of 27th July 2020
declared the property in question as a slum area.
2. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Slum
Act was issued some time in the year 2006. This is
undisputed. There were two chawls on the property,
Ramanlal chawl and Mhatrewadi chawl. The remaining
land was vacant. The argument before the Tribunal and
now before us is that the parameters under Section 4(1) of
the Slum Act were not considered.
3. There is no challenge to the Section 4
notification itself. It makes no difference that the
Petitioner has challenged the notification before some
other authority. But it is clear that the Section 4
notification was issued after the authority was satisfied
that conditions existed on site warranting the declaration
of an area and its notification as a slum area.
4. Importantly, the Slum Act contains provisions
that makes it obligatory on the part of the owners to
demonstrate that they have taken steps to keep the area in
question free of slum-like conditions. The owner itself
does not claim this. How an occupant of a room can do so
is difficult to understand. This is apart from the fact that
the occupant is of course not himself willing to contribute
one naya paisa towards the development of the land or to
keeping it free of slum-like conditions. The real intent of
the Petition is clear which is to oppose the redevelopment
and possibly to extract some benefit or gain out of it.
Arjun
53/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
5. We see no merit in the Petition. It is rejected.
There will be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
32. In addition to the contention in respect of the 2006
Notification under Section 4(1) Notification, the Petitioner has
challenged the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the CEO SRA under
Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971 on merits.
33. Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971 reads as follows:-
3C. Declaration of a slum rehabilitation area :-
(1) As soon as may be, after the publication
of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the Chief
Executive Officer on being satisfied about the
circumstances in respect of any land, whether or not
previously declared as slum area, justifying its
declaration as the Slum Rehabilitation Area which may
include community economic activity area, for
implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, shall
after giving the land owners, including any public
authorities or local bodies under the State Government
constituted under any law enacted by the State
Legislature, thirty days notice and after giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard, by an order
published in the Official Gazette, and thereafter within
forty-five days, declare such land to be a "Slum
Rehabilitation Area". The order declaring the Slum
Rehabilitation Area (hereinafter referred to as "the slum
rehabilitation order"), shall also be given wide publicity
in such manner as may be specified by the Chief
Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
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:
Provided that, only in respect of any land which is
Arjun
54/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
required for Vital Public Project purpose, as per orders
of the State Government and where the State
Government either directly or through any public
authority has undertaken the responsibility of relocation
and rehabilitation of the protected and other occupiers
of the building, then the Chief Executive Officer shall,
exclude the land required for Vital Public Project from
the Slum Rehabilitation Area and issue an order to omit
such land from the Slum Rehabilitation Area. Where
the State Government either directly or through any
public authority has undertaken the responsibility of
relocation and rehabilitation of the protected and other
occupiers of the building, such public authority shall
prepare the Scheme of such rehabilitation or relocation
and get it approved by the Chief Executive Officer
within the period specified in the Scheme which shall
not be more than ninety days.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Chief
Executive Officer may, within thirty days of the
publication of such slum rehabilitation order, prefer an
appeal to the Grievance Redressal Committee. The
decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee in such
appeal shall be final.
(3) On the completion of the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme, the Slum Rehabilitation Area
shall cease to be such area.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kantabai
Vasant Ahir v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority 17 has observed as
follows :-
16. The main contention of the appellants is that
1045.50 sq m of land was not declared as a slum area
under Section 4 of the Act which is sine qua non for
initiation for proceedings under Chapter I-A of the Act.
There is no dispute that the declared area is only to an
extent of 4123 sq m. The entire area of 5168.50 sq m was
declared as a slum rehabilitation area under Section 3-C
which falls in Chapter I-A. As stated above, Section 3-D
17 (2019) 10 SCC 194
Arjun
55/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
provides that Chapter II has no application to orders
passed under Chapter I-A. Section 4(1) of the Act is in
Chapter II. Therefore, it is not necessary that an area
should be notified under Section 4 as slum area before
proceedings under Chapter I-A are initiated. Hence, we do
not agree with the appellants that a notification under
Section 4 is a prerequisite for orders to be passed under
Sections 3-C and 3-D of the Act.
35. The pronouncement in the case of Kantabai Vasant Ahir
(supra) lays down that an order under Section 3C of the Slum Act,
1971 need not be preceded by a Notification under Section 4(1) of the
Slum Act, 1971. In terms of Section 3C of the Slum Act, the CEO
SRA is required to be satisfied that there are circumstances which
justify the declaration of an area as a "Slum Rehabilitation Area".
