Bombay High Court
RUPAREL BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 20 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The consent terms are a valid and binding agreement, and any dispute over the developer’s appointment must be addressed through the Slum Rehabilitation Authority or other statutory mechanisms, not by the writ court.
Summary
The Bombay High Court examined a protracted slum‑rehabilitation scheme on about 66,000 sq m of State land in Chembur, where Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as developer under consent terms signed in March 2021. The consent terms settled disputes among earlier developers and the federation of slum societies, leading to the issuance of a Letter of Intent, approvals and allocation of Permanent Transit Camps to the petitioner. Several societies and intervenors later challenged the validity of the consent terms, arguing that the required 51% consent of eligible slum dwellers under Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR was not properly obtained. The Court held that the consent terms remain a binding agreement between the parties and that any challenge to the developer’s appointment must be pursued before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority or other statutory forums, not by the writ court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the impugned communications, ordered that the petitioner’s appointment not be cancelled pending appropriate proceedings, and disposed of the pending writ petitions and interim applications.
Issues considered
- The validity and binding nature of the consent terms entered between the federation of societies and Ruparel Buildcon.
- Whether the required 51% consent of eligible slum dwellers under Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR was lawfully obtained.
- Whether the Slum Rehabilitation Authority can cancel the Letter of Intent and other approvals issued to Ruparel Buildcon.
- Whether the slum societies can directly challenge the developer’s appointment in the writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956 — s. 617
- Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 — s. Regulation 33(10) – Clause 1.14, Regulation 33(10) – Clause 1.15
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — s. 13, 34A, 3A
Subjects
- slum rehabilitation
- developer appointment
- public land
- Maharashtra Slum Act
- Regulation 33(10)
- consent terms
- litigation
- public policy
Judgment
2026:BHC-OS:21310-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7387 OF 2026
Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited … Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
3. Chief Executive Officer, SRA
4. The Secretary, SRA
5. Deputy Chief Engineer, SRA
6. Deputy Collector, Mumbai City, SRA
7. Finance Controller, SRA
8. Assistant Registrar, SRA
9. Siddharth Colony Vikas Sena Sangh Sahakari
Grihnirman Sanstha (Prop), Society of Slum Dwellers
10. R.N. Halde, Authorized Officer and Cooperative
Officer Grade-I, SRA
11. Arun Jadhav, Assistant Authorized Officer and Cooperative
Officer Grade-I, SRA … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 12386 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7387 OF 2026
Siddharth Colony Ghar Hakk Sangarsh Samiti,
through its President Lahu Bapu Kamble … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Housing,
through its Principal Secretary & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 13386 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7387 OF 2026
Sonam Manjeet Jeth, Member Siddharth Colony Vikas
Seva Sangh Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Proposed & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Housing,
through its Principal Secretary & Ors. … Respondents
1 of 86
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 24849 OF 2026
Sonam Manjeet Jeth … Petitioner
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2026
New Shantidoot Sahakari Grihnirman Sanstha (Proposed) & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 458 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2026
Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4493 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2026
Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1767 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 658 OF 2026
Sonam Manjeet Jeth … Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1716 OF 2011
Deepak Sadashiv Nikalje & Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
2 of 86
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2012
Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11264 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2012
Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. … Applicant
Versus
Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17180 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2012
Chembur Siddharth ColonyPravartan Cooperative Housing
Society & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 5210 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2482 OF 2012
Chembur Siddharth Colony Shatabdi Cooperative Housing
Society & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2012
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 28213 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2012
Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. … Respondents
3 of 86
Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Aditya Miskita, Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Mr.
Sanjeel Kadam, Ms. Nitisha Lad i/b Kadam & Co. for the Petitioner in
WPL/7387/2026.
Mr. Simil Purohit, Sr. Adv. a/w Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr. Aditya Mhaske i/b. Mr. Lokesh
Zade for Petitioner in WP/658/2026.
Mr. Shridhar Chitale, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Rahul Hakani in IAL/13386/2026 Mr. Kirit Hakani
for Applicant in IAL/13386/2026 and IA/1767/2026 in WP/658/2026.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Gaurav Srivastav and Mr. Jayesh Mestry for Petitioner
in WP/2482/2012 and for respondent no. 5 in WP/658/2026, respondent no. 9 in
WPL/7387/2026, respondent no. 2 in IAL/28213/2023, respondent no. 10 in
WP/1716/2011, respondent no. 6 in WPL/24849/2026 and for Respondent No.1 in WP
No. 1716/2011.
Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niyati Mankad, Manisha Yadav, Ms. Apoorva Adhav
i/b Mr. Kirit Hakani for Petitioner in WP/24849/2026.
Mr. Anand Pandey i/b. Mr. Chaitanya Bhandarkar for Petitioners in W.P. No. 678 of
2012.
Mr. Ravi Kadam, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Vishwajit Sawant, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nikhil Patil, Vaibhav
Bhure Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Ms. Nitisha Lad i/b Kadam & Co. For R. No.
4 in WP/658/2026.
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Mr. Sanjeel Kadam, Ms. Nitisha Lad i/b
Kadam & Co. For R. No. 7 in WPL/24849/2026.
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Janay Jain, Mr. Ashwin Tripathi, Raj Kamble, Shree Bhosale
i/b Shailesh Pal for Applicant in IAL/12386/2026 & IAL/5210/2026
Mr. Girish Utangale i/b Utangale & Co. For R. No. 1 in WP No. 678 of 2012 and in
IAL/28213/2023.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal i/b. R S Justicia Law Chambers for SRA in all matters.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for State in WPL/7387/2026
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for State in WP/658/2026.
Mr. Milind More, Addl. GP for State in WP/1716/2011 and WP/2482/2012 &
WP/678/2012
Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. GP for State in WPL/24849/2026
4 of 86
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 24 AUGUST 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Part Particulars Paragraph Nos.
I Preface 1-7
II Facts 8 - 27
III The other proceedings
A) Recently filed Writ Petitions 28 - 29
B) Pending Old Writ Petitions 30 - 37
IV Submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Ruparel 38 - 38.3
Buildcon (Writ Petition (L) No. 7387 of 2026
V Submission on behalf of the petitioners in Writ 39 - 40
Petition (L) No.24849 of 2026 (Sonam Manjeet Jeth
Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.)
VI Submissions on behalf of societies/ slum dwellers in 41 - 47
opposition to Petitioner- Ruparel Buildcon
VII SRA’s case 48 - 55
VIII Analysis and Reasons 56 – 99
IX Concluding Paragraphs 100 - 103
I] Preface
1. When it concerns redevelopment of slums, on public lands and in the present case, a
large chunk of government land, it is not unusual and in fact manifest, that the
implementation of the slum scheme, would not only be inordinately delayed, but also get
embroiled in protracted litigation, on account of commercial interests of the developers on
one side and conflicts brought about by competing interests of the different groups of slum
dwellers, backed by their own developers. However, at the same time, the State
5 of 86
Government/public bodies, who on record are the owners of the land, remain mute
spectators, being least bothered about their own land, admittedly a public largesse and which
is encroached. On such public lands vested interests become active, wheeling and dealing,
by asserting some rights, with the State authorities nowhere in the scene, when such horse
trading of public lands is an open affair. The present case is another instance, which relates
to redevelopment of a slum on a large piece of land belonging to the State Government ,
situated at Chembur in Mumbai.
2. In the present case, the development is supposed to have commenced in August
2006, however, despite “twenty years” of such initiation, the position as on date is of an
absolute “stand-still”, with no brick being so far laid, to commence redevelopment of the
slum, on such large piece of the State Government land. The case is no different as the State
Government through the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, is an absentee and/or of a
dormant landlord, who has taken a position of a quiet onlooker, not only when the land in
question, was on its way of being vanished from the public pool of lands, by such
encroachment, but also, when the redevelopment of this slum land itself, was subject matter
of scores of litigation, since the year 2011. This is the sad state of affairs of large public lands
being renounced for a forced private development, under the garb of a slum scheme, which
would encompass free housing to the encroachers and a bonanza to the developers of selling
tenements constructed on the Government land, as free sale tenements.
3. In the aforesaid context, we are reminded of the observations of this Court in New
Janta SRA CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra1, when at the outset the Court observed thus:
“1. This is a case of a sizable chunk of State Government's land, abutting the sea situated at
1 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896
6 of 86
Mahim within the Mahim Bay at Mumbai, occupied by slums. The Government however is
nowhere in the scene, either to remove the slums or to rehabilitate the slum dwellers.
Eventually the slum dwellers stepping into the shoes of their sentinel, decided to redevelop this
land by appointing a developer in 2006. Thereafter, it has been rounds and rounds of litigation
before different forums and twice before this Court. The reason being obvious, there being two
groups of slum dwellers and two rival developers, having strong commercial interest
considering the nature of the land and probably its proximity to the sea. The Government as
also the different authorities under it, in the scheme of things, seem to be silent spectators, to
the happenings between the slum dwellers and different developers. It is a sorry state of affairs
for the slum dwellers, when their genuine interest stand superseded by extraneous interest.”
4. Also, in Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra 2, this Court made the following
observations:
“3. … Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can
certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically
working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the
desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the
hands of the other stakeholders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and
disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to
undertake a slum rehabilitation scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are
hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that
the so-called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are
often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally
prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and scepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to
disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate
the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It
can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are
languishing on such issues, either in litigation before courts and/or before the authorities.
These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the
developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately
lengthy litigation from one forum to another.
……
5. … It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers
feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate
redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the
Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in
its wisdom to devise a substantial, nay a foolproof mechanism, by undertaking a study and
identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing
this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly
by all concerned. It is never too late.”
…..
57. There cannot be a myopic approach to these issues of a delay in implementation of
a slum rehabilitation scheme. Things as they stand are required to be seen in their entirety.
The only mantra for the slum schemes to be implemented is its time-bound completion
and a machinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have effective measures in that
2 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897
7 of 86
direction to monitor the schemes as a part of their statutory obligation to avoid delays.
Non-commencement of the slum scheme for long years and substantial delay in
completion of the slum schemes should be a thing of the past. In the present case, looked
from any angle there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the delay of so many
years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum steps to commence construction .
(emphasis supplied)
5. In High Court on its own motion (In the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) vs.
Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Ors.3, a Division Bench of this Court made
the following vital observations:
“45. There can be no two opinions that the issues of encroachment on public land,
mushrooming of slums on such lands and illegal constructions on such land, as also,
on any open land in the city, and the total collapse of the machinery available in law to
control these issues, adversely affecting the urban agglomeration, is a sad story of an
invited misery and a massive failure on the part of the State Government and the
municipal bodies. An overview of these adversities, depicts a sorry and painful state of
affairs, having a harmful and an overbearing effect not only on those who are residing
in the slums and unauthorized constructions, but also, the hard impact it creates on
the infrastructure in cities and the continuous and successive damage to the limited
resources. The consequence of all this, is ghastly and harmful. As to what is in store for
the future generations cannot be imagined. Admittedly, these are larger issues to be
effectively looked into by the policy makers before things further worsen, albeit there
appears to be a stage of no return, unless aggressive planning and commitment to the
constitutional principles is kept at the forefront by the policy makers. Happening of
encroachments, unauthorized and illegal structures being put up and deliberate neglect
to these issues, when all this is unpleasantly happening before the open eyes and to the
knowledge of the authorities, is not without purpose. From the report of the learned
Commissioner, it appears to be a deep rooted menace, perpetrated for years together,
which has ruined the cities and its scare resources. There are vested interests as pointed
out by the learned Commissioner, namely political interest, slumlords and ultimately the
cancer of corruption, which is the primary cause, for the authorities not taking action to
remove illegal structures which continue to exist for years together.
46. However, it clearly appears that the State Government being aware of the
grabbing of Government lands at the hands of these unscrupulous elements, from
time to time, issued directives to the Additional Collector (Encroachment), Chief
Executive Officer of the Slum Authority and other Chief Officers of the local
authorities. Such directives made it incumbent to take all steps to protect the
Government lands, by preventing grabbing of lands by encroachment and to register
criminal complaints of such encroachment and taking stern action of demolition of
the unauthorized constructions and unauthorized hutments. However, it appears that
the said directives at all material times have remained to be dead letters. Learned
Commissioner has referred to some of the Circulars, which, if were to be implemented
in its letter and spirit, the scenario would have been completely different, from what it
prevails today. The city would have been a better place to live. Hundreds of
Government lands could have been saved, to be utilized for public purposes. The
circulars are certainly binding on the Government and its officers, provided the
officers had an intention to look at them.
3 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 386
8 of 86
47. The menace of continued encroachments on Government lands and thereafter,
illegal and unauthorized constructions being undertaken post encroachment, are also a
result of an unwarranted protection being conferred on the slum dwellers by the
policies of the State Government, which protect the interest of the slum dwellers by
awarding a premium on such illegality. This merely for the reason that the
government machinery failed to take any action to remove such encroachments and
with impunity continued these encroachers to remain on government land for years
together. The encroachments are of two categories, those who have encroached for
commercial purpose (those who have grabbed public land for installing shops etc.) and
those who have encroached for putting up structures for residential user. Under the
government policies both these encroachers are recognized and rewarded by providing
alternate tenements of the nature they were occupying. The government policies
issued from time to time to protect such encroachers, if their names are found in the
voters list on a cut-off date being fixed at the ipse dixit of the Government. In our
opinion, fixing of such arbitrary dates to protect the illegality of encroachment and
ultimately to reward the encroachers with a free of cost permanent structure on the
same government land, is certainly not an exercise of power, the constitutional
principles would permit. These situations have added to the alarming woes of the city.
It is no more a secret that these policies, which appear to be innocuous and intended
to primarily protect the slum dwellers, resulted to be also of a political concern, as
these large slums also constituted potential vote banks.
48. What can be the logic and any legal sanctity to a policy which rewards
encroachment on public land by granting free of cost tenements, on the very same
land amounting to a bonanza for its private exploitation? By such modus operandi,
public land, merely because of it being encroached, vanishes from the public holding
and most astonishingly the basis for the allotment of tenements under the
redevelopment process, is identification of an encroacher by his voters ID, on the basis
of an arbitrary cut-off date fixed by the government. In fact, such policies create a
mechanism being made available to the slum dwellers and thereafter private interest like
that of the developers, to obtain a surreptitious allotment of public/government land for
commercial exploitation, for profits by a backdoor method, completely contrary to the
well settled principles of allotment of State largesse, known to the Constitution. This
more particularly, when there is an allotment of a small piece of public land for a lawful
purpose, many a times there is a hue and cry. However, when large tracts of public land
are being gulped by encroachers, would the legal machinery remain a mute spectator?
49. There are policies as pointed out by learned Advocate General which protect the
slum dwellers, despite those slum dwellers encroaching on the Government lands and
remaining on such land for a substantial period. This happens purely on account of the
inaction of the concerned public officials to remove such encroachments. It is necessary
that these directives/Government Resolutions are discussed.”
(emphasis supplied)
5.1 Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta, Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was), in his
concurring opinion made the following significant observations:
“111. ……. Regrettably, instead of moving in the direction to have a planned and
sustainable development, the successive Governments together with the Corporation seem
to have unabashedly allowed mushrooming of slums at the instance of squatters by
9 of 86
encouraging them not only to encroach more and more of public property but,
simultaneously, by enacting laws to protect such unauthorized occupation. Enacting laws
to further the interests of the weaker sections of the society is the obligation of every State
in terms of Part IV of the Constitution and any move in that behalf ought to and must be
welcomed. People living in slums do equally have a right of decent living conditions,
which can be ensured by relocating them with proper housing facilities. However, a
vicious nexus involving high profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders and slum lords
have created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance being
provided by the law enforcing agency, followed by a declaration of slum gradually
progressing to redevelopment by builders ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further
the interests of the "haves". In the garb of legislation, in a novel manner, a fraction of the
population including holders of public offices have continued to prosper by achieving
their goals through impure means which are nothing short of betrayal of the trust that the
people of this region have reposed in those responsible for an able governance. While it
was the need of the hour to make housing projects a reality more effectively and with
empathy, what has been laid bare is the apathy and indifference to cater to the needs of
the hapless coupled with a complete lack of sensitivity. The reasons are not far to seek.
Quite contrary to the ideals and values embodied in the Constitution which lay down
the basic framework of the social and political structure of the country and sets out the
objectives and goals to be pursued by the people in a common endeavor to secure
happiness and welfare of every member of the society and despite taking oath to uphold
the laws, actions of those in power and authority are now or other oblique invariably
driven by political motivations considerations. No wonder, the casualty is the
compassionate Constitution of ours.
…
113. …… We part with the hope and trust that the respondents, remaining alive to the
duty cast upon them by law, would not precipitate any further cause of action and
thereby necessitate the intervention of this Court with more stringent directions.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. In similar circumstances, recently the Supreme Court in Yash Developers Vs.
Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.4 observed that the proceedings
reflected the controversy which was a manifestation of common battles between competing
real estate developers under the pretext of rehabilitating slum dwellers under the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for
short ‘Slum Act’). In such case, the development was prolonged for over two decades. The
telling observations as made by the Supreme Court are required to be noted which read
thus:
“9. Case after case, the Bombay High Court has been ruling that : ( a) the developer is
4 (2024(9)SCC 606)
10 of 86
duty-bound to complete the project within the stipulated time and that ( b) the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has not merely the power but a broader duty to ensure that
the developer completes the project within time. We will refer to those judgments, not so
much to certify that the issue is no more res integra, but to emphasise that the rulings have not
had the desired impact, much less compliance. The reason is that, neither the developer nor
the authority is asked to face the consequences of their derelictions. That Section 13(2) is a
power coupled with duty is clear from the judgments of this Court and many other judgments
of the High Courts, however experience tells us that this recognition of a statutory duty in
itself is not sufficient. Until and unless duty is identified with accountability, judicial review is
ineffective.
…..
11. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing
Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra, 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 1000 : (2008) 1 Bom CR 1] , held that SRA
has been conferred with certain powers and each one of them is coupled with a duty. If the
slum dwellers are eligible to be rehabilitated at the site and within a reasonable period, they
cannot be left at the mercy of developers and builders. The slum dwellers cannot be
expected to occupy a transit accommodation endlessly, without proper maintenance, and
hygiene. An independent and impartial implementation, supervision and monitoring of the
projects is the purpose for which the authority has been set up under the Act.
…...