Thus, the requirement is an examination of whether slum-like
conditions prevail on the ground, which would justify the declaration
of the area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area.
36. The Order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the CEO, SRA
reads as follows :-
Through present application, the Applicant is seeking to
declare the land Final Plot No. 62, 63, and 64, TPS III;
Borivali, admeasuring 6104.63 sq. mtrs. as Slum
Rehabilitation Area. According to the Applicant there are
around 201 slum dwellers. It is contended by Applicant
that the said land is owned by M/s. Vee Pée Constructions
Pvt. Ltd. and they have entered into Joint Development
Agreement with land owner on 15.02.2019. The name of
M/s. Vee Pee Constructions Pvt. Ltd. duly entered into PR
card of said land. The Advocate for Applicant submitted
that there is slum since last several years and due to it the
part portion admeasuring 5224 sq mtrs, was declared as
Slum Area way back in the year 2006 and remaining
Arjun
56/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
portion admeasuring: 880.43 sq. mtrs declared slum Area
u/s 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (I, C & R) Act,
1971 on 31.07.2020.
The record reveals that after receiving the application the
Deputy Collector/SRA has visited site. The report of
Deputy Collector/SRA is on record. From said report it
appears that there are slum structures at site and slum
structures are located closely having no proper ventilation.
The roads in said land are narrow. There are common
toilets and water logging take place during rainy season.
Due to said conditions the Deputy Collector/SRA has
concluded that there are no hygienic conditions and the
said slum may become source of danger to human life.
Further he has observed that there are some dilapidated
structures. During the hearing dated 20.07.2021, the
directions were given to Executive Engineer/SRA to
conduct site visit. The note of Executive engineer/SRA
dated 12.08.2021 reveals that he has visited the site on
04.08.2021 and during his survey he found that the
conditions for declaration of said land as Slum
Rehabilitation Area exists at site.
The Respondents during the course of hearing as well as in
written submissions have raised issue of title. They have
also contended that there are names of lessee and imla
malik in Revenue record. The Advocate for Applicant
rightly argued that at this stage this Authority is not
concerned with the issue of title and other entries in
Revenue record. He further argued that this Authority has
to decide as to whether there is slum like situation or not.
There appears to be much substance in submission of
Advocate for Applicant. The issue of title is not relevant in
proceedings u/s 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Area (I,L &
R) ACT, 1971.
It is strongly contended by Respondents that the land
sought to be declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area is huge
land and considering the number of structures on said land
there is sufficient, open space, ventilation, as well as other
basic amenities. It is not disputed by Respondents that
there are common toilets. It is also admitted fact that
major portion admeasuring 5224 sq. mtrs. is already
declared as slum area in the year 2006 it appears that the
said slum declaration is not challenged by anybody till
date. Only the slum declaration under challenge is of 2020
for portion admeasuring 880.43 sq. mtrs. The Deputy
Arjun
57/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
Collector/SRA as well as Executive Engineer/SRA have
noticed that there is slum like situation and lack basic
amenities. The Applicant has also submitted photographs
of structures on said land alongwith written submission
dated 27.07.2021. From these photographs it clearly
appears that the toilets are common and not in hygiene
condition. The pathway is narrow and lack of proper
sunlight & ventilation. There is concurrent opinion of both
these officers. This Authority do not find any reason to
discard their opinion.
The Respondent No. 2 in her objection, dated 21.07.2021
submitted through Adv. Dhananjay Singh has alleged that
the said land was acquired by her father late Laxman
Mhatre during his lifetime and he was having 10 childrens.
Further she has alleged that she has filed SC Suit No.336
of 2019 In Court for partition and separate possession.
Unless and until her claim is settled no development
should be allowed on said land. In present proceedings
only the decision is to be taken regarding declaration of
said land as Slum Rehabilitation Area and due to present
proceedings the alleged claim of Respondent No. 2 shall
not be adversely affected in any way.
Considering these facts and circumstances on record this
Authority has reached to conclusion that it will be just and
proper to declare the said land as Slum Rehabilitation
Area, and accordingly this Authority proceed to pass
following order.
ORDER
1. The Application is allowed.
2. The land Bearing Final Plot No.62, 63 & 64,
TPS III Borivali admeasuring 6104.22 sq. mtrs, is hereby
declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area u/s 3C(1) of the
Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Areas (I C&R) Act,
1971.