46. In any event, execution of the project under the slum rehabilitation scheme cannot
be viewed as a real estate development project. There is a public purpose involved, and that
is inextricably connected to the right to life of some of our brother and sister citizens who
are living in pathetic conditions. While we reject the justifications given by the appellant for
delaying the project, we are fully conscious of the dereliction of the statutory duty of SRA in
ensuring that the project is completed within time. We have already expressed our opinion
that the CEO and SRA are accountable for their actions. While we reject the justification for
delay, we record our dissatisfaction about the indifference, amounting to negligence on the
part of CEO and SRA.
… … … .”
7. The observations as made by the Court in the aforesaid decisions brings out a
situation of a wanton neglect on the part of the State Government, the Municipal
Corporation, in the depletion of valuable public resources, namely, the “scarce land” in the
island city of Mumbai and the surrounding areas, which otherwise would have been
available for public projects, however, the same being encroached is compulsorily utilized
only for residential and commercial utilization, that too as free of cost tenements being
allotted to the encroachers, a premium on the illegality of encroachment and a windfall of
benefit to the developers. In such state of affairs, what is further intriguing are the legal
11 of 86
battles on such utilization of government land between the developers and the slum dwellers
and the State Government and all public bodies, in such affairs being noticeably absent,
right from the very first encroachment. The concerned Collector, Municipal Commissioners
and their officials in fact sub-silentio aid in siphoning of valuable and scarce public lands,
and nonetheless remain unaccountable to “we the people”. Such miserable situation lies
underneath any slum on Government/Public land. Till the slum dwellers remain valuable
vote banks and till rewarding and subsidizing the encroachers, remains to be the
government policy, such public lands being forever lost, can never improve.
II. FACTS
8. For convenience, we refer to the facts as pleaded in Writ Petition (L) No. 7387 of
2026 filed by M/s. Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner): These proceedings concern a
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme being implemented on land bearing CTS Nos. 470(Pt.),
471(Pt.) and 366/6(Pt.) of Village Chembur, Taluka Kurla, admeasuring about 66,000 sq.
mtrs. situated at Siddharth Nagar, K.N. Gaikwad Marg, Chembur, Mumbai (for short “the
said land”). A slum redevelopment model, under the rules, is to the effect that the slum
dwellers form a proposed co-operative society, which would appoint a developer by
following the majority rule in selecting a developer, such developer as appointed would take
up the scheme by moving the requisite proposal with the SRA (Slum Rehabilitation
Authority). This is in fact the paper rule. In such context, in Bishop John Rodrigues versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.5, this Court made the following observations:-
“99. The SRA and whosoever is concerned in regard to the slum redevelopment need to be
conscious of the ground realities namely that it is an herculean task in a city like Mumbai
to remove any encroachment on private and public land. It is equally difficult for a
5 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632
12 of 86
private owner of the land to safeguard its land and prevent encroachment. This is the sad
story, as encroachment does not happen by such encroachers simplicitor squatting on the
land, invariably the encroachment is backed inter alia by slumlords, criminals, social
workers, politicians (as the squatters would be vote banks). For a bonafide landlord, it is
impossible to fight with such forces and keep litigating on removal of encroachment.
Thus, to achieve removal of the encroachment, is seen to be impossible for the landlords
and for public bodies like State Government and Municipal Corporation as also the
Airport Authority, as major public lands in the City of Mumbai have vanished from the
public pool and are subjected to private development by developers under the garb of
slum re-development, as the rulings of this Court on several such issues would remind us
of these woeful realities. In these circumstances, persons like the developers who are
interested in commercial exploitation of any land under the slums may it be private or
public, who are backed by other powerful forces and many times also by the government
machinery, initiate proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act for declaring private
land as a slum. The moment such a declaration takes place, a nightmare and one of the
most difficult journeys any citizen who owns land, commences namely to pursue
litigation on such a declaration. It is hence as good as a preliminary capital punishment in
so far as the ownership rights qua the private land are concerned. The way forward is just
to be imagined. This being the case immediately developers who keep track on such
development potential purportedly at the behest of the slum society come forward on a
purported appointment by a slum society. In reality it is seen that it is the developer who
actually forms the slum society. He is the one who is taking steps to enter into a
development agreement with the society and the slum dwellers and put up a proposal
before the SRA through his architect, everything in the name of the slum society. This
for the reason that there is a bonanza of FSI of a free sale component available to be
developed by the developer. The question is why should the developers have such
bonanza on a land of somebody's ownership or of a private ownership. Thereafter, the
SRA purporting to exercise some pious obligation would, under a label of social
sympathy and purportedly to forward the object of the Slum Act, commence a process to
permit development at the hands of such developer and in a given situation, start
proceedings to acquire the land. To say the least, we can certainly take a judicial notice
that this has been a sad reality, replete on this branch of slum jurisprudence, as majority
of these cases are asserted by the developers with all resources and legal ammunition they
could have.”
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the present case, the slum dwellers on this government land formed an
extraordinary number of proposed co-operative Societies, i.e., about 33 Societies. Thereafter
these slum Societies came together and formed a “Federation of Societies”/respondent no. 9,
namely, the Siddharth Colony Vikas Sena Sangh Sahakari Grihnirman Sanstha (Proposed)
Housing Federation (for short “the federation”).
10. As far back in August 2006, the federation appointed one Adishakti Developers as a
developer to undertake redevelopment of the slums. Accordingly, a Development
13 of 86
Agreement, for implementation of a ‘slum redevelopment scheme’, proposed under
Regulation 33(10) of the erstwhile Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai,
1991, came to be executed between the federation and Adishakti Developers. It is the
petitioners’ case that around 2006-2007, Adishakti Developers entered into an arrangement
with one KKB Developers Pvt. Ltd. of which Kartik Bhatt, Kokila Kartik Bhatt and Aditya
Bhatt (Bhatt Group), were to jointly implement the slum rehabilitation scheme through one
Adishakti Grihanirman Pvt. Ltd. (for short AGPL). Accordingly, an intimation to that
effect was issued to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short SRA) to pursue a joint
redevelopment of the slum.
11. On 16 August 2008, the SRA certified and issued Annexure II listing 2603 slum
dwellers of whom, it is contended that, 1564 slum dwellers were declared as eligible. On 14
May 2009, a proposal was submitted to the SRA by Adishakti Developers, which was
accepted by the SRA.
12. It is the petitioners’ case that thereafter in the year 2011-2012, disputes had arisen
between Adishakti, AGPL the Bhatt group, which obviously involved the slum
dwellers/federation. The proceedings reached the High Power Committee (for short HPC)
constituted under the Slums Act, which was conferred jurisdiction to adjudicate such inter se
disputes in relation to a slum scheme. The HPC on 20 July 2011 passed an order on
Application No.348 of 2010 inter alia directing the SRA to convene a meeting of eligible
slum dwellers within 15 days to choose between Adishakti Developers and Adishakti
Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd., by exercising majority vote. The order passed by the HPC reads thus:
“ ORDER
14 of 86
This Committee directs the Chief Executive Officer / SRA to complete the
following exercise for ascertaining 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers:
a) The Deputy Registrar / SRA is directed to convene special meeting of all
eligible Slum Dwellers belonging to all Housing Societies situated on the plot of land
under subject S.R. Scheme and chair the meeting for taking fresh consent of eligible
Slum Dwellers as per certified Annexure-II issued by the Competent Authority
irrespective of any previous consent, if any, given by those Slum Dwellers to either of
the developers viz. Applicant No.1 or Respondent No.3.
b) This Committee further directs the CEO / SRA to depute the representative
of Competent Authority viz. Additional Collector ( E/R) Mumbai, (Eastern Suburbs)
who will remain present in meeting until the entire process is completed.
c) The entire process of special meeting will be carried out with videography
and as per circular issued by the SRA.
d) This Committee also directs the Deputy Registrar / SRA that at the time of
obtaining the consent of eligible Slum Dwellers, each consent should be obtained on
separate paper which shall be counter-signed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the
representative of the Competent Authority authorized by the SRA and a list of all
such consents shall be prepared and signed by the Deputy Registrar as well as the
representative of the Competent Authority at the end of the meeting.
e) Each such consent to be then clubbed together and thereafter, it should be
ascertained as to in whose favour there is more than 70% consent of eligible slum
dwellers.
f) Based on the report of Deputy Registrar/SRA, CEO/SRA is directed to
take further necessary steps for further implementation of the subject S.R Scheme.
The action envisaged in paragraphs (a) to (d) hereinabove shall be complied with
and completed by 30th September 2011 by the SRA.”
13. The proceedings ultimately reached this Court in Writ Petition No.1716 of 2011
(Nikalje & Anr Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors.), Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 (Siddharth
Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors.), Writ Petition No.678 of 2012
(Adishakti Gihnirman Pvt . Ltd & Ors vs. SRA & Ors.) inter alia assailing the orders passed
by the HPC (supra) and a Civil Suit No.2459 of 2012 (Bhatt Group vs. Adishakti) filed
before the City Civil Court.
14. On account of such prolonged disputes/litigation, the slum scheme was brought to a
15 of 86
grinding halt, which was almost for about 14 years from the time the same was conceived.
It is in such circumstances, the petitioner contends that the eligible slum dwellers as also the
Federation approached the petitioner, to step in as the developer of the slum scheme, so as
to resolve the inter se disputes, the AGPL and KKB agreed to such proposal on terms and
conditions of payments. The petitioner agreed to such proposal of the Federation and the
said developers and accordingly, was impleaded as a party in the pending proceedings of
Writ Petition No(s).1716 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 and Writ Petition
No.678 of 2012 (supra). The parties entered into a consensual arrangement, which was the
agreement on terms and conditions formulated in the consent terms as entered between the
parties. The consent terms were filed in the proceedings which were between Adishakti,
AGPL, Federation and the petitioner, being Consent Terms dated 1 March 2021. Under
the consent terms, the petitioner at the behest of the federation of the slum societies, agreed
to step-in as the developers, taking several obligations in undertaking the slums scheme on
the Government land, whereunder the petitioner inter alia agreed to pay an amount of
Rs.11.75 crores towards outstanding electricity dues of slum dwellers to the BEST, as also to
the MSEDCL, being the electricity companies and further to pay an amount of Rs.3.85
crores to Adishakti Developers and Rs.18.74 crores to AGPL – Bhatt group. Taking the
said consent terms on record of the said proceedings, on 1 March, 2021, a Division Bench of
this Court passed the following order:
“1. The learned Advocates appearing in the above three writ petitions have tendered
draft amendments. They seek amend the writ petitions in terms of draft amendments. The
draft amendments are taken on record and marked “X, X-1 and X-2” respectively, for
identification. The Advocates for the petitioners are allowed to amend the above petitions
in terms of the draft amendments marked “X, X-1, X-2”. Amendment to be carried out
forthwith. Reverification dispensed with.
2. The learned Advocates appearing for the parties have tendered consent terms. The
16 of 86
consent terms are taken on record and marked “Y” for identification. Save and except the
State of Maharashtra, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the High Power Committee, the
consent terms are signed by the parties and their respective advocates. Undertakings given
in the consent terms are accepted. The above three writ petitions are disposed off in terms
of consent terms.
3. The earlier interim orders stand vacated.
4. In view of disposal of Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012, Chamber Summons No.91
of 2017 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.”
(emphasis added)
15. On a perusal of the consent terms as entered between the said parties, it is seen that
the consent terms was a comprehensive agreement between the parties. It is a document of
about 36 pages setting out elaborate terms of the agreement, as reached between the
parties. Some of the relevant clauses of the consent terms need to be noted which read
thus:
“7. The Federation has now approached, one Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited
"Ruparel”) to act as the developer for the purposes of undertaking the development of
the Property under the aegis of regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and
Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR") read with the Slum Act The Federation
hereby agrees to appoint Ruparel as the developer for the development of the
Property The Nikajes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa
hereby confirm the appointment by the Federation of Ruparel as the developer of the
Property. Pursuant to protracted discussions and negotiations the Nikaljes, the Bhatt
Group, including AGNPL and KKB, Richa and the Federation and Societies have
arrived at a settlement arrangement pursuant to which it has been agreed the Nikaljes,
the Bhatt Group, including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa shall be compensated for
the amounts expended by them respectively for the Slum Scheme, by the Federation
and the Societies, through Ruparel the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL
and KKB) and Richa have accepted the cancellation and termination of their
respective rights to develop the said Property and/or to implement the Slum Scheme,
and (i) accorded their irrevocable consent no objection to the appointment of Ruparel
as the new developer to undertake the development of the Property and the
implementation of the Slum Scheme subject to payment of the agreed amounts by the
Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel to the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group
(including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa in lieu of their respective rights, title,
interest and claims with respect to the Slum Scheme and as compensation for the
efforts and amounts expended by them. Accordingly, the Parties hereto have agreed
to record the full and final settlement of the Disputes, with no claims outstanding and
or any demands, in the manner more particularly set out in these Consent Terms.
.… …
10. All the disputes between the parties (including the captioned Petitions and
the Other Proceedings) shall stand mutually and amicably resolved and/or settled,
17 of 86
with no claims outstanding on the following terms, conditions, covenants,
declarations and undertaking.
10.1. The Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and
KKB) and Richa hereby undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall not in any
manner whatsoever be the developer/s for the purposes of the implementation of the
Slum Scheme on the said Property or any part thereof. All documents pursuant to
which the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and
KKB) and Richa have acquired development rights and / or any entitlement and / or
any other rights over the said Property, if any, shall stand terminated and / or
cancelled and the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including
AGNPL and KKB) and Richa undertake to handover such duly cancelled documents
to Ruparel within 3(three) days from the date of execution of these Consent Terms.
10.2. The said Property shall now be developed by Ruparel who shall be the sole
developer of the said Property and shall be solely entitled to implement the Slum
Scheme in accordance with the Slum Act, Development Control and Promotion
Regulations 2034 and the extent provisions of the law For this purpose
(a) the Nikaljes (including Adishakti) the Bhatt Group (including
AGNPL and KKB) and Richa hereby irrevocably and unconditionally
relinquish and release all their respective rights, title and interest if any to
implement the slum scheme on the said property,
(b) Nikaljes (including Adishakti) the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL
and KKB) and Richa hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agree that Ruparel
shall be solely entitled to implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property as
the new developer thereof under the aegis of Regulation 33 (10) of the DCPR;
and
(c) the Federation and its committee members hereby irrevocably and
unconditionally undertake to this Hon'ble Court that Ruparel shall be entitled
to all development and appurtenant rights to implement the Slum Scheme on
the said Property as the new developer thereof in place and stead of the Nikaljes
(including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and
Richa;
(d) the Federation its committee members hereby agree and undertake to this
Hon'ble Court, that within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of execution of
these Consent Terms, they shall do all acts, deeds and things as maybe necessary
for the purposes of implementing these Consent Terms including the
appointment of Ruparel as the developer of the Property.
(e) The Federation and its committee members hereby agree and undertake to
this Hon'ble Court, that within 15 (Fifteen) days from the date of execution of
these Consent Terms, they shall cause the Societies and their respective
members to give their written Irrevocable Consents, Common Consents,
Individual Consents, General Body Resolutions, Development Agreements,
Powers of Attorney, Individual Agreements and/or such other documents as
may be required for confirming the appointment of Ruparel as the new
developer for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property,
including providing such documents as may be required for proving their
eligibility under the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR read with the
Slum Act.
18 of 86
(f) the Federation and its committee members have confirmed that a final
aggregate amount of Rs.45,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty-Five Crore only) was
due and payable to Reliance Energy / Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited
("Adani") towards payment of electricity dues for consumption by the slum
dwellers occupying the said Property, out of the aforesaid amount, at the
request of the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members
and their respective members, Ruparel had, for and on behalf of the the
Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their
respective members, made an adhoc payment of a sum of Rs. 11,75,00,000/-
(Rupees Eleven Crore Seventy Five Lakh Only) leaving an amount of
Rs.33,25,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh only) which
is still due and payable to Adani. The details of the payment made by Ruparel
to Adani is more particularly set out in the Annexure "6" annexed hereto.
Ruparel confirms that it shall on behalf of the Federation, the Societies, their
respective committee members and their respective members make payments of
the balance amount of Rs.33,25,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty
Five Lakh only) or any lesser negotiated amount to Adani, from time to time.
For sake of clarity the liability towards such charges payable to Adani by
Ruparel for and on behalf of the Federation, the Societies their respective
committee members, is restricted to balance amount of Rs. 33,25,00,000/-
(Rupees Thirty-Three Crore Twenty Five Lakh only).
(g) the Federation and its committee members are aware that Ruparel has
expended and will continue to expend monies for and on behalf of the
Federation and the Societies as recorded in these Consent Terms and for the
implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Property. Accordingly, the
Federation and its committee members, hereby agree and undertake to this
Hon'ble Court that they shall not, until the Slum Scheme is fully implemented
on the said Property, cancel and/or revoke and/or terminate the appointment of
Ruparel as the new developer for the implementation of the Slum Scheme on
the said Property including Development Agreements, Irrevocable Power of
Attorneys, General Body Resolutions Individual Agreements, Consents,
Individual Consents, Common Consents upon the same being executed.
10.3. Ruparel shall at its costs solely be entitled to perform all such acts, deeds, matters
and things that may be necessary for the purposes of development of the said Property
and implementation of the Slum Scheme, including but not limited to making
necessary application(s) to the SRA for the purposes of implementation of the Slum
Scheme on the said Property. Ruparel undertakes that on appointment as the developer
for the Slum Scheme and subject to obtaining approvals, 'consents, permissions etc., it
shall as required under the Slum Scheme expend such monies as may be required for
the implementation of the Slum Scheme.
10.4. For the purposes of development of the said Property the Nikaljes (including
Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa have spent large
sums of monies. The Federation and the societies have agreed to compensate through
Ruparel the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and
KKB) and Richa by agreeing to pay them the following amounts towards the full and
final settlement of their respective claims, Demands, etc.
Sr.No. Party The amount payable
1 Nikaljes (Including Adishakti) Rs.69,83,44,800/- (Rupees Sixty Nine
Crore Eighty Three lakh Forty Four
19 of 86
Thousand Eight Hundred only)
2 Bhatt Group (including Rs.58,74,80,000/- (Rupees Fifty Eight
AGNPL and KKB) Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Eighty
Thousand only)
3 Richa Rs.92,52,20,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two
Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand
only)
The Parties agree that the existence and quantification of the aforesaid amounts
expended by the Nikaljes (including Adishakti), the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL
and KKB) and Richa, shall be binding on all Parties and shall not be disputed by any
Party in any manner whatsoever.
10.4. In consideration of Ruparel being appointed by the Federation and the Societies
to undertake the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the Property the payment of
the aforesaid amounts shall be made directly by Ruparel (for and on and behalf of the
Federation and the Societies) to the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and
KKB) and Richa.
10.5. The Federation and the Societies hereby agree to compensate, through Ruparel,
the Nikaljes (including Adishakti) a sum of Rs.69,83,44,800/- (Rupees Sixty- Nine
Crore Eighty-Three Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) ("Nikalje
Compensation"), which shall be paid in the following manner:
(a) a sum of Rs.3,35,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Thirty-Five Lakh only) has
been paid by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) ("Nikalje
Initial Paid Compensation 1") prior to the execution hereof (the receipt whereof
Nikaljes doth hereby admit and acknowledge of and from the same and every part
thereof doth hereby forever release. acquit and discharge, Ruparel, the Federation
and the Societies forever);
(b) a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) has been paid by Ruparel
….. …… …
10.5.5. Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and Societies) agrees to make the aforesaid
payments as set out hereinabove on the terms and conditions mentioned herein.
……….
10.5.7. Ruparel shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for offering
possession of the area of the Nikaljes on account of any event of force majeures or on
account of any act and/or omission not attributable to Ruparel, including but not
limited to the following:
(a) non-availability of steel, cement, other building material, water or electric
supply for a period of not more than six months or
(b) War, Pandemic, Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or
(c) Any notice, order, rule, notification of the Government and/or other public or
competent authority or
20 of 86
(d) changes in any rules, regulation, bye-laws of various statutory bodies and
authorities affecting the development and the project.
Provided however that the Nikaljes hereby agrees to ignore any delay on account of
force majeure as stated hereinabove and/or for any reasons beyond the control of
Ruparel.
10.6. The Federation and the Societies hereby agree to compensate, through Ruparel,
the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) a sum of Rs.58,74,80,000/- (Rupees
Fifty-Eight Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Eighty Thousand only) ("Bhatt Group
Compensation"), which shall be paid in the following manner:
(a) Ruparel will pay to Bhatt Group Rs. 40,00,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Crore
only) out of the Bhatt Group Compensation, in the form of constructed
residential area on the said Property being area admeasuring, 24,242 square feet
RERA carpet area (i.e. 21,212 square feet RERA carpet area to Aditya Bhatt ("the
Aditya Bhatt Area No 1") and 3,030 square feet RERA carpet area to AGNPL
("the AGNPL Area"), respectively), @ Rs. 16,500/- per square feet RERA Carpet
Area in a finished ready to move in condition (hereinafter "the Aditya Bhatt
Area" and "the AGNPL Area" is collectively referred to as "Bhatt Group
Compensation No 1"); and
…. … …. … … ...
10.6.1. Ruparel (for and on behalf of the Federation and the Societies), has on or prior
to the execution hereof given to the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) a sum
of Rs. 18,74,80,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Seventy-Four Lakh Crore only) by way
of a is refundable security deposit and which has been paid as under:
(i) a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) paid vide RTGS dated
September 7, 2020, bearing No KKBKR52020090700792009 2) a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- RTGS Dated September 15, 2020 bearing No
KKBKR50220091500729546 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank. Hiranandani
Meadows branch by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies) to
Bhatt Group on or before the date of execution hereof. The Bhatt Group
(including AGNPL and KKB) do and each of them doth hereby admit and
acknowledge and of and from the same and every part thereof doth hereby acquit,
release and discharge the Federation, the Societies and Ruparel forever. ("the
Bhatt Group Security Deposit No 1");
.. … .. … …
10.6.2 ….. ….
.. ….
10.6.9.
.. … ..
(iii) Ruparel shall issue duly signed allotment letters on or before December 31,
2023 (after obtaining relevant Commencement Certificates in respect of the Bhatt
Group Compensation 1) for flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1,
more particularly each allotment letter stating the flat no., wing, floor, building name/
location, drawing/ plan of the flat, the completion timeline as per the present consent
terms and further stating that the said allotment is issued pursuant to the present
Consent Terms. It is clarified that Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL shall be liable to pay all
further charges for development charges, society & advance corpus fund charges,
charges for any facilities such as fitness center/health club, goods and services tax. It is
further clarified that Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL shall be charged the aforesaid amounts
at par with what will be charged to the purchasers / allottee/s of other units/ premises in
21 of 86
the said Project. Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL will be provided with one car parking per
flat (which will either be 1 BHK / 2 BHK / 3BHK as per the sole discretion of Ruparel)
irrespective of its configuration. Ruparel hereby agrees and undertakes that Ruparel
shall not create any third-party rights in respect of the Bhatt Group Compensation
No.1,
(iv) Thereupon, Ruparel shall as and when called upon by Aditya Bhatt and
AGNPL execute Agreement for Sale/ Sale Agreement transferring the right, title and
interest in favor of the said Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL with respect to any or all of the
flats comprised in the Bhatt Group Compensation No. 1as per the requisition of the
said Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL. Ruparel shall also as and when called upon by the said
Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL come forward before the registrar of sub-assurances for
registration of the said Agreements duly executed. The stamp duty and any taxes as per
applicable law in respect of the Bhatt Group be solely borne by Aditya Bhatt and
AGNPL.
(v) Ruparel shall complete the construction of the said flats comprised in the Bhatt
Group Compensation No.1 and hand the same over to the Aditya Bhatt and AGNPL
along with the occupation certificate with respect to the said flats comprised in the
Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 on or before December 31, 2026, subject to force
majeure clause as mentioned hereinbelow.
(v) Ruparel shall be entitled to a reasonable extension of time for offering possession of
the Bhatt Group Compensation on account of any event of force majeures or on
account of any act and/or omission not attributable to Ruparel, including but not
limited to the following:
(a) non-availability of steel, cement, other building material, water or
electric supply for a period of not more than six months; or War, Pandemic,
Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or
(b) War, Pandemic, Civil Commotion, Riots or Act of God; or
(c) Any notice, order, rue, notification of the Government and/or other
public or competent authority; or
(d) changes in any rules, regulation, bye-laws of various statutory bodies and
authorities affecting the development and the project.
…
10.7. The Federation and the Societies (through Ruparel) hereby agree and undertake
to this Hon'ble Court to compensate Richa with a sum of Rs.92,52,20,000/- (Rupees
Ninety-Two Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) ("the Richa
Compensation"), by payment of the same in the following manner:
(a) a sum of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Fifty Lakh only) has
been paid by Ruparel (on behalf of the Federation and the Societies)
("Richa Initial Compensation") prior to the execution hereof (the receipt
whereof Richa doth hereby admits and acknowledges of and from these and
every part thereof doth hereby forever releases, acquits and discharges
Ruparel, the Federation and the Societies);
(b) a sum of Rs. 70,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Crore anly), ("the Richa
Balance Compensation No.1") to be paid by the Federation and the
Societies, through Ruparel to Richa shall be paid within a period of 12
(twelve) months with a grace period of 6 (six) months and an additional
grace period of another 3 (three) months from the date of filing of these
Consent Terms in the following manner.
22 of 86
(i) Ruparel shall pay a sum of Rs. 13,74,80,000/- (Rupees
Thirteen Crore Seventy-Five Lakh Only) ("the Richa Balance
Compensation No.1A"), to Richa in lieu of the adjustment between
the Bhatt Group and Richa as more particularly described in clause
10.6 2, 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 hereinabove.
(ii) Ruparel shall pay a sum of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve
Crore Only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No. 1B) to Richa in
lieu of the adjustment between the Nikaljes and Richa as more
particularly described in clause 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 respectively and
(ii) Ruparel shall pay the balance amount of Rs 44 25 20 300-
(Rupees Forty-Four Crore Twenty-Five Lakh Twenty thousand only)
("the Richa Balance Compensation No. 1C to Richa)
The Richa Balance Compensation be paid by Ruparel for and on behalf of
the Federation and Society) in the manner as mutually agreed between
Ruparel and Richa.
(c) a sum of Rs. 20.02,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Two Lakh Twenty
Thousand Only) ("the Richa Balance Compensation No.2) shall be paid by
the Federation and the Societies, through Ruparel to Richa within a period of
12 (twelve) months with a grace period of 6 (six) months and an additional
grace period of another 3 (three) months from the date of filing of these
Consent Terms in the manner to be mutually agreed between Richa and
Ruparel's
(d) Ruparel undertakes to this Hon'ble Court to fulfill the commitment (on
behalf of the Federation and the Societies) given in clauses 10.7.(a) to 10.7.(c)
that is the previous sub clauses.
10.8. It is hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agreed between the parties that neither
the Nikaljes, nor the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB), nor Richa, nor the
Federation, nor the members of the Federation, nor the members of the Slum Societies,
shall in any manner whatsoever raise any objections, claims, hindrances and issues in
relation to Ruparel's right, title and interest over the said Property, as developer, and they
hereby unconditionally give their No Objection to Ruparel to be the new developer for
the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property. The Nikaljes, the Bhatt
Group (including AGNPL and KKB), Richa, the Federation, the Societies, their respective
committee members and their respective members hereby agree and undertake to this
Hon'ble Court to render necessary co-operation and separate to Ruparel and to sign all
such deeds, documents, papers etc. as may be required in this regard.
10.9. It has further been agreed between the Nikaljes, Bhatt Group (including AGNPL
and KKB) and Richa that, save and except what has been agreed by the Federation and
the Societies, through Ruparel under these Consent Terms, the Federation and or
Societies and or Ruparel shall in no event be held liable and or responsible for any
liabilities, demands, claims, etc. made by any person/s arising from inter-se disputes
between the Nikaljes, the Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and Richa, if any,
whether in present or in future nor shall the Federation and the Societies, and or Ruparel
be called upon and or any claim and or demand, etc. be made by the Nikaljes, Bhatt
Group (including AGNPL and KKB), Richa and/or any associates of the Nikaljes, Bhatt
Group (including AGNPL and KKB) and/or Richa and or any person claiming through
23 of 86
either Nikaljes and or Bhatt Group and or Richa against the Federation and or Societies
and or Ruparel in any manner whatsoever.
10.10. It is hereby irrevocably and unconditionally agreed by and between the Parties that
Ruparel and/or its sister concerns and or group entities shall be entitled to amalgamate
and / or club the Slum Scheme with any other slum scheme/s or other schemes as may be
permitted under applicable laws. However, the same shall not prejudice the entitlement of
the said Bhatt Group (including AGNPL and KKB) to receive Bhatt Group
Compensation 1 as more particularly described hereinabove in the said Property and the
obligations of providing the Bhatt Group Compensation 1 shall be in case of such
amalgamation binding upon Ruparel, its sister concerns and/or group entities being part
of/developers of/beneficiaries in any manner of the said amalgamated scheme and such
entities shall be considered as parties claiming through Ruparel under these consent terms
and therefore execution of these presents shall be binding on these entities. Ruparel shall
take the necessary undertaking from such entities to that effect without which any such
amalgamation shall lapse.
10.11. The Parties agree, confirm and consent that Ruparel shall be entitled to create a
mortgage / charge / lien in respect of its rights to develop / implement the Slum Scheme
on the said Property based on the letter of intent to be issued by the SRA from time to
time, save and except upon the Bhatt Group Compensation 1. The Federation, the
Societies, their respective committee members, their respective members hereby agree and
undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall jointly and or severally pass necessary
resolutions as may be required from time to time for the purposes of enabling Ruparel to
undertake the implementation of the Slum Scheme on the said Property including but not
limited to (i) creating mortgage / charge / lien in respect of its rights to develop /
implement the Slum Scheme on the said Property based on the letter of intent to be issued
by the SRA from time to time and (ii) enter into joint venture agreements, joint
development agreements, agreement for assignment of development rights, supplemental
agreement/s, development management agreement, deeds of rectification, deeds of
confirmation, deeds of indemnity, power/s of attorney, undertakings and such other
incidental documents with third party developers / investors / co-venturers / person/s.
Further the entitlement-of- any party entering into joint venture, joint development,
taking assignment and or transfer of development rights, taking the project on a
development management basis and /or joining with Ruparel for completion of the Sale
Component in any form shall be subject to the rights of the Bhatt Group with respect to
the Bhatt Group Compensation No. and any consideration payable to the Bhatt Group as
more particularly described herein and the obligation to allot, transfer, complete and
handover the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 shall be equally binding upon the said
third party and these Consent Terms shall be birding upon them. Further the
mortgage/charge/lien in respect of the rights to the said slum scheme shall also be subject
to the obligation to prove the Bhatt Group Compensation No 1:c the Bhatt Group and
further payment of any consideration in the event of default of such loan arising out of the
said mortgage/charge/lien the financial institution and/or lender entity shall not have any
rights upon and/or charge upon the Bhatt Group Compensation No 1 and /or upon any
proceeds/funds payable to the Bhatt Group as consideration and further such Financial
institution and/or lender shall they take over the rights on behalf of Ruparel ensure that
the Bhatt Group Compensation No.1 shall be allotted, transferred completed and handed
over to Aditya Bhatt as per these Consent Terms and the Consent Terms shall be binding
upon them.
… … …. …
10.14. Owing to the operation of the interim order/s passed in the captioned Petitions,
the Federation, the Societies, their respective committee members and their respective
24 of 86
members hereby agree to this Hon'ble Court to do all acts, deeds and things as maybe
necessary for the purposes of implementing these Consent Terms including the
appointment of Ruparel as the developer of the Property within 15 (fifteen) days from the
date of execution of these Consent Terms, time being of the essence.
10.15. The Federation, the Societies and their respective committee members agree and
undertake to this Hon'ble Court to cause their respective members / slum dwellers to
vacate their respective structures/hutments that they are occupying on the said Property as
and when called upon by Ruparel to do so, time being of the essence.
.…
11. These Consent Terms are executed by the parties with the intent to bind the parties
hereto and/or any and all persons claiming by, through, under or in trust for the executing
parties.
12. The Parties are executing these terms by mutual consent, of their own free will and
desire and without any nature of force, fraud, threat, undue influence and / or coercion
from anyone.”
(emphasis supplied)
16. The petitioner being appointed as the developer to undertake the redevelopment
of the slums in question, on an application in that regard made by the federation, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority issued a communication dated 25 March, 2021 approving
appointment of the petitioner as a “developer” to implement the slum rehabilitation
scheme, on the government land in question. Thereafter, on 6 August, 2021, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority sanctioned Annexure-III certifying the petitioner’s financial
capacity and eligibility to undertake the scheme. Subsequent thereto, on the development
proposal being submitted by the petitioner, a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 6 August, 2021
was issued by the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointing the
petitioner as developer based on more than 51% consent (823 out of 1520 eligible slum
dwellers) stated to be biometrically verified by the SRA.
17. On 13 August, 2021, an Intimation of Approval (IOA) was issued by the SRA
approving construction of 8 (eight) Rehabilitation Buildings, out of which Rehabilitation
Building nos. 1 to 8 were to house 3153 rehabilitation tenements and 96 amenity
25 of 86
tenements. Further, on 4 October, 2021, SRA issued revised Annexure-II/eligibility letter
recording final tally of 2370 slum dwellers, of whom 1520 were declared eligible for
rehabilitation (823 structures were ineligible/non-existent). Also, recently on 18
November, 2025, the SRA issued a revised LOI in favour of the petitioner.
18. It so transpired that after all the aforesaid approvals were granted by the SRA in
favour of the petitioner, some of the Societies of the slum dwellers (Chembur Siddharth
Colony Pravartan Co-op. Housing Society along with other Societies) approached this
Court by filing Review Petition No. 3 of 2022 praying for recall of the order dated 1
March, 2021 passed by the Division Bench (supra) accepting the consent terms (supra)
and disposing of the said Writ Petition(s) in terms of the consent terms. It was c ontended
by the said review petitioners that such Cooperative Societies of the slum dwellers were
not impleaded as parties to the said three Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011,
Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012). It was hence
contended that the order dated 1 March, 2021 passed by the Division Bench accepting the
‘consent terms’ was required to be reviewed, as it affected large number of members of the
different Cooperative Societies, as the consent terms were filed by the Federation without
obtaining the consent of the review petitioner, being the Cooperative Societies formed by
the slum dwellers. It was contended that a General Body Meeting was not convened by
the Federation. It was further contended that when the consent terms specifically referred
to the resolutions passed by the review petitioner-Societies, such resolutions were also not
annexed to the consent terms. It was also contended that, in fact, in respect of some of the
Societies, administrators were appointed and therefore, the persons signing the alleged
resolutions on the letterhead of the said Societies, had no authority to sign the said
26 of 86
resolutions and pass such resolutions. Thus, the nature of such dispute raised by the said
Societies was against the federation.
18.1 The said Review Petition was opposed by the petitioner, it was also opposed by the
federation. On behalf of the petitioners, who were impleaded as respondent no. 13 in the
review petition, it was contended that rehabilitation of the slum scheme in question had
remained enmeshed in litigation before the High Power Committee, and thereafter before
this Court between the rival developers from 2006 to 2021. It was stated that by way of
consent terms, the claims of two rival builders were settled and it was agreed between the
said developers and the federation, that the petitioner would stand appointed as the
developer and accordingly, make a requisite application with the SRA to secure an Letter
of Intent (LOI). It was also contended that accordingly, the SRA issued an LOI dated 6
August., 2021 in favour of the petitioner, based on verification/acceptance of 51%
individual agreements and consents of the eligible slum dwellers. It was also contended by
the petitioners that independent of the consent terms, 51% individual slum dwellers had
consented for the redevelopment of the slum scheme by appointing the petitioner and
accordingly, LOI was issued by the SRA in favour of the petitioner. It was contended that
the petitioner had incurred substantial expenditure by making payments, to the erstwhile
developers. Also in pursuance of the LOI, the SRA approved building plans of Rehab-
building nos. 1 to 8 comprising of 3153 Rehab and 96 amenity tenements. It was
contended that it was always the Federation of the Societies, which had represented all the
slum dwellers. It was stated that further, the liability of all the payments to be made, was
only of the petitioner and no liability was cast on the slum dwellers or the proposed
Societies.
27 of 86
18.2 In the said Review Petitions filed before the Court, Intervention Application(s)
were filed on behalf of the slum dwellers, who contended that as a result of the dispute
between the developers, the redevelopment scheme was delayed for several years. It was
contended that in terms of the consent terms, 51% of the slum dwellers had given consent
in favour of the petitioner (respondent no. 13 therein) and therefore Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme supported by 51% of the slum dwellers cannot be put to peril on the ground that
certain procedures were not strictly followed or some steps were taken contrary to the
procedures prescribed in the guidelines.