Dated : 9 SEP 2021 SD/-
Chief Executive Officer
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
37. The order dated 09.09.2021 is based on the Report of the
Deputy Collector / SRA and the Executive Engineer / SRA, both of
Arjun
58/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
whom have concurred that there are slum-like conditions at the site.
Further, the Report notes that there are common toilets for the entire
locality (9 toilets for 200 families), narrow roads, no proper
ventilation, waterlogging during the monsoon and the photograph of
the site showing unhygienic toilets, lack of sunlight, and lack of
ventilation. The above are findings of fact given by the fact-finding
authority. The Petitioner is unable to show any perversity in the said
findings of the CEO SRA.
38. The AGRC, by order dated 28.06.2024, upheld the
declaration of the subject property as a Slum Rehabilitation Area
under Section 3C of the Slum Act, 1971, passed by the CEO SRA in
his order dated 09.09.2021. For the reason recorded above, we do not
find any error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the AGRC in the order
dated 28.06.2024.
39. The Respondents have specifically raised the issue that
the Petition does not contain a prayer challenging the order dated
28.06.2024. An attempt was made by the Petitioner to rely on prayer
clause (g) of the Petition to contend that the order dated 28.06.2024 is
under challenge. The said prayer clause (g) pertains to and is couched
in terms of interim relief. In the absence of a specific challenge to the
order dated 28.06.2024 being raised by the Petitioner, the Respondents
would be justified in their objection.
Arjun
59/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
40. The contentions of the Petitioner with regard to its
members being lawful tenants and not encroachers are liable to be
rejected on the ground that at the stage of Section 3C of the Slum Act,
1971, the issue of tenancy / encroacher is wholly irrelevant. This
Court in the case of Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Vs. State of
Maharashtra18 has observed in Paragraph No. 10 as under :-
"10... The question is not if the members of the slum
society are encroachers or tenants. They may be either, or
some combination. The declaration or notification of a
slum speaks to the existence of statutorily recognized
slum-like conditions at site, not whether the individuals are
tenants or encroachers. But it is entirely certain that
whether tenants or encroachers, the members of the society
and the society itself are not the owners of the land. If the
owner has a pre-emptive right to self redevelop, it is not for
the society to nominate private entities to oust the rights of
the owner or to defeat the pre-emptive or preferential
rights".
41. At Exhibit - N (page No. 125) is the "Annexure -II"
which sets out the list of Occupants on the subject property, the area of
their current structure and whether they are eligible/ineligible for the
purpose of Slum Scheme. The said document is not questioned by the
Petitioner. The Petitioner has not produced any documents in support
of its claim that the Respondent No. 6 had allegedly constructed 45
new structures of 5 x 5 sq. ft. In view of the same, we are unable to
accept the contentions of the Petitioner relating to the need for an
inquiry for clarification as to whether the Respondent has constructed
45 new structures.
18 Writ Petition No. 1453 of 2017 decided on 20.03.2024
Arjun
60/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
42. Indisputably, 123 families have vacated the subject
property, 84 have shifted in transit camps and 38 are on transit rent.
122 structures on the subject property have been demolished. As
rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents, the
Rehabilitation Scheme is being delayed due to the Petitioner, leaving
the said families without a roof over their heads. The Respondent No.
6 is on record to state that if eligible, the members of the Petitioner
Association would be entitled to the alternate premises provided in
terms of the Slum Act.
43. For the reasons recorded herein above, we do not find any
merit in this petition. As such, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
44. Considering the reasons recorded in the foregoing
paragraphs, and Paragraph Nos.13 and 24 in particular, we do not find
any merit in the contentions of the Petitioner in support of their
Interim Application (L) No. 25524 of 2025 filed u/s 340 of the Cr.P.C.
The same is, therefore, rejected.
45. All pending Interim Applications are disposed of.
[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
Arjun
61/61 WP(L)-25510.2024.odt
46. At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner
prays that this Judgment may be stayed for two weeks.
47. The learned Advocates for the Respondents oppose the
request on the ground that a minuscule percentage of persons are
truncating the entire Scheme.
48. We have dealt with all the contentions of the Petitioner
and the Respondents in an extensive Judgment. We do not find any
reason to accept the request of the Petitioner and the same, therefore,
stands rejected.
[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
ARJUN
ARJUN KRISHNA
KRISHNA RODGE
RODGE Date:
2026.05.06
11:37:37
+0530
Arjun