18.3 In the review proceedings, the federation, which was respondent no. 9 in the said
proceedings, in opposing the review petition, in its reply affidavit dated 13 October, 2021
inter alia contended that the resolutions were passed by the respective Societies giving
authority to the Federation for entering into the consent terms. It was stated that although
such resolutions were not annexed to the said consent terms, they were specifically referred
in the body of the consent terms. It was stated that it was well accepted that from March
2020 due to Covid-19 pandemic, there was a nationwide lock-down and several
restrictions/conditions were imposed by the Government of India and State of
Maharashtra from time to time. The restrictions imposed did not permit gathering of large
number of people at one place, therefore, some of the terms including holding of GBR
could not be held due to Covid restrictions.
19. The Division Bench considering the rival contentions, passed an order dated 14
September, 2022 on the said Review Petition. The Division Bench, however, was of the
opinion that the stand of the federation, that it had consent from the Societies cannot be
28 of 86
accepted as consents were required to be obtained by the Societies passing a resolution . It
was observed that these Societies were not signatories to the consent terms. The Division
Bench accordingly recalled the earlier order dated 1 March, 2021 whereby the three Writ
Petition(s) were disposed of in terms of the consent terms. The operative order passed by
the Court reads thus:
ORDER
(i) Order dated 1st March 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 is
recalled and the same is set aside and Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012 is restored to
the file;
(ii) Review Petitioner Nos.1 to 15 and Chembur Siddharth Colony Shatabdi Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd., Pranali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and
Siddharth Nagar Samjhota Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are directed to be
impleaded as the Respondents in Writ Petition No.2482 of 2012;
(iii) It is clarified that we have not considered the merits of the dispute involved in
the Writ Petition and the same is expressly kept open;
(iv) It is further clarified that various contentions raised by the contesting
Respondents as far as the merits of the said Redevelopment Scheme are concerned,
are expressly kept open and the same can be agitated in the said Writ Petition
No.2482 of 2012;
(v) Review Petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms.
(vi) In view of disposal of the Review Petition, all Interim applications do not survive
and the same are disposed of accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. On the aforesaid backdrop, one more Writ Petition was filed by the slum dwellers,
being Writ Petition (L) No. 26910 of 2022 (Sonam Manjeet Jeth & Ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), which was disposed of by an order dated 17 November, 2022,
which reads thus:
1. On 23 September 2022, the following order was passed:
“ 1. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that there is a
29 of 86
change of advocate and the Vakalatnama is in process of being filed.
2. This Petition is moved by six Petitioners stating to be members
of Respondent No.4–Co-operative Society, which comprises of 29
societies for the purpose of implementing Slum Redevelopment Scheme
in respect of the stated plot of land situated at Chembur. The prayer
sought in this Petition is to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to grant
the name reservation and certificate of registration to Respondent No.4–
Society. The grievance of the Petitioners is that unless the societies are
registered, the Slum Redevelopment would not proceed and Respondent
No.5–Developer must take steps in that regard.
3. The Learned counsel for Respondent No.5–Developer states
that he is ready to register the society, however, there are impediments
in the way.
4. The learned counsel for SRA seeks time to take instructions as
to how the Slum Redevelopment Authority, who is entrusted with the
task of overseeing the process of Slum Redevelopment intends to
proceed in this matter.
5. At the request of learned counsel for the SRA, stand over to 7
October 2022.
2. The learned counsel for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority states that
instructions have been received that the representation of the Petitioners would be
decided as per law within a period of three weeks. We make it clear that we have not
looked into the merits of the representation of the Petitioners and it is for the
authority to decide the same as per law.
3. Writ petition is disposed of.”
21. It is also the petitioner’s case that thereafter on 22 December, 2022, respondent
no. 8-Assistant Registrar, Slum Rehabilitation Authority appointed an “Administrator” for
the Federation. Subsequent thereto, further litigation ensued between the parties,
inasmuch as, in 2024, 13 Societies forming part of the Federation filed Writ Petition (L)
No. 19540 of 2024 in this Court challenging LOI dated 6 August, 2021 issued in favour
of the petitioner as also the order dated 20 July, 2011 passed by the High Power
Committee.
22. On 8 July, 2025, the SRA by its communication addressed to the petitioner,
30 of 86
allotted Permanent Transit Camps (PTC) in favour of the petitioner, so that the slum
dwellers can be shifted to the transit camps and the slum land vacated for undertaking
construction. The petitioner was required to make payment of an amount of
Rs.1,52,50,000/- towards rent of the PTC. On 16 July, 2025, the petitioner deposited an
amount of Rs.1,52,50,000/- with the SRA towards PTC rent and a receipt to that effect
was issued in favour of the petitioner.
23. On 26 November, 2025, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us
(G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, passed an order on Writ Petition (L) No. 19540 of 2024
(supra) observing that the slum scheme which was delayed substantially needs to be taken
forward. The said order dated 26 November, 2025 passed by this Court, is required to be
noted, which reads thus:
“1. These are the proceedings where the SRA needs to file an affidavit. Let the
affidavit be filed within a period of 2 weeks from today. Copy of the same be furnished
to all the parties. The other Respondents who intend to file an affidavit, they are also
free to do so.
2. As contended at the Bar , in our opinion, the present Petition would also be
required to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011, Writ Petition No.
678 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012. List all these proceedings along
with the present Petition on the adjourned date of hearing.
3. We, however, observe that redevelopment of the slums in question where the
Societies have formed a federation of the Societies namely ‘the Chembur Siddharth
Colony Pravartan Co-operative Housing Society’ (registered) need to take an
appropriate view of the matter by calling a General Body Meeting of all the Societies.
Considering the fact that the litigation is pending for more than 14 years, the
development has not progressed so far. An appropriate decision would be required to
be accordingly taken as we do not find that the litigation and/or adjudication of these
proceedings in any manner would help the parties. What is required, is that a well
considered decision, should be taken, so as to forward the redevelopment of the slums
and more particularly, when it is already delayed for such long period. Accordingly, let
appropriate steps in that regard be taken and be informed to the Court on the
adjourned date of hearing.
4. In the meantime, in the event, a resolution is not brought about after hearing
all the stakeholders, we permit the appropriate party to file an interim application for
further appropriate orders as the parties may desire. All contentions in this regard are
31 of 86
expressly kept open.
5. Needless to observe that any meeting for settlement of the issue would also be
without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. In the event, such
meeting is proposed to be held, we direct the representative of the SRA to remain
present at such meeting. The date of the meeting be informed to the Competent
Authority of the SRA at least 4 working days in advance.
6. Permission to file rejoinder.
7. For the time being, we list the proceedings on 17th December 2025 (HOB).”
(emphasis supplied)
24. The petitioner has contended that on 17 December, 2025, SRA filed an affidavit in
Writ Petition (L) No. 19540 of 2024 confirming the existence of Federation. Thereafter
on 8 January, 2026, the advocate for the Federation addressed a letter to the SRA seeking
biometric authentication and deputation of an Officer for conducting the proposed
General Body Meeting, to be held on 16 February, 2026. A Similar letter was addressed
on 22 January, 2026.
25. On the aforesaid backdrop, on 4 February, 2026, the Secretary of the SRA issued
the impugned communication to the Officers of the SRA effectively staying the
petitioner’s LOI and directing that no permissions/approvals/CC/IOA be granted. It
ordered reassessment of consents and financial capacity. The said communication reads
thus:
(Translation of the letter dated 4 February 2026)
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Brihanmumbai
No.: SRA/Adm/Work-1/TE-2/61/2026
Date: 04 FEB 2026
To,
1. Shri Prakash Birje, Deputy Chief Engineer-2, SRA, Brihanmumbai
2. Smt. Vandana Gewaraikar, Deputy Collector, Mumbai City, SRA, Brihanmumbai
3. Shri Mahesh Avtade, Finance Controller, SRA
4. Smt. Sandhya Bavankule, Assistant Registrar, SRA
32 of 86
Subject: Regarding the SRA scheme of Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Housing
Federation SRA Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed) on CTS No. 470
(part), 471
(part), village Chembur.
With reference to the above subject, in respect of the complaints regarding the said
scheme, the following necessary action should be taken immediately on the issues relating to
the Co-operation Department, Finance Department, Deputy Collector (Special Cell-2) Eastern
Suburbs as well as Department of Deputy Chief Engineer-2.
Sr. Recommendation in the inquiry report Concerned officer to take action
No. and action to be taken
1 For the process of selection of the developer, as per Smt. Sandhya Bavankule,
Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Assistant Registrar, Co-
Promoption Regulations-2034, there is a provision operation Department, SRA,
to obtain the consent of 51% of eligible hutment Brihanmumbai shall, as per the
dwellers of the proposed societies. On perusal of the recommendation in the report,
Report of the Assistant Registrar dated 16/12/2025 take immediate action
as well as the Report dated 30/12/2025 in this regarding holding a GBR
matter, it appears that, infact, it is actually necessary (General Body Resolution /
to convene a General Body Meeting of the total meeting) and submit such
1564 eligible hutment dwellers in the rehabilitation report.
scheme and obtain the consent of 51% hutment
dwellers therefrom. However, in the process of
selection of the new developer, as stated above, a
General Body Meeting has been held only in the
presence of a total of 39 representatives, being 2
representatives each of the proposed societies of the
proposed federation, and on that basis a report has
been submitted that there is 51% consent of the
eligible hutment dwellers of the proposed societies,
without conducting the process of verifying in a
General Body Meeting the number of eligible
hutment dwellers of the proposed societies and
obtaining the consent of 51% eligible hutment
dwellers therein.
From this it appears that the number of eligible
hutment dwellers of the proposed societies has not
been ascertained by holding a General Body Meeting
and the process of verifying the consent of 51%
eligible hutment dwellers therein has not been
carried out. Therefore, in the presence of the
authorised officer of the Co-operation Cell under the
Authority, it is necessary to convene a General Body
Meeting of all hutment dwellers who are eligible as
on the date and time of the meeting and verify the
consent of 51% hutment dwellers.
2 On the basis of the documents submitted by the Shri Mahesh Avtade, Finance
developer, the Finance Department has certified that Controller, SRA.
33 of 86
the company has share capital of about Rs. 30 crores. As per the recommendations in
In Writ Petition No. 4836/2025, in the order issued the report, you yourself and a
by the Hon'ble High Court, while examining the Registered CA should examine
actual financial capacity of the concerned developer, the financial capacity and other
the Hon'ble Court has directed that it would be aspects and submit the report
appropriate to examine the following aspects: immediately.
a. To obtain an opinion from a Chartered
Accountant regarding the financial position of the
said developer and also regarding the eligibility and
credibility developer. as a
b. The Income Tax Returns of the last 4 years should
be examined.
In this case also, it appears necessary to re-examine
the financial capacity of the developer as per a and b
above.
3 When the Committee perused the file of the Deputy Smt. Vandana Gewaraikar,
Collector (Special Cell), SRA, Brihanmumbai, Deputy Collector (Special Cell),
containing the sample individual agreement, it was Mumbai City, SRA,
seen that the individual agreement of Shri. Ananda Brihanmumbai.
Baburao Pawar has been executed on 10/08/2021. A
copy of the same is enclosed for reference. Hence, a As per the recommendation in
doubt arises as to whether the developer has the report, all agreements
submitted (51%) individual agreements on or before should be re-examined and a
06/08/2021. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine report should be submitted
all the individual agreements submitted. immediately regarding whether
51 percent consent existed?
In view of the above, before granting any further
building permission to the developer, it is necessary
that all the above matters be complied with urgently
and if the same is not done, appropriate action
should be taken regarding cancellation of the
appointment of the developer.
4 Regarding the SRA scheme of Siddharth Colony Shri Prakash Birje, Deputy
Vikas Seva Sangh Housing Federation SRA Co-op Chief Engineer-2, SRA,
Housing Society (Proposed) on CTS No. 470 (part), Brihanmumbai.
471 (part), village Chembur. Until the necessary
action is taken on the aforesaid issues and Until further instructions are
compliance with the said issues is achieved, no received, further permissions
further action of any kind relating to the said scheme for the said scheme such as
should be taken. LOI, CC, IOA should not be
granted.
Accordingly, if, from the reports of the Assistant Registrar, Finance Controller, and Deputy
Collector (Special Cell), it is found that the developer has committed any irregularities,
then the Deputy Chief Engineer-2 shall send a proposal regarding cancellation of the
appointment of the developer.
34 of 86
Sd/-
(Dattu Navale)
Secretary
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Brihanmumbai
(emphasis supplied)
26. On 13 February, 2026, the impugned notice was issued by the Authorised Officer
and Cooperative Officer, Grade-1, SRA informing the slum dwellers that a ‘Special
General Body Meeting’ is being convened on Saturday 28 February, 2026 at 10 a.m. at
the venue as set out in the said notice for a decision on the subject(s) – Whether the
petitioner /developer-Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as the consent of the eligible hutment
holders in the scheme or not and Whether to appoint the Chief Promoter of Siddharth
Colony Vikas Seva Sangh(Housing Federation) Cooperative Society. The contents of
the said notice are required to be noted, which reads thus:
SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY
SRA/CO/OW/2026/6997
Co-operation Cell, SRA, Brihanmumbai
No.: SRA/Co-op/Tech. Soc. 6/2026
Date: 13/02/2026.
-: Special General Notice :-
With regard to the properties bearing C.T.S. Nos. 470 (part), 471 (part), situated
Mouje Chembur, Taluka Kurla, on which Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh using
Federation), Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), is implementing the scheme, the
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, S.R.A., by letter dated 2/2026, has appointed
us as Authorized Officers to convene a general body meeting me eligible slum dwellers
listed in Annexure-2 of the scheme, for the purpose of Tying the consent of eligible slum
dwellers in the scheme to the developer of the scheme.
Accordingly, a Special General Meeting of the eligible slum dwellers in the scheme
been convened in accordance with Circular No. 169 dated 31/12/2015 of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority on Saturday, 28/02/2026 at 10:00 a.m. at: Shagun Party Hall, R.
Marg, Chembur Colony, Mumbai - 400 074. The following subjects will be taken up in
said meeting. You are therefore requested to remain present for the said meeting.
-: Subjects of the Meeting :-
1. To verify whether the eligible slum dwellers in the scheme do or do not give their
35 of 86
consent to the developer of the scheme, M/s. Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (Group
Company of Ruparel Realty).
2. To elect the Chief Promoter of Siddharth Colony Vikas Seva Sangh (Housing
Federation) Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed).
Sd/-
R. N. Haldhe) Authorized Officer and Sd/-(Arun Jadhav)
Co-operative Officer, Grade-1, S.R.A., Assistant Authorized Officer and
Brihanmumbai Co-operative Officer, Grade-1, S.R.A..
Mumbai
Note: Eligible candidates desirous of contesting for the post of Chief Promoter shall
obtain the nomination forms from the Authorized Officer on 24/02/2026 and
25/02/2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., and shall personally remain present and
submit the same on 26/02/2026 between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (The candidate filling
in the nomination form must be a person shown as eligible in Annexure-2 of the Society.)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 13/02/2026.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. It is on the aforesaid conspectus, the petitioner has approached this Court praying
for the following substantive reliefs:
“Writ Petition No. 7387 of 2026
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned
letter bearing No. SRA/Adm/Work-1/TE-2/61 2026 dated 4th February, 2026 issued by
the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai being Respondent No. 4, and
Impugned Notice bearing No. SRA/CO/OW/2026/6997 dated 13th February, 2026
issued by the SRA being Respondent No. 10 & 11, after examining the legality and
validity thereof, quash and set aside the same;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus, against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, either by themselves or through their
delegates, to issue all requisite permissions, sanctions and approvals, including but not
limited to commencement certificates, in favour of the Petitioner, for the purpose of
smooth implementation of the subject slum rehabilitation scheme, being undertaken on
the Scheme Land bearing CTS Nos. 470(Pt), 471(Pt) and 366/6(Pt) of Village Chembur,
Taluka Kurla, admeasuring approximately 66,000 square metres, situated at Siddarth
Nagar, K.N. Gaikwad Marg, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus, against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, either by themselves or through
their delegates, to handover possession of PTC as allotted vide letter dated 8th July, 2025
being Exhibit "P" hereto for relocating existing eligible slum dwellers therein;”
36 of 86
III. The Other proceedings
A) Recently filed Writ Petitions
28. The companion Writ Petition No. 658 of 2026 (New Shantidoot Sahakari
Grihnirman Sanstha (Proposed) & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) is filed by 12
Societies (Proposed) formed by the slum dwellers, in which the reliefs prayed for are inter
alia to the effect that the LOI dated 6 August, 2021 issued in favour of the petitioner -
Ruparel Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and all other approvals granted in its favour in relation to the
redevelopment of the slum project be quashed and set aside. There is also a prayer that the
order dated 20 July, 2011 passed by the High Power Committee be quashed and set aside.
The substantive prayers as made in the said writ petition is required to be noted, which
read thus:
“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the
nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling upon the records and
proceedings relating to the issuance of LOI and after going through the legality, propriety
and validity of the same, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Letter of
Intent dated 6 August, 2021 (Exhibit “B” hereto) and all other approvals and approvals
granted to and/or in favour of respondent no. 4 in relation to the redevelopment of
subject slum project.
b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the papers and
proceedings in relation to the passing of the impugned order dated 20 July, 2011 passed
by the HPC and after considering the veracity and validity of the same, this Hon’ble Court
be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20 July, 2011 passed by the HPC
(Exhibit ‘A’ hereto).”
29. There is another Writ Petition, being, Writ Petition (L) No. 24849 of 2026, which is
also filed by the group of slum dwellers seeking reliefs that the redevelopment process needs
to be taken further by the petitioner. The reliefs as prayed for in the said petition are
required to be noted, which read thus:
“a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or writ in nature of
37 of 86
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3 to immediately grant all necessary construction approvals, including Commencement
Certificate (CC) to respondent no. 7-Developer and to ensure the actual commencement of
the work and completion thereof in time bound manner.
b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or writ in nature
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent SRA to
forthwith hand over physical possession of the 586 PTC tenements at Bhimwadi, Govandi
as per Allotment Letter dated 8 July, 2025 to enable the immediate relocation of the
eligible slum dwellers.
c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ in nature of
certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the
Impugned Letter/Order dated 4 February, 2026 (Exh. ‘A’ hereto), the Impugned GBM
Notice dated 13 February, 2026 (Exh. B hereto), and the impugned PTC cancellation
letter dated 6 July 2026 (Exh. ‘C’ hereto) issued by the respondent SRA.”
B) Pending Old Writ Petitions
30. Also, Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011, Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 and Writ
Petition No. 678 of 2012, which are restored to the file of this Court in pursuance of the
orders dated 14 September, 2022 passed in Review Petition No. 3 of 2022 (supra), are
subject matter of consideration, being tagged along with this batch of petitions. The
“prayers” as made in each of the said Writ Petitions are required to be noted, which read
thus:
Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Government Resolution
dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A' hereto) issued by the State Government is illegal,
unlawful and beyond the executive powers vested in the State Government under the
Constitution of India;
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the
nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings of the issuance of
the Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A' hereto) and after
going into the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the High Power Committee
constituted under the Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 (Ex. 'A'
hereto) issued by the State Government is illegal, unlawful and the said High Power
38 of 86
Committee be wound up;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the
nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the
issuance of the impugned order dated 20th July 2011 (Ex. 'DD' hereto) passed by the
High Power Committee on Application No. 348 of 2010 and after going into the
legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the same and to restore
the order dated 30th August 2010 (Ex. 'X' hereto) passed by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority.
Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012
(a) This Honourable Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or writ in the
nature of Certiorari or such other writ, orders, directions be passed calling for the
records and proceedings of Application No. 348 of 2010 and after before the High
Power Committee - II, perusal of the same and after going through the validity, legality
and propriety of the impugned order dated 20.7.2011, being Exhibit 'O', the same be
quashed and/or set aside.
Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012
(A) This Hon'ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ or
direction or order, calling upon Respondent No. 6 to produce case papers of
Application No. 348 of 2010 and after going through legality and/or validity and/or
propriety thereof, be pleased to quash & set-aside the impugned Judgment & Order
dated 20/7/2011 passed by Respondent No. 6 in Application No. 348 of 2010
(Exhibit hereto) and Judgment & Order dated 30/8/2010 passed by Respondent No.
1 and Petitioners' Application No. 348 of 2010 (Exhibit hereto) be allowed with
costs;"
31. As the issues in all these proceedings revolve around the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme to be implemented, on the State Government land in question, these proceedings
are being adjudicated by this common judgment.
32. On the present proceedings, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order
dated 25 March, 2026, while granting time to the SRA to file reply affidavit, the Court
ordered that till the adjourned date of hearing, the appointment of petitioner as a
developer shall not be cancelled. It was also ordered that in the meantime, the SRA would
place on record as to what steps were being taken to shift 500 slum dwellers to the
39 of 86
Permanent Transit Camp(PTC). The said ad-interim protection in favour of the petitioner
has continued to operate till date.
33. It is required to be noted that the impugned communication dated 4 February,
2026 to the effect was issued by one Mr. Dattu Navale, Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority to the officers of the SRA.
34. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of SRA, it is stated that the impugned notice
dated 13 February, 2026 was issued in pursuance of the directions of this Court in the
order dated 26 November, 2025 passed by the Division Bench, in the proceedings of Writ
Petition (L) No. 19540 of 2024, to which we have made a reference hereinabove. This
was not the correct position, as no such directions were issued by this Court in the said
proceedings. Considering this, the SRA has withdrawn the impugned notice dated 13
February, 2026. The Court accordingly passed an order dated 24 August, 2026 recording
such withdrawal of the notice dated 13 February, 2026, which reads thus:
“1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the present proceedings.
Primary contention of the Petitioners in WPL/7387/2026 is in regard to the actions,
which the SRA had resorted in threatening to cancel the Letter of Intent (LOI), which
was issued in its favour.
2. On such backdrop challenge is mounted to the internal note/communication dated
4th February, 2026, which was addressed by Secretary, SRA, Dattu Navale to the
officers of the SRA (at page 555 of the paper book). Thereafter, a notice was issued by
the Assistance Authorized Officer dated 13 th February, 2026, (page 63 of the paper
book) titled as Special General Notice, thereby calling upon a Special General Meeting
of the slum dwellers on 28 th February, 2026 at 10.00 AM to discuss the issue as to
whether the Petitioner (Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited) who was appointed as a
developer was with consent of the slum dwellers, and to undertake the verification in
that regard. Such notice is also being challenged by the Petitioner.
3. Surprisingly, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the SRA, a stand has been
taken that the impugned notice dated 13th February, 2026 was issued in pursuance of
the order passed by this Court dated 26th November, 2025 in WPL/19540/2024,
however, on a careful reading of the order dated 26 th November, 2025 passed by this
40 of 86
Court it appears that the Court had not issued any such directions. In this view of the
matter, Ms. Sabharwal, learned Counsel for the SRA on instructions states that the
impugned notice dated 13th February, 2026 is being withdrawn and shall not be acted
upon. We accept this statement as made by Ms Sabharwal. We however clarify that we
have not examined as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case such action
of the SRA was justified as the same would be subject matter of further order we would
propose to pass on the present proceedings. Suffice to observe that the fact remains that
the order dated 26th November, 2025 passed by this Court in WPL/19540/2024 did
not order issuance of such notice.
4. In so far as the other issues are concerned, Petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon Private
Limited (for short ‘Ruparel’) has contended that that it has been validly appointed as
the developer to undertake the slum scheme in question and therefore the LOI issued
in its favour ought not be disturbed, hence it would be entitled to proceed in the
scheme.
5. We have accordingly heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitoner-
Ruparel, the learned Counsel for the Federation of the Societies which is stated to be
formed by 21 societies, learned Counsel for the SRA, and the learned Counsel
appearing for the individual slum dwellers. We have also heard the intervention
application filed by the slum dwellers who are represented by Mr. Shridhar Y. Chitale,
learned Senior Counsel.
6. We propose to pass appropriate orders on the several contentions, which are
raised, including to decide as to whether the ad-interim orders passed by this Court on
25th March, 2026 by the coordinate Bench of this Court would be required to be
continued or otherwise.
7. Accordingly, orders are reserved.
8. List the proceedings on 31st August, 2026 for orders.
9. Ad-interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.
10. In the meantime, we are informed that the meeting in SRA is scheduled for
tomorrow. Let the meeting be deferred by the SRA.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. Thus, what remains for adjudication in the present proceedings, would be the
other issue, namely, the adjudication on the legality of the impugned communication
dated 4 February, 2026 (supra) issued by the Secretary, SRA.
36. On such conspectus, the rival contentions fall for our consideration.
37. At the outset, we may observe that there are multiple proceedings. There is an
41 of 86
Interim Application filed by one Siddharth Colony Grahak Sangarsh Samiti seeking
impleadment, as also inter alia praying for a direction that the complaint made by the
said applicant be decided by the SRA. We do not propose to deal with the said
application individually, suffice it to observe that the proceedings in question are taken
up, to be adjudicated by hearing all the concerned parties. Except for the ad-interim
order dated 25 March, 2026 (supra), it is the common contention that there is no order
on the merits of the proceedings, except for the detailed order dated 24 August, 2026
passed by us on the earlier occasion. We accordingly proceed to note the rival
contentions.
IV. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon (Writ Petition (L) No.
7387 of 2026
38. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Mr. Vineet Naik, learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Aseem
Naphade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon Private Ltd.,
have made extensive submissions. It is their contention that the entitlement of the
petitioner to be appointed as the developer in respect of the slum scheme in question
stood crystallized under the consent terms dated 1 March, 2021, entered between the
parties, notwithstanding the fact that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated
14 September, 2022, recalled the order dated 1 March, 2021, whereby Writ Petition No.
2482 of 2012, was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. Learned senior counsel
would contend that although the imprimatur was granted by this Court to the consent
terms by an order dated 1 March, 2021, whereby the Division Bench accepting the
consent terms, in disposing of the writ petition(s) in terms thereof, has now stood
withdrawn, by virtue of the subsequent order dated 14 September, 2022, the consent
42 of 86
terms nevertheless constitute a comprehensive agreement between the parties, who are
signatories to the consent terms, hence, the consent terms were binding on the
Federation of Societies. It is submitted that the consent terms were acted upon by the
petitioner inter alia making substantial payments and therefore it would be high-handed
and illegal for the group of slum dwellers/their Societies, now to contend that the
petitioner is not the developer in respect of the said project.
38.1 It is further submitted that although the order dated 1 March, 2021 passed by the
Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 accepting the consent terms has
subsequently been recalled, the consent terms have neither been declared illegal nor
invalid inter se between the parties. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, having
regard to the well-settled principles of law, any question as to whether an agreement is
illegal, invalid or involuntary would have to be adjudicated by the Civil Court or such
other appropriate forum as the law would provide, in the fact situation. It is, therefore,
their contention that the petitioner continues to be developer of the slum redevelopment
project. It is submitted that the petitioner not only acted upon the consent terms and
changed its position, but also the SRA accepted the petitioner to be the developer
appointed for the slum project, thereby acted upon such approval and granted various
approvals, including the Letter of Acceptance (LOA), LOI and permission for the
Permanent Transit Camp (PTC). According to the petitioner, substantial amounts have
been expended by it to further the project.
38.2 It is next submitted that any delay in implementation of the project cannot
be attributed to the petitioner and the same is solely attributable to the disputes inter se
43 of 86
between the Societies and the earlier developers, appointed by them or by the federation.
Learned senior counsel would further submit that the slum dwellers being members of
the Societies have limited rights of rehabilitation, i.e., to get a permanent alternate
accommodation, hence they cannot through their Societies indulge in speculation and/or
derailing the redevelopment at the behest of rival developers. This more particularly
when the land admittedly belongs to the State Government and the slum dwellers, who
are the encroachers on the said land would have an entitlement only of rehabilitation. It
is submitted that the approach of some of the Societies and, for that matter, the so-called
Federation has resulted in the present proceedings being brought before the Court. It is
submitted that the persons acting against the petitioner are neither acting bona fide nor
in the interest of the redevelopment project, and are in fact alleged to be acting at the
behest of other developers. It is submitted that the petitioner stood roped into the
project under a consensual arrangement with the erstwhile developers and the federation
of the Societies and has accordingly changed its position, apart from the fact that the SRA
itself has granted several approvals in its favour. It is their submission that if the attempt
of the slum dwellers to tinker and/or interfere in the smooth implementation of the slum
scheme of the nature as involved in the present proceedings if recognized by the Court,
would lead to multiple complications adverse to the slum dwellers further delaying the
entire slum redevelopment scheme, on account of the inter se disputes amongst persons
interested in the project. It is submitted that such approach on their part would also
defeat the very object and purpose of the slum redevelopment.
38.3 It is next submitted that this apart, the credentials of the petitioner already stand
tested by Slum Rehabilitation Authority at all levels including the petitioner’s financial
44 of 86
capacity and the expertise in undertaking construction projects. It is submitted that what
is now sought to be done at the behest of the slum Societies/Slum dwellers is to introduce
a developer, Society or other persons who were not at all involved in the present slum
redevelopment project, from its very inception and more particularly till the petitioner’s
rights stood crystallized, under the consent terms as entered between the parties. The
learned senior counsel hence submit that the impugned action on the part of SRA in
calling a meeting, to ascertain whether the majority of the slum dwellers support the
petitioner is a high-handed exercise, and in fact such exercise amounts to putting the cart
before the horse, particularly when the consent terms, have not been declared illegal or
invalid by any competent Court or forum. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner
needs to be permitted to proceed with the redevelopment of the slum in question as per
the steps already undertaken by it and which form part of the record of the SRA.
V. Submission on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition (l) No.24849 of 2026
(Sonam Manjeet Jeth Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.)
39. There is an independent writ petition filed on behalf of the slum dwellers, who
are represented by Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar and Mr. Shridhar Chitale, learned senior
counsel, along with Mr. Hakani, learned counsel. These parties have also filed
intervention application in the companion proceedings. These slum dwellers and their
societies are supporting the petitioner. They, inter alia, contend that the petitioner has
been lawfully appointed as the developer of the project by virtue of the Consent Terms.
It is their case that the slum dwellers, who are members of the various slum societies,
fully support the petitioner in undertaking the redevelopment of the slums. It is
submitted that the slum dwellers have been mired in interminable litigation, which is
45 of 86
nothing but an obscure dispute between developers and the vested interests of one or the
another developer, who are behind these slum dwellers. It is their contention that the
slum dwellers are awaiting rehabilitation, for a very long period, i.e., since the year 2006.
It is submitted that the slum dwellers are ready and willing to shift to the permanent
transit Camps (PTC) now allotted in favour of the petitioner by the SRA, in respect of
which the requisite payments have already been made. It is therefore their contention
that necessary orders are required to be passed by this Court to enable the petitioner to
facilitate the shifting of the slum dwellers to the permanent transit accommodation being
made available by the SRA at the behest of the petitioner.
40. It is also their submission that this is a case where the other societies backed by
different developers are, in fact, indulging in horse-trading in relation to the slum
rehabilitation scheme, and that what is being pursued opposing the scheme being taken
forward by the petitioner, is not in the genuine interest of the slum dwellers, but instead
is motivated by private interests, for the reason that the slum scheme pertains to a large
chunk of Government land. It is, hence, their case that the contentions as urged on
behalf of the petitioner need to be accepted, and the slum rehabilitation scheme ought to
be taken forward and the same be not dragged into litigation. It is submitted that, this
more particularly, as the petitioner has been legally appointed as the developer, after
considering all the relevant factors, as set out in detail in the comprehensive consent
terms as entered between the parties. It is next submitted that when things have
advanced to an extent, that the petitioner has taken substantial steps to proceed with the
implementation of the slum scheme, the initiation of such multiple proceedings, by the
slum dwellers is to obstruct the petitioner to execute the slum scheme and cause a set
46 of 86
back at the behest of vested interest. It is hence submitted that the companion
proceedings in fact amount to an abuse of the process of law and are highly prejudicial to
the interests of slum dwellers. It is, therefore submitted that the petitioner, needs to be
permitted to proceed further with the slum scheme, so as to achieve the rehabilitation of
the slum dwellers at the earliest.
VI. Submissions on behalf of societies/ slum dwellers in opposition to Petitioner-
Ruparel Buildcon
41. On the other hand, Mr. Simil Purohit, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
in Writ Petition No. 658 of 2026, as also Mr. Amogh Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant-intervenors in Interim Application (L) No. 12386 of 2026, have opposed the
contentions as urged by Mr. Ravi Kadam, Mr. Vineet Naik, Mr. Shridhar Chitale and
Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar. It is submitted that the petitioner, in fact, is not entitled to
implement the slum scheme in question, more particularly in view of the order dated 14
September, 2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 3
of 2022, whereunder a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, did not accept the contentions
as urged on behalf of the petitioner, when it clearly observed, that the consent terms were
entered without the consent of some of the societies and more particularly on the basis of
signatures of limited office bearers, who were purported to be office bearers of the
Federation. It is submitted that in such context, an issue clearly arises whether the
petitioner’s appointment as developer had the requisite consent of 51% of the slum
dwellers, so that the LOI which has been issued in favour of the petitioner, can at all be
recognized to be legal and valid. It is contended that, in these circumstances, it was a
correct approach on the part of SRA to take steps to ascertain whether there was a
47 of 86
consent of 51% of the slum dwellers through their respective Societies formed by them.
It is submitted that only after such lawful exercise is undertaken, there can be a sanctity
on the issue of appointment of the developer and not otherwise. It is submitted that the
contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner that they have changed their position
and therefore, equities are being gathered on such count, are untenable contentions. It is
submitted that the appointment of a developer for a slum scheme necessarily need to be
undertaken, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, particularly having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
42. There is also an opposition to the writ petition filed by the petitioner-Ruparel
Buildcon, from a group of slum dwellers, who have formed societies who are stated to be
represented by one Siddharth Colony Grahak Sangarsh Samiti represented by Mr.
Amogh Singh. They are intervenors in the present proceedings. The case of Mr. Amogh
Singh is also supported by Mr. Simil Purohit, learned senior counsel who represents New
Shantidoot Sahakari Grihnirman Sanstha (Proposed).The opposition of these intervenors
is inter alia contending that about 20 slum societies formed on the government land
have now come together and are backed by approximately 668 slum dwellers who are
intervenors in the present proceedings. It is their contention that the slum dwellers have
made complaints, which are now part of an inquiry being conducted by the SRA,
pursuant to the appointment of an Enquiry Committee constituted on 18 November
2025. It is their contention that, prior thereto, complaints have also been made to the
State Government. Also, on 31 October 2025, a complaint was made by the interveners
to the SRA in regard to the implementation of the slum scheme, pursuant to which the
said Enquiry Committee was constituted.
48 of 86
43. The principal contention of the interveners and/or of these slum dwellers is that
the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1.15 of
Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (for
short, “DCPR 2034”), inasmuch as it was mandatory for a developer to obtain the
consent of 51% of the eligible slum dwellers for implementing a slum rehabilitation
scheme. It is hence submitted that there is a basic flaw in the appointment of the
petitioner as the developer, which is liable to be tested by ascertaining the will of the
slum dwellers, as the law would prescribe. It is, therefore, the contention that respondent
no.9/Federation of the societies, although had initially appointed Adishakti as the
developer for the rehabilitation scheme on 21 August 2006, thereafter, Adishakti joined
hands with the Bhatt Group for completing the slum scheme. However, disputes had
arisen between them, which became the subject matter of litigation before this Court. It
is contended that, in the year 2019-20, the petitioner entered the scene on the backdrop
of the inter se disputes between the erstwhile developers which were settled, upon
payment of certain outstanding dues. It is submitted that Consent Terms were thereafter
recorded before this Court in the said Writ Petition(s). It is the case of these slum
dwellers/interveners, that the Consent Terms were not approved by 51% of the eligible
slum dwellers, as also neither the State Government nor the SRA was a party to the
consent terms. It is further contended that no General Body Meeting was held by
respondent no.9/Federation, for the purposes of approving the Consent Terms. The
Consent Terms indicated that the authority to execute the same flowed from resolutions
passed by the constituent societies, and it is in these circumstances, by an order dated 14
September 2022, passed in Review Petition No. 3 of 2022, the Division Bench of this
49 of 86
Court set aside the order dated 01 March 2021 disposing of the writ petition in terms of
the Consent Terms. It is contended that the observations made by the Division Bench in
its order dated 14 September 2022, would demonstrate that the appointment of the
petitioner was illegal and was not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 33(10)
of the DCPR 2034. It is next submitted that the inquiry undertaken by the SRA in
November 2025 also recorded that the meeting held on 30 October 2020 was attended
by only 39 slum dwellers. It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter attempted
to improve its case by relying upon certain Consent Verification Letters dated 06 August
2021, claiming that 840 out of 1,622 slum dwellers had given their consent to the
petitioner to carry out the slum rehabilitation scheme. According to the interveners,
such consent cannot be accepted, inasmuch as all these consent letters were executed
before a Notary, whereas there is no provision under the DCPR 2034 for obtaining
consent by way of notarised agreements, rather, the requisite consent is required to be
obtained in a General Body Meeting.
44. It is further submitted that the SRA’s letter dated 04 February 2026, which is
impugned in the present proceedings, itself demonstrates that there is doubt regarding
the genuineness of the consent letters. It is also contended that appropriate verification
is required, particularly for the reason that out of the 840 persons, who are stated to have
executed consent letters in favour of the petitioner, 208 persons are allegedly not eligible
slum dwellers. Thus, according to the intervenors, this is a clear case of non-compliance
of clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034. It is hence submitted that the
correct course of action would be to hold a General Body Meeting of all the eligible slum
dwellers, to determine whether the appointment of the petitioner was valid and whether
50 of 86
in compliance of the provisions of Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10), the petitioner had
the consent of 51% of the eligible slum dwellers for implementing the slum
rehabilitation scheme.
45. It is next submitted that there are several other issues, like the petitioner having
failed to pay the land premium cost in accordance with the 10-10-80 scheme. In such
context, it is submitted that, as per Clause 1.11, Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR 2034, a
developer undertaking a slum rehabilitation scheme, is bound to pay the land premium
cost to the Government/MCGM/MHADA. In the present case, the petitioner was
permitted to pay the said amount on a deferred basis under the ‘10-10-80’ scheme
introduced in September 2020. Accordingly, 10% of the amount was required to be
paid prior to the issuance of the Letter of Intent (LOI). However, admittedly, the
petitioner paid the said 10% amount only after the issuance of the LoI by depositing
three cheques with the SRA. The said three cheques were also dishonoured on account
of insufficient funds in the petitioner’s accounts, pursuant to which a ‘stop work’ notice
was issued to the petitioner on 18 September 2025. Thus, despite the concessions
extended to the petitioner, the petitioner is in breach of the ‘10-10-80’ scheme,
inasmuch as the first installment towards the land premium cost was paid almost four
years after the issuance of the LoI.
46. It is next submitted that the petitioner is, in fact,not acting bona fide, inasmuch as
Shri. Rama Bhoji Mitkar, who is the Deputy Chief Engineer of the SRA, has a son, Mr.
Harshwardhan Rama Mitkar, who is the director in one Maitri Health Services Pvt. Ltd.
a company stated to be owned by Mr. Amit Ruparel, Director of the petitioner. It is,
51 of 86
therefore, the intervener’s case that Shri Rama Bhoji Mitkar has acted, with considerable
leniency towards the petitioner. It is submitted that this is also evident from the fact that
Mitkar has opined that the petitioner was exempt from payment of the ‘change in
developer’ cost. It is submitted that such exemption could have been granted only where
the erstwhile developer was terminated pursuant to proceedings under Section 13(2) of
the Slum Act. In the present case,however, the petitioner did not enter the slum scheme
pursuant to the termination of any erstwhile developer under the said provision.
Consequently, it was incumbent on the petitioner to pay the applicable ‘change in
developer’ cost to the concerned authorities.
47. On the aforesaid contention, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be
granted any relief in the present petition and the SRA needs to be permitted to
undertake an exercise under impugned notice dated 04 February 2026, by vacating the
ad-interim protection as granted by this Court.
VII. SRA’s case
48. On behalf of the SRA, the impugned decision is supported by placing reliance on
the reply affidavit of Mr. Dattu Nawale, working as Secretary with Slum Rehabilitation
Authority. At the outset, it is contended that the writ petition challenges what is, in
substance, a verification process and not any final or operative adverse order, for the
reason that the impugned communication dated 04 February 2026 and the notice dated
13 February 2026 impugned in the petition do no more than direct the competent
officers of the authority to verify whether the consent of not less than 51% of the eligible
slum dwellers, whether has been obtained by undertaking an independent assessment of
52 of 86
the various statutory requisites which would include verification of the individual
agreements as relied upon by the petitioner, and to refrain from granting further
permissions pending such verification.
49. The SRA has contended that the impugned communications have been issued in
furtherance of the orders of this Court by order dated 14 September 2022 in Review
Petition No. 3 of 2022. Also by a subsequent order dated 26 November 2025, this
Court directed that a General Body Meeting of the societies be convened and a well-
considered decision be taken to carry the redevelopment forward after hearing all
stakeholders.
50. The SRA’s reply affidavit has categorically stated that the ownership of the land in
respect of which, the slum redevelopment is in question, belongs to the State
Government and the MHADA. It is also admitted that on 23 August 2006 the slum
rehabilitation scheme was accepted in the name of M/s. Adishakti Developers as
developer, with M/s. Pravin Naik & Associates as Architect, in accordance with the
prevailing policy and regulations at the relevant time. A copy of the Engineering Fact
Sheet of the said scheme, as maintained by respondent no.2, is being relied upon. It is
next contended that the slum rehabilitation scheme in question has been subject matter
of multiple proceedings before the different forums, including proceedings before the
High Power Committee (now AGRC) and in several writ petitions before this Court, by
referring to the orders passed by the Division Bench dated 01 March 2021 accepting
Consent Terms (supra) and the subsequent orders passed on the review proceedings. It
is contended that although Consent Terms were entered between the slum dwellers and
53 of 86
the developers, the SRA was not a party to the Consent Terms. It is next contended that
the Architect of the petitioner-M/s. Ruparel had applied to the SRA for issuance of a
“Letter of Intent” in its favour for implementation of such scheme. It is stated that the
SRA had processed the application on the basis of the documents, particulars and
representations then placed before it, including the scheme particulars, the land-
ownership details and the consent and eligibility data, as submitted by and on behalf of
the petitioner and on the strength thereof and in the matrix of the Consent Terms then
on record, the SRA had issued the LoI dated 06 August 2021 in favour of the petitioner
– Ruparel Buildcon, subject to the conditions mentioned therein and subject to
compliance with further statutory permissions. The following statement in paragraph 15
of the reply affidavit is required to be noted which reads thus:-
“As mentioned above, the consent terms on the basis of which the present LoI was
issued, has since been set aside and order taking on record the said consent terms
has been admittedly recalled.”
51. It is further stated by the SRA, that the Intimation of Approval (IOA) for rehab
building nos.1 to 8 was also issued on 13 August 2021, IOA for sale of building nos.1 to
3 on 04 January 2022, and an amended IOA for rehab building nos.1 to 8 on 18
November 2025. It is stated that a temporary rehabilitation sample flat (limited in
nature and for demonstrative purposes) was permitted in December 2021. It is further
stated that the Plinth Commencement Certificate has not been issued for the scheme, as
a Stop Work Notice in respect of the scheme was issued on 15 February 2024. It is
stated that the scheme remains subject to the pendency of proceedings before this Court,
and on the verification of the requisite consents and the developer’s capacity as directed
54 of 86
by the competent authority.
52. It is next contended that the SRA is a statutory body constituted under Section
3A of the Slum Act. It is stated that the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes
is governed by the Slum Act read with Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR-2034 and the
Appendix to the DCPR 2034, read with the circulars issued by the authority from time
to time. It is contended that under such legal framework, a slum scheme may be
propounded and a developer appointed, only inter alia, upon the consent of not less than
51% of the eligible slum dwellers being duly verified by the competent authority, the
certification of eligible occupants in Annexure-II, and the certification of the developer’s
financial capacity in Annexure-III, followed by the Letter of Intent (LOI) and the
Intimations of Approval(LOA).
53. It is stated that the said requirements being statutory safeguards, the satisfaction
whereof is a condition precedent to the lawful implementation of a scheme on the parcel
of land. It is next contended that on such backdrop, the impugned letter dated 04
February 2026 was issued upon:- (a)complaints received in respect of the scheme; (b) the
report of a Committee constituted by the CEO, SRA and (c) the reports of the Assistant
Registrar (Co-operative Societies), SRA, dated 16 December 2025 and 30 December
2025. Accordingly, the concerned officers were directed to verify the consent of the
eligible slum dwellers, the individual agreements relied upon and the financial capacity,
eligibility and credibility of the petitioner-developer, and pending such verification,
directed that no further permissions be granted.
54. It is further stated that, in pursuance of the interim order dated 25 March 2026
55 of 86
passed in the present proceedings, it was directed by this Court that till the adjourned
date of hearing, the appointment of the petitioner as the developer shall not be cancelled.
It is stated that the said order has been abided by the SRA. It is next stated that, recently,
on 25 May 2026, Siddharth Colony Ghar Hakk Sangharsh Samiti addressed a
communication to the authority, reiterating its grievances and requesting that no
decision be taken on the petitioner’s proposal until the verification/enquiry is concluded.
It is hence contended that there has been no breach of the principles of natural justice.
55. The SRA has further contended that the petitioner cannot assert any vested or
subsisting right, as the developer of the said scheme. It is submitted that the petitioner’s
induction as the developer was based upon and flows from the Consent Terms as
accepted by this Court in its order dated 01 March 2021, the authority for which was
stated in the Consent Terms, to be the resolutions dated 30 October 2020 passed by the
concerned societies. It is stated that in view of the order dated 14 September 2022
passed by the Division Bench recalling the orders accepting the Consent Terms, the
actions as taken by the SRA are justified. It is next contended that the petitioner has
deposited only the security amounts of Rs.1,52,50,000/- and Rs.2,68,40,000/- in July
2025 and June 2026, respectively, for the purpose of being permitted to avail of
permanent transit accommodation. It is finally contended that, insofar as the private
disputes are concerned, the SRA is in no manner concerned with the private disputes.
Accordingly, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
VIII. Analysis and Reasons
56. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their assistance, we have also
56 of 86
perused the record.
57. The question which falls for consideration in the present proceedings is whether the
impugned communication dated 4 February, 2026 issued by the concerned officials of the
SRA is legal and valid and whether the petitioner in law needs to be recognized as the
developer of the slum project.
58. At the outset, we may observe that in respect of slum scheme if a developer is to be
appointed by the Society formed by the slum dwellers, the provisions of Regulation 33(10)
of DCPR-2034 become applicable along with the provisions of the Slum Act. Regulation
33(10) provides for “Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers”, under which,
Clause 1.14 provides that a Slum Rehabilitation Project shall be considered “preferably”
when submitted through a proposed or registered co-operative housing society of hutment
dwellers on site. It provides that the said society shall include all the eligible hutments on
the site while submitting the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to give an undertaking to
SRA. Clause 1.15 provides that where 51% percent or more of the eligible hutment-
dwellers in a slum and/or stretch of road or pavement contiguous to it, at one place agree
to join a rehabilitation scheme, it may be considered for approval, subject to the
submission of irrevocable written agreements of eligible hutment-dwellers before issuance
of LOI. The said requirement, however, “shall not” apply to Slum Rehabilitation Projects
undertaken by the State Government or Public authority or as the case may be a Govt.
Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act 1956 and being owned &
controlled by the State Government. The said regulations are required to be noted, which
reads thus:
57 of 86
33 (10) Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers:
1.14 A Slum Rehabilitation Project shall be considered preferably when submitted
through a proposed or registered co-operative housing society of hutment dwellers on
site. The said society shall include all the eligible hutment on site while submitting the
S.R. Scheme and give an undertaking to that effect to SRA.
1.15 Where 51% percent or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum and stretch
of road or pavement contiguous to it at one place agree to join a rehabilitation scheme, it
may be considered for approval, subject to submission of irrecoverable written
agreements of eligible hutment-dwellers before LOI.
Provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to Slum Rehabilitation Projects
undertaken by the State Government or Public authority or as the case may be a Govt.
Company as defined in Sec. 617 of the Companies Act 1956 and being owned &
controlled by the State Government.”
59. It would not require further elaboration, that the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in
question is embroiled in protracted and countless litigation, since the year 2011. The
nature of the litigation appears to be quite clear that it is either between the developers
themselves who came to be earlier selected by the slum dwellers or the Society of the
slum dwellers, as there are multiple Societies in the fray. As initially informed to the
Court about 33 Societies were formed by the slumdwellers or their groups. Thereafter
the Societies came together and formed respondent no. 9-Federation.
60. Initially, the federation of the Societies had appointed one “Adishakti” as the
developer to undertake the rehabilitation scheme in the year 2006. Later on, there were
disputes between the co-developers appointed by Adishakti, namely, KKB Developers
(Bhatt Group). We do not intend to delve and reiterate on the nature of the disputes
already noted in the foregoing paragraphs, suffice it to observe that the litigation reached
not only the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, but also the High Power Committee (HPC)
and thereafter before this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 1716 of 2011
58 of 86
filed by Adishakti Developers challenging the order dated 20 July 2011 of the High
Power Committee, Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012 filed by Federation and Writ
Petition No. 678 of 2012 filed by KKB Developers (Bhatt Group) challenging the orders
passed by the High Power Committee. The said petitions were compromised between
the developers and the Federation in terms of the consent terms dated 1 March 2021
filed between the developer and respondent no. 9 Federation of the Societies, in which
the petitioner was appointed and accepted as the developer, at the request of the
federation.
61. It is the petitioner’s case that in pursuance to the consent terms, the petitioner had
changed its position in inter alia making several payments some of them being payment
of Rs.11.75 crores towards clearance of outstanding electricity dues of respondent no. 9
and Rs.3.85 crores to Adishakti Developers and Rs.18.74 crores to KKB Developers
(Bhatt group) and further payments made to the SRA for the PTCs. The Writ Petitions
were disposed of in terms of the consent terms by an order dated 1 March, 2021.
62. It is the petitioner’s case that thereafter the petitioner has taken several steps from
the SRA, inasmuch as the petitioner submitted its proposal with SRA with all the
requisite documents including a certificate dated 27 July, 2021 issued by the petitioner’s
Chartered Accountant certifying that the petitioner having a net worth of
29,97,73,005/-. The petitioner contended that on 6 August, 2021, Consent Verification
Report was submitted by the Deputy District Collector, SRA thereby recording that out
of 2603 slum dwellers, 1622 slum dwellers were eligible and out of which 840 slum
dwellers have given consents in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner
59 of 86
contended that 840 slum dwellers having consented, the same amounted to a consent
given by 51.78% of the slum dwellers, who have not objected to the slum scheme being
undertaken by the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioner that Annexure III was
issued by the Finance Controller, SRA thereby recording that the petitioner had
sufficient networth as certified by Chartered Accountant certificate dated 27 July, 2021.
The petitioner has furnished deposits of total sum of Rs.2.92 crores as per the
requirement of SRA. Also, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued by SRA in favour of the
petitioner on 6 August, 2021, which according to the petitioner, was in consonance with
Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034. The LOI is to be issued only after
51% eligible hutment dwellers consent to the slum rehabilitation scheme being
undertaken by the developer. Also, on 13 August, 2021, Intimation of Approval (IOA)
was issued in favour of the petitioner by the SRA. All these facts are not in dispute.
63. It is significant that on the backdrop of the aforesaid steps being taken by the
petitioner and when substantive permissions were granted by the SRA in favour of the
petitioner, Review Petition No. 3 of 2022 was filed by some of the Societies seeking
review/recall of the order dated 1 March, 2021 passed on Writ Petition No. 2482 of
2012 along with other petitions disposing of the said petitions, in terms of the consent
terms, which ultimately came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court by an
order dated 14 September 2022 i.e. almost after 17 months after the order dated 1
March 2021 was passed by the Division Bench, whereby the Division Bench recalled the
order dated 1 March, 2021, inter alia on the ground that there was no resolution of the
General Body approving the consent terms and hence the same was required to be
60 of 86
recalled. After such order was passed by the Court, almost about four years have lapsed.
64. On such overview, it appears that on 18 June, 2024, Writ Petition (L) No. 19540
of 2024 was filed by one “New Shantidhoot Sahakar Samiti”, being one of the slum
societies challenging the LOI dated 6 August, 2021 issued in favour of the petitioner and
also challenging the order dated 20 July, 2021 passed by the High Power Committee. It
appears that as the permissions granted by the SRA in favour of the petitioner, i.e., the
LOI and IOA were subsisting, the petitioner by its letter dated 29 May, 2025 applied to
the SRA for allotment of Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) tenements for the slum
scheme in question. The petitioner also furnished an undertaking dated 30 June, 2025
in the prescribed format for availing the Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) tenements, for
the slum scheme in question. On such application, on 8 July, 2025, the SRA issued to
the petitioner allotment order thereby allotting 586 Permanent Transit Camp tenements.
On 16 July, 2025, the petitioner is stated to have deposited an amount of
Rs.1,52,50,000/- with the SRA, being the amounts availing the Permanent Transit
Camp tenements, as allotted.
65. The petitioner’s grievance is that when the aforesaid substantial steps were being
taken by the petitioner to forward the scheme, again on 31 October, 2025, a complaint
was filed merely by 10 slum dwellers out of 1520 slum dwellers thereby raising various
allegations against the SRA and the petitioners. Despite this, on 18 November, 2025, the
SRA issued revised LOI in favour of the petitioner. At the same time, on 18 November,
2025, the Chief Executive officer of SRA constituted a five member Committee to look
into the allegations raised in the complaint filed by 10 slum dwellers. On 26 November,
61 of 86
2025 the Division Bench of this Court passed an order in Writ Petition (L) No. 19540 of
2024 filed by “New Shantidoot Sahakari Samiti” inter alia observing that the
Federation/respondent no. 9 needs to take an appropriate view of the matter by calling a
General Body meeting of all the Societies. It was observed that the redevelopment of the
slums in question where the Societies have formed a federation of the Societies namely ‘the
Chembur Siddharth Colony Pravartan Co-operative Housing Society’ (registered) needs to
take an appropriate view of the matter by calling a General Body Meeting of all the
Societies, considering the fact that the litigation is pending for more than 14 years and that
the redevelopment has not progressed so far. It was observed that an appropriate decision
would be required to be accordingly taken as litigation would not help the parties. The
Court observed that what was required, was a well considered decision be taken, so as to
forward the redevelopment of the slums and more particularly, when it is already delayed
for such long period. Accordingly, the Court observed that let appropriate steps in that
regard be taken and be informed to the Court on the adjourned date of hearing. It was
also observed that any meeting for settlement of the issue would also be without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the parties. In the event, such meeting is proposed to be
held, it was directed that the representative of the SRA to remain present at such meeting.
Such presence could not be construed as any statutory exercise to undertake the
verification of the consent, but a peaceful and amicable resolution of the disputes.
66. It was SRA’s case that on the basis of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the
impugned notice dated 13 February, 2026 was issued, whereby respondent nos. 10 and
11- Officers of SRA called upon the slum dwellers to hold a General Body Meeting for
re-verification of consents and election of a Chief Promoter of the Federation. However,
62 of 86
as no such direction could be construed from the said order dated 26 November, 2025
(supra) passed by the Court, the notice dated 13 February, 2026, was withdrawn by the
SRA.
67. On the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, as noted above, interim order
was passed on 25 March, 2026 whereby the Court ordered that the appointment of the
petitioner as developer shall not be cancelled. The said order continues to operate.
68. Thus, on the aforesaid conspectus, it appears to be not in dispute that under the
consent terms as entered between the earlier developers and the federation, indisputedly
the petitioner was appointed to undertake the redevelopment of the slum in question, in
a manner as agreed between the erstwhile developer, on the nature of the concurrence of
the Federation, as contained in the consent terms entered between the parties, subject
matter of order dated 1 March, 2021 passed by this Court on a batch of the proceedings
as noted hereinabove. However, the said order accepting the consent terms and disposing
of the proceedings in terms of the consent terms were set aside by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court by an order dated 14 September, 2022 in Review Petition No. 3 of 2022.
However, a perusal of the operative order passed on the Review Petition would indicate
that while the approval of the Court to the consent terms had stood withdrawn as earlier
granted by the Division Bench in its order dated 1 March, 2021, the legal position qua
the consent terms would be that the Consent Terms otherwise remained to be an
agreement between the parties to the consent terms, which includes the federation and
the petitioner relevant for the present proceedings. Such agreement was hence binding,
inter se between these parties who were signatories to the consent terms.
63 of 86
69. Confronted with the aforesaid peculiar facts, if at all it is a dispute between the
private parties qua the agreement as entered in the form of consent terms, and the
obligations which would emanate therefrom, the situation is of a nature that the general
principles of law, certainly become applicable. This being, if a party to the consent terms,
for example, the federation intended to challenge the consent terms and the agreement
reached by the parties thereunder, in a manner the law would mandate, it was always
open to the federation or any other signatory to the consent terms to initiate appropriate
proceedings to challenge the agreement or its terms and conditions. The challenge on
merits of the agreement or the terms and conditions in the consent terms are issues of
fact, requiring proceedings to be initiated before the Civil Court. Significantly, per se
none of the signatories to the consent terms have taken such position, adverse to the
consent terms. So far there is no declaration of any appropriate forum or of the Civil
Court that the consent terms, which otherwise is an agreement between the parties,qua
the obligations it creates between the signatories to the consent terms, is an illegal
agreement or not binding on the said parties. Such relief qua the agreement (consent
terms) can be granted only by the Civil Court, or any competent forum in the context of
the applicability of the slums law. This position becomes significant when the SRA on
record has not taken a position to cancel the LOI, IOA issued in favour of the petitioner
and has considered the petitioner to be validly appointed by the federation under the
consent terms. This was fortified by the SRA recently allotting PTC in the month of
July, 2025.
70. In the Review Petition, only the recognition of the consent terms by the Court, by
its order dated 1 March, 2021 disposing of the proceedings in terms of the consent
64 of 86
terms, has been set aside in the proceedings of Review Petition No. 3 of 2022. The
primary consideration for the Court to pass the order dated 14 September, 2022 in the
Review Petition, to set aside the order dated 1 March, 2021 disposing of the proceedings
in terms of the consent terms, was inter alia on the ground that the redevelopment
scheme in question was a slum scheme and the same would be required to be
implemented by the developer, who is appointed in a manner as recognized by
Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, i.e., by consent of more than 51% of the slum dwellers.
71. The controversy accordingly boils down as to whether the large number of
Societies formed by the slum dwellers, which have formed the Federation, or, on the
other hand, the group of Societies represented by Mr. Singh, repose a confidence in
appointing the petitioner as the developer. The case of the Societies as urged by Mr.
Simil Purohit and Mr. Amogh Singh is that 51% of the slum dwellers have not consented
to the appointment of the petitioner, when such consent is the requirement under
Clause 1.15 of the Regulation 33(10), hence it was imperative that a General Body
meeting be convened to ascertain whether there is a consent of 51% of the slum dwellers
in appointing the petitioner.
72. In the aforesaid circumstances, no doubt Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the
DCPR was applicable requiring an exercise to be undertaken to ascertain whether 51% of
the slum dwellers have consented to the appointment of the petitioner as a developer,
however, the fact remains that, the SRA acted on the basis that the petitionerwas validly
appointed as a developer to undertake the slum scheme in question, by issuance of LOI,
IOA and a Revised LoI, in favour of the petitioner, as also making allotment of
65 of 86
Permanent Transit Camps (PTC) to enable the slum dwellers to be shifted to the transit
camps.
73. It is also not the case that wholesomely each and every slum dweller or through
these multiple Societies formed by these large number of slum dwellers in one voice, say
that they are not agreeing to the appointment of the petitioner as the developer. There is
an obvious conflict inter se between the slum dwellers (at whose behest we do not
know), which has led to this position of the slum scheme being brought to a grinding
halt. Thus, what is significant that, indisputedly to a substantial extent, the petitioner has
changed its position by investing amounts on the project.
74. The proceedings of Writ Petition Nos. 1716 of 2011, 2482 of 2012 and 678 of
2012 are also subject matter of consideration before us, in view of the order dated 01
March 2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, disposing of the said
petitions being set aside by the Division Bench in the proceedings of Review Petition
No. 3 of 2022 (supra). These proceedings, in our opinion, are placed at a juncture where
the erstwhile developers appointed by the Federation/societies, namely, Nikaljes,
Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd. (AGPL), KKB Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Bhatt Group, on
the one hand stand displaced, as these developers along with the Federation-Siddharth
Colony Vikas Seva Sangh Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha, have agreed to appoint the
petitioner Pvt. Ltd. as the developer to undertake the slum project under an agreement
dated 01 March 2021 which was placed on record in the form of the consent terms.
75. The terms and conditions of the consent terms have created reciprocal obligations
between the parties who are signatories thereto. The fact remains as noted hereinabove
66 of 86
that the consent terms have not been challenged by any of the signatories thereto, which
include the Federation of the societies. Such a challenge is also required to be made in a
manner known to law, namely by filing an appropriate civil suit so as to seek a declaration
that such agreement between the parties is illegal. Any third party to the consent terms if
aggrieved by the same also needs to file its independent proceedings seeking a relief that
the consent terms are not binding on it.
76. Further, it would not be acceptable to read the order of the Division Bench dated
14 September 2022 passed in the review petition to be any order declaring the agreement
inter se between the parties subject matter of the consent terms, to be illegal. In other
words, the said order of the Division Bench cannot be construed, as an order which, in any
manner, extinguishes the rights of the parties to the consent terms as recognized by the
terms and conditions thereof. The effect of the order passed in the review proceedings is
simply to set aside the prior order dated 01 March 2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, taking the consent terms on record and disposing of the writ petitions, and
to restore the writ petitions to the file of this Court, with a further direction that the review
petitioner be impleaded as a party respondent to the writ petition. What is most
significant is that the Division Bench, in the said order passed in the review proceedings,
has categorically clarified in operative paragraph (iii) that the Court has not considered the
merits of the dispute involved in the writ petition and that the same was expressly kept
open. Further, in paragraph (iv), it has been clarified that various contentions raised by the
contesting respondents as far as the merits of the said Redevelopment Scheme are
concerned, were expressly kept open and could be agitated in the proceedings of Writ
Petition No. 2482 of 2012 and it was on such terms, the review petition came to be
67 of 86
disposed of. Thus, for any of the slum dwellers or their societies to contend that the
agreement entered into between the parties to the consent terms is itself of no
consequence, or that the same is redundant and could not have been acted upon by the
SRA, is, in our opinion, quite untenable. The following discussion would aid our
conclusion.
77. The consent terms, along with the orders passed by the Division Bench, were
subject matter of due consideration by the SRA, for the reason that, under the agreement
entered into between the Federation, the erstwhile developers, the petitioner was
appointed as the developer for the slum scheme in question. In a manner as the rules
would provide, the petitioner, submitted its proposal to the SRA to undertake
redevelopment of the slums on the Government land in question. The SRA acted upon
such proposal of the petitioner and proceeded to issue a Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 06
August 2021 and thereafter the IOA dated 13 August 2021 and a revised LOI dated 18
November 2025. Also very recently, the SRA accepted the application of the petitioner
for allotment of the permanent transit camp. When all this was happening, it cannot be
that the slum dwellers or their societies were not aware of these developments.
78. The Court also cannot be oblivious to the contentions as urged by petitioner that it
had expended large sums of money, towards various payments, as noted by us
hereinabove. The factual matrix as noted by us, clearly demonstrates that the consent
terms were acted upon by the parties. Significantly, the SRA has not taken any suo-motu
proceedings to stay the LOI or IOA dated 06 August 2021 and 13 August 2021
respectively. Moreover, the SRA has proceeded to allot permanent transit camps to
68 of 86
accommodate 585 slum dwellers.
79. It is on such conspectus, the slum dwellers/societies, who are represented by Mr.
Simil Purohit and Mr. Amogh Singh (for the interveners), have asserted what was in fact
asserted in the review petition, as seen from the proceedings therein. There are 15 review
petitioners (slum dwellers), as also Chembur Siddharth Colony Shatabdi Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd., Pranali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Siddharth Nagar
Samjhota Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., who were asserting such rights as noted in
operative paragraph of the order passed by this Court in the review proceedings.
80. It is of vital significance that the Federation had opposed the review petition, as
seen from the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 13 of its order dated 14
September 2022 passed on the review petition, recording that respondent no.1/Federation
had filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply dated 13 October 2021 contending that the review
petition be dismissed. Further in the review proceedings, the submissions made on behalf
of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon are also required to be noted which read thus:-
“9. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent
No.13 submitted that rehabilitation of the slum dwellers had remained enmeshed in
litigation before High Power Committee and this Court between the rival developers
from 2006 to 2021. By the Consent Terms, the claims of the two rival builders were
settled and it was agreed that Respondent No.13 would make a requisite application
before SRA to secure LOI. He submitted that subsequently SRA has issued LOI dated
6th August 2021 to Respondent No.13 based on verification/acceptance of 51%
individual agreements and consents of the eligible slum dwellers. He submitted that
independently of the Consent Terms/ consent order, 51% individual slum dwellers
have consented for the redevelopment of the Slum Scheme by Respondent No.13 and
accordingly, LOI has been issued. Pursuant to the LOI, Respondent No.13 has
incurred substantial expenditure on making payments to the erstwhile developers.
Respondent No.4 - SRA has approved building plans of rehab building Nos.1 to 8
comprising of 3153 rehab and 96 amenity tenements. By oversight, the individual
Societies' Managing Committee Resolutions dated 30th October 2020 remained to
be annexed as Exh.9 and the same have been produced by the Respondent No.1 -
Federation along with the affidavit-in-reply. He submitted that the individual
Societies (either proposed or registered) had not played any role in the matter of the
69 of 86
Proposed Rehabilitation Scheme after 2006. It is the Federation i.e. the Respondent
No.1 who has all along represented all the slum dwellers. He submitted that the
liability of payment is only of Respondent No.13 and no liability is cast on the slum
dwellers or the Proposed Societies. He submitted that in any case, the said Consent
Terms will only bind the Federation and will not be binding on the Societies i.e.
Review Petitioners.”
81. It needs to be gathered that the cumulative effect of the aforesaid factual position
on the record of the SRA, and on what was warranted under the rules, regulations and
norms followed by the SRA, was to the effect that the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon was
accepted as the developer of the slum scheme in question as appointed by the Federation.
The Federation had never deviated from the said position at the relevant time, when it
opposed the Review Petition. It is on such premise that the SRA, applying the statutory
norms and considering the proposal submitted by the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon, and
being satisfied that such proposal complies with all the applicable norms, decided to issue
the LOI, IOA, etc. in favour of the petitioner.
82. If, in any circumstances, and in the manner as the law would require, a developer so
appointed, is to be ousted and/or changed and/or prevented from undertaking a slum
rehabilitation scheme, the only manner known to law, is the aggrieved party taking
recourse to the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slums Act. Section 13 is required to be
noted which reads thus:-
“13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop slum Rehabilitation area
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10) of section 12, the
Chief Executive Officer shall, after any land has been declared as the Slum
Rehabilitation Area, including community economic activity area, if the owners,
landholders or occupants of such land do not come forward within a reasonable time,
which shall not be more than one hundred and twenty days, required for relocation
and rehabilitation of protected and other occupiers justifying with the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme for redevelopment of such land, by order, determine to
redevelop such land by entrusting into any agency or other developer for the
purpose.
70 of 86
(2) Where on declaration of any land as Slum Rehabilitation Area, the Chief
Executive Officer is satisfied that, the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been
or is being developed by the landholders or occupants developers in contravention of
the plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under subsection
(10) of section 12, or in contravention of any provision of any Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme or any condition specified in the approval or has not been developed within
the time, as specified under such conditions of approval, he may, by order, determine
to develop the land declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area by entrusting it to any
agency or the other developer recognized by him for the purpose.
(3) The agency or the other developer so appointed shall within a period of forty-five
days of the order of the Chief Executive Officer, be required to deposit an amount of
compensation payable to the outgoing landowners or occupants or developers, as the
case may be, for expenditure incurred by them on payment made to any public
authority, local bodies for receiving approvals for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
and construction of rehabilitation tenements as determined by the Chief Executive
Officer:
Provided that, such compensation shall not be payable by the agency
appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, for any expenditure incurred towards
construction to meet conditional obligations made to any third party by the
landowners or occupants or previous developers, as the case may be. The Chief
Executive Officer before passing such order shall obtain report from approved valuer
independently appointed on his behalf and by the concerned parties to the
proceeding before the Chief Executive Officer:
Provided further that, before passing such order by the Chief Executive
Officer, the concerned landowner or occupant or developer, as the case may be, shall
be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and time which shall not be more
than thirty days of showing cause why the order should not be passed:
Provided also that, an appeal, if any, against the order of the Chief Executive
Officer shall be filed before the Grievance Redressal Committee and order of the
Grievance Redressal Committee shall be final and binding on all the parties."]
(emphasis added)
83. Thus, in the present facts, on one hand, it is the federation of societies which
claimed before the Division Bench in the review proceedings, that it had accepted the
appointment of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon as the developer of the project and on the
other hand, there were some slum-dwellers/their societies, which had taken a contrary
position in the review proceedings, contending that the members of the societies had not
consented to the appointment of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon and, therefore, the
71 of 86
petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon should be removed. The obvious consequence being a new
developer can be appointed. Thus, considering such assertion on the part of the societies,
which is opposed and/or is contrary to the agreement as entered between the parties to the
consent terms, as also being a challenge, the steps taken by the SRA, in our opinion, in the
fact and circumstances, it is purely for the SRA to consider the situation, of any change of
developer being sought in any appropriate application which may be filed by any of the
aggrieved slum dwellers, as Section 13(2) of the Slums Act (supra) would contemplate, so
as to change the developer (petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon). As rightly contended by Mr.
Ravi Kadam and Mr. Vineet Naik, and also supported by Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Mr.
Shridhar Chitale, learned Senior Counsel, the Division Bench, while passing order on the
review petition, clearly kept the merits of the matter open to be agitated in the writ
petition (present proceedings). It is in these circumstances, the Division Bench set aside
the order dated 01 March 2021 passed by the Division Bench which accepted the consent
terms and disposed of the petitions, in terms thereof.
84. Thus, insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, the endeavour of the Court
is to approach the matter, in a manner the law would contemplate, considering the primary
assertion on the part of the slum-dwellers, opposing the appointment of the petitioner-
Ruparel Buildcon, as also opposing the Federation which had entered into the consent
terms, that their consent was not obtained, in the manner recognized by law in appointing
petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon, as also the consent given on their behalf by the Federation,
should not be accepted.
85. In our opinion, the issue as to whether the Federation was correct in entering into
72 of 86
the consent terms and/or whether, at the relevant time, during the Covid-19 Pandemic
period, such consent was appropriately obtained from the point of view of the
requirements of law, would be a matter which the aggrieved persons/societies would be
required to agitate before the Chief Executive Officer, SRA or before any other forum like
the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). This more particularly considering
the fact that, insofar as the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon is concerned, things have not
stopped at its mere appointment. The position has undergone a comprehensive change,
with the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon having taken substantial steps, including submitting
plans, obtaining the LOI and IOA, making substantial payments to Adani Electricity,
making payments to other developers under the consent terms, and making payments
towards permanent transit camps, etc.
86. Such huge/substantial amounts paid by the petitioner cannot be overlooked or side-
tracked so lightly, for more than one reason; firstly, the intention of the petitioner-Ruparel
Buildcon to enter the scheme under a consensual arrangement entered into with the
Federation and the erstwhile developer is indisputed; secondly, the petitioner-Ruparel
Buildcon having expended substantial sums and accordingly has changed its position;
thirdly, the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon appointed an Architect, who submitted its
proposal for redevelopment and upon satisfying the SRA on its credentials, received the
LOI dated 06 August 2021, IOA 13 August 2021 and revised LOI dated 18 November
2025; and lastly, the intention of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon to proceed with the
slum scheme is further demonstrated by its subsequent step of applying to the SRA for
allotment of permanent transit camps, which allotment was also recently granted by the
SRA.
73 of 86
87. All such steps or efforts of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon, as supported by the
Federation, are being challenged not by any authority, but by the slum-dwellers, who are
persons having limited rights, as protected encroachers on Government land, and who are
asserting their contentions as if they are the owners of the land. When it amounts to
appointing developers in the manner it has taken place in the present proceedings, it
cannot be assailed or sought to be displaced at the hands of some slum dwellers and at the
mood of their passing moment. There needs to be something grossly illegal to oust a
developer who was chosen and appointed by the Federation that too in court proceedings.
Further petitioner as developer has changed its position by expending huge amounts. It is
therefore the contention as urged on behalf of petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon and as
supported by Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Mr. Shridhar Chitale, learned senior counsel, that a
handful of slum-dwellers would not have the right to straightway raise contentions in the
proceedings of the writ petition, without taking any prior appropriate measures of either
approaching the SRA or instituting proceedings to challenge the consent terms. This
inasmuch as, although the consent terms had the imprimatur of the Court when the
Division Bench accepted the consent terms vide its order dated 01 March 2021, the fact
remains that the terms and conditions in the consent terms, stare at the parties who are
signatories to the consent terms as a valid agreement, unless the same is declared to be
illegal and not binding in a manner known to law. Thus, the position as it stands on
record is that the consent terms are not disputed and/or are otherwise accepted by the
federation of which these Societies of slum dwellers are the members.
88. In the context of such assertions, which are made by certain societies, we may
observe that the slum-dwellers on Government land, although would be entitled to form a
74 of 86
society, as recognized by the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, and take
further appropriate steps for appointment of the developer, in the present facts, it has
happened that, by their own volition, they had formed a Federation and the Federation
had taken further appropriate steps for the appointment of the developer. Disputes have
arisen inter se between the slum dwellers and their Federation, which question the
petitioner’s appointment as the developer in the consent terms.
89. Thus, now certain societies/slum dwellers having intended to take a different
position opposing petitioner, has created an uncertainty as brought to the slum scheme,
which otherwise could have been implemented, in the manner as envisaged by the
Federation, in appointing the petitioner and in the manner as agreed in the consent terms.
90. When we consider such rights of the slum-dwellers/ encroachers on the
Government land to appoint a developer, as observed in several decisions of this Court,
that their rights cannot be raised to a higher pedestal, by part of the slum dwellers coming
together and seeking to control the scheme. The right of the slum-dwellers/encroachers is
merely that of rehabilitation and to receive permanent alternate accommodation. In such
context, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) was
a member, in Moinuddin Peshamiya Shaikh Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority6 made the
following observations:-
“21. In High Court on its own motion (in the matter of) Jilani Building at Bhiwandi
v. Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation, the same Division Bench said:
7. ………. We may observe that the municipal authorities cannot be pawns at the
hands of land mafia, elected representatives and their own Corporators who appear
to be totally disinterested in taking action against growing slums which is apparent,
considering the large number of slums in the city. In fact, there is a clear
impression that their action has encouraged slums and encroachments on public
6 Writ Petition (L) No. 7714 of 2023 and companion petitions decided on 19 th and 20th June ,2023
75 of 86
lands, obviously such inaction is for extraneous reasons. As far as the civic
administration is concerned, in our opinion, primacy has to be given to the strictest
implementation of the municipal laws, so as to prevent unauthorized and illegal
constructions, prevent land grabbing by slum mafia, protecting government land
and land belonging to statutory bodies. Also there is a need to do away with such
policies which confer a premium illegality in favour of the encroachers, by granting
them a windfall of State largesse, namely, a gift of valuable government land in the
form of tenements on Government lands wherever situated. This is nothing but
legalizing encroachments on prime public lands, in a manner nullifying the "public
trust doctrine" and catering to private gains in the teeth of the well established
Constitutional requirements while dealing with State largesse. By such mechanism,
valuable public lands are gone forever. Given the financial burden on the public
exchequer it is impossible for the government to acquire such prime land for any
public requirement except at an unimaginable burden on the public exchequer. If
such land acquisition cannot be achieved, in that case, is it not the duty of the
State to save these lands from being thrown to the encroachers and private gains?
Is it necessary that the encroachers are rehabilitated on the same land, when
others who want to purchase a small dwelling unit are required to go miles away
from such prime places, where encroachments on public land happen with
impunity? There cannot be such an imbalance in the societal position in which
the citizens are placed when Article 14 of the Constitution stares at the State.
Merely because the slums turn into potential 'vote banks' such policy of
rehabilitation on hypothetical cut off dates is being implemented under the garb
of slum rehabilitation. This, in our opinion, is a mockery of the public trust
doctrine. We were constrained to make these observations, as not only these
larger issues stare at us in plethora of litigations reaching the Courts, but also for
the reason that the building collapse with which we are concerned has taken
place in a purported rehabilitation and/or a slum area.
….
23. And we go further. We take it as firmly settled that the right to
shelter is part of the right to life. But there is no fundamental right to trespass.
There is no fundamental right to squat. There is no fundamental right under the
Constitution to rehabilitation at the very site of trespass or squatting. Both
decisions cited commend the need for the statute the Slum Act - to revisit this,
and point out that it has no basis at all under the Constitution. Rather, it is
against fundamental Constitutional precepts. Equally importantly, while the
State may have an obligation to provide shelter, it has no Constitutional
obligation to provide a marketable asset to anyone; and most emphatically not to
someone whose initial entry on the land is illegal and unlawful. And yet this is
precisely what the existing slum rehabilitation policy contemplates and
promises. We are forced to ask, what is this if not the distribution of state
largesse? One that comes at a very real public cost? Public lands for common
public good are rendered unavailable. Every slum dweller is now confident in
the assurance that the State will give him not just shelter but a high value
marketable peace of real estate entirely free of cost.”
91. In the context of rights of the owners of the private land which stand encroached by
slum dwellers and the peremptory right of the owners to develop the land, rather than the
76 of 86
right of the slum dwellers to appoint the developer (as in the present case), in Bishop John
Rodrigues versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.(supra), the Division Bench of this Court
observed thus:-
“ 118. If this be the position, then certainly, the slum dwellers merely by forming a
society cannot assert that their rights are higher than the rights of the owners of the
land and as successive Division Benches of this Court has held that the rights of the
slum dwellers cannot be elevated (as if they are the owners of the property), so as to
control the rights of the owners of the land under the garb of rehabilitation and
through the resources of a developer, foist/dictate compulsory acquisition of land
against the owner. The acquisition of the land for rehabilitation of slum dwellers can
also never be on a pedestal and/or of a status of an acquisition of the land for public
purposes in relation to public project to be undertaken by the State in exercise of its
powers of eminent domain. This for two reasons firstly, it is a private group of persons
(slum developers) who would be the beneficiary of such land acquisition and the
second beneficiary would be the developer who would reap bonanza of a huge Floor
Space Index (FSI) in undertaking construction of commercial/saleable premises. Thus,
the only beneficiaries of such acquisition of private persons, the Government would
spend a meager amount of compensation to be paid as per Section 17 of the Slum Act.
Despite this clear position, quite unfortunately, the experience in relation to
acquisition under the Slum Act is quite different. It is completely misunderstood,
misapplied, misinterpreted or abused by the authorities; this considering the
proliferation of litigation in this regard, concerning private lands as encroached, and
what is happening to public lands is a mystery which can never be resolved.”
92. We may also refer to the observations as made by the Court in New Janta SRA
CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra), wherein, while considering the plight
of such slum rehabilitation scheme, which was entangled in litigation, the Court
observed as under:
251. It is often seen that slum dwellers on public land in the city of
Mumbai are left completely misguided, uncontrolled and directionless in the
absence of the public bodies or the Government extending their helping hand to
do anything for them. In fact the entire decision to deal with this land was
graciously left by the Government at the discretion of the slum dwellers who in
turn are left playing at the hands of extraneous elements, when it came to
redevelopment of the slums. The Government negligently does not play any
role to safeguard such prime land and encroachments being consciously
overlooked by the otherwise strong Government machinery, these lands become
notified and protected slums. Still the Government turns a blind eye to take
steps to alleviate the slums and resettle the slum dwellers, so that they can be
accommodated to live in human conditions. In fact such neglect and apathy on
the part of the authorities has brought about this precarious situation of the city
77 of 86
facing large slums. Thus, eminently there is an urgent requirement of a robust
institutional framework and effective steps to be taken so that the objective of
proper urban planning leading to social and economic development can be
achieved. It is for this reason this Court in Galaxy Enterprises v. State
Maharashtra,7 has made the following observations:
“3. There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court
emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers,
who live in inhuman conditions, so as to achieve in letter and spirit, the object
and intention of a fairly old State legislation namely the “Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971”. Nonetheless,
considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be
said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically
working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum
dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of
the authorities but also at the hands of the other stake holders. The vital issue
which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the
selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know
the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so called
leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are
often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed,
what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and skepticism amongst
the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final
rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum
redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that
scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are
languishing on such issues, either in litigation before Courts and/or before the
authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending
litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves
dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.
“Can the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not have a robust panel of bonafide
developers who have genuine business interest to redevelop slums, of course
with commercial benefits as conferred under the rules, and who can be
appointed by an open and fair scheme of selection and allotment of slum
projects and who would be accountable to the Authority?”
It is high time that learning from the past experiences, the burden on the ill
equipped slum dwellers to be responsible to appoint developers and pursue the
redevelopment scheme is removed and to do away the ordeal of the slum
dwellers to go on knocking the doors of different authorities for years together
when the developers fail to perform. The redevelopment to be undertaken
professionally and in a time bound manner is the need of the day, even to fulfill
the ideals which the Government intends to achieve. What is necessary is the
initiative of a redevelopment, by genuine, honest and trustworthy developers
appointed through the Slum Authority or any other Special Body created for the
said purpose and not to leave it to the slum dwellers to re-develop the slums.
This for the reason that the slum dwellers are supposed to be merely interested
in their rehabilitation and can have no other interest. All these efforts are
necessary, as a step forward to achieve an object of having an ideal city free of
slums. It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the
7 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 897
78 of 86
slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities
cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that
behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its
anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to device a substantial,
nay a foolproof mechanism by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas,
so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this
beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly
and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.”
288. In my opinion, what would weigh with the Court is the larger public
benefit. The facts and circumstances would indicate that such fragmenting of the
scheme would result in an irreparable injury not only to the slum dwellers but
also to respondent no. 5 who has already invested substantial time, energy and
money and who is to now to commence construction of the rehabilitation
buildings. During the pendency of the proceedings before AGRC, about 644
structures of the slum-dwellers are already demolished which includes 205
structures in the petitioner society. Respondent no. 5 has also parted large
amounts which include payment of the interim rent to the slum dwellers for
temporary alternate accommodation.”
(emphasis supplied)
93. The upshot of the aforesaid proceedings would lead us to conclude that, in the
event any of the slum-dwellers/societies intend to seek removal of the petitioner as the
developer, they would be required to resort to appropriate proceedings for change of the
developer and/or to take such other steps as may be permissible in law, including seeking
a declaration that the agreement entered into between the parties, namely, the erstwhile
developers, who have been partly paid by the petitioner, and the consent terms, which
have been acted upon and are binding on the Federation, cannot operate in law and that,
in the peculiar facts of the case, a new developer would be required to be appointed in
substitution of the petitioner. We observe this for the reason that the slum-dwellers
and/or their societies, as they stand in the present proceedings, have a limited right of
rehabilitation, more particularly in the context of their interests having already been
represented by the Federation, which had opposed the review proceedings.
94. We may also observe that in the nature of the facts as in the present case, the Slum
79 of 86
Societies have come together and formed a federation; once the federation had taken a
decision to appoint the petitioner that too in the Court proceedings, it cannot be ruled
out that the Societies would not indulge into the speculation or resort to actions to
overcome, disturb, supersede, act against the decisions which are taken by the federation
for reasons which one may not know. It is not for the Writ Court to determine as to
whether some of the Societies, and more particularly those represented by Mr. Simil
Purohit and Mr. Amogh Singh, at all had not consented in the federation taking a
position before the Court and arriving at the agreement presented before the Court in
the form of consent terms. Thus, to come to a conclusion that there was no consent of
the Societies would be a matter which would be required to be ascertained before the
appropriate forum and in the appropriate proceedings. Such incidents which occur are
unfortunate and are not conducive to the overall interest, welfare and effective
implementation of the slum scheme. It was for such reason that the Division Bench had
passed an order dated 26 November 2025 calling upon the Societies to meet in a
General Body Meeting and take a well considered decision. Be that as it may, some of
the slum dwellers being guided that it would be easy to dissent in such manner have
adopted the course of action which has resulted in the present litigation. However, the
Court in the present proceedings in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not be in a
position to recognize whether it has a real dissent and/or such actions on the part of the
Societies taking a position contrary to the decision of the federation are genuine,
supported by valid and justifiable reasons.
95. It is well settled that a group of slum-dwellers or their societies, as in the present
case, cannot assume a position to take the slum project to a ransom. This more
80 of 86
particularly when things have substantially progressed after the appointment of the
developer, namely, the petitioner. It would not require elaboration that when the slum
societies enter the arena of such litigation, it is certainly not the slum societies, but vested
interests of rival developers who may be backed by certain other elements, who work
from behind the scenes.
96. In the aforesaid circumstances, if the slum societies/slum dwellers are of the
opinion that, nonetheless their consent in appointment of the petitionermatters and/or
was not taken by the Federation, we are of the clear opinion that it would be open to any
of the slum-dwellers/societies to approach the Chief Executive Officer, SRA under the
provision of Section 13 or to take recourse to appropriate remedies to question the rights
which the petitioner is exercising, in respect of the slum scheme in question on the basis
of the agreement in the form of the consent terms. In the event any such proceedings
the slum authority is required to take recourse to provisions of clause 1.15 of the DCPR
33(10), it may do so in a manner as known to law. In our opinion, considering the
peculiar facts of the case, it would also be open to the Chief Executive Officer, SRA to
consider that the land in question is entirely the Government land and if the petitioner is
required to be removed and/or the consent terms are not accepted (albeit acted upon),
the Chief Executive Officer, in the facts and circumstances needs to invoke the proviso
below clause 1.15 of the Regulation 33(10), which for any further action to be taken
ought not to wait for 51% of slum-dwellers consenting, and being the State Government
land, the same shall be handed over for implementation of the slum rehabilitation project
to the State Government, who shall appoint a developer, it may intend to appoint by
following the procedure acceptable in law to deal with such state largesse.
81 of 86
97. In the light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to accept any of the
contentions as urged by Mr. Simil Purohit with Mr. Amogh Singh that in the present
proceedings rights of the petitioner ought not to be recognized as a developer of the slum
scheme as such contentions would be a matter for consideration of the Chief Executive
Officer of the SRA, in appropriate proceedings for change of developer or in any other
collateral proceedings before the appropriate forums, which can delve on the issue
whether an agreement as entered between the parties, in the form of the consent terms,
subsists between the parties to the consent terms and issue a declaration on whether such
consent terms are illegal or valid.
98. Insofar as the old writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2012, Writ Petition
No. 1716 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 678 of 2012 are concerned, the prayers as
made in the said petitions have been noted by us hereinabove, are for two fold reliefs;
firstly,the order dated 20 July 2011 passed by the High Power Committee be quashed
and set aside. In regard to such prayer, in our opinion, much water has been flown under
the bridge as noted by us hereinabove, leading to filing consent terms and further actions
as taken thereunder. Thus, there is no warrant in adjudicating the legality of the orders
passed by the High Power Committee. The other prayers which are made in Writ
Petition No. 1716 of 2011 pertain to a challenge to the constitution of the High Power
Committee by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 15 November 2007. In view
of the statutory amendments brought about to the Slum Rehabilitation Act, whereby an
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has been constituted (see Section 34A as
incorporated by the Maharashtra Act No. 33 of 2023), the prayers in the said petition
have been rendered infructuous and, therefore, warrant no further consideration.
82 of 86
99. We are accordingly inclined to dispose of the present proceedings in terms of the
following order:-
ORDER
(i) It would be open to the slum-dwellers/societies of slum-dwellers to
approach the Chief Executive Officer, SRA or any other appropriate
statutory forum as may be available in law, in the event they intend to assail
the appointment of the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon as the developer of the
project.
(ii) In the event of any such proceedings to be filed before the Chief
Executive Officer, SRA or any other statutory forum, let the same be filed
within a period of three weeks from today and the same be taken up and
adjudicated within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such
complaint/proceeding.
(iii) In passing any order on such proceedings, in the event it is being
decided to remove the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon, the Chief Executive
Officer, SRA or the appropriate statutory forum shall take into
consideration an adequate compensation which would be required to be
paid to the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon, in regard to the amount spent by it
along with appropriate commercial rate of interest.
(iv) In view of the aforesaid directions, the impugned communication
dated 4 February, 2026 shall not be acted upon, as any action to be taken
against the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon shall be subject to the orders which
may be passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA or any other appropriate
forum, as the case may be.
(v) In the event the Permanent Transit Camps are cancelled or the
amount is refunded, the same be restored in view of the aforesaid directions.
(vi) All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
83 of 86
(vii) In the event the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner-Ruparel Buildcon is required to be removed as
the developer, the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, shall invoke the provisions
of the proviso below Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR and
dispense with the requirement of 51% by conferring the redevelopment of
the slums on such government land, to the State Government, for
appointing an appropriate Architect and Developer to undertake the
development of the slum on such large Government land, and strictly
ensure that no developer is appointed by any of the societies/Federation.
(viii) For the reasons as set out in paragraph no.98 (supra), the
adjudication of Writ Petition No.1716 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2482 of
2012 and Writ Petition No.678 of 2012 is not called for. They are
accordingly disposed of.
(ix) Interim Applications would not survive, the same are accordingly
disposed of.
(x) Writ Petition (L) No.7387 of 2026, Writ Petition No. 658 of 2026
and Writ Petition (L) No. 24849 of 2026 are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. No costs.
IX Concluding Paragraphs
100. While parting, as a Constitutional Court, as noted above, we would be failing in
our duty if we do not observe that it is high time, that insofar as the redevelopment of
slums formed on Government/Public land is concerned, the situation as brought about in
the present proceedings, namely, of inter se conflicts between the societies of slum dwellers
and the developer, becomes a relic of the past. The State Government and/or public
bodies, at the very threshold, are required to exhibit an absolute concern in respect of the
84 of 86
redevelopment of their own lands by implementing the slum scheme. It is for such reason
that Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR has made a specific exception that
nothing contained therein shall apply to slum rehabilitation projects undertaken by the
State Government or a public authority, which would dispense with the requirement of
51% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in proposing a slum rehabilitation scheme
and, in that context, the requirement of obtaining written agreements from the eligible
hutment-dwellers. It may be observed, that experience has shown that the implementation
of slum schemes and rehabilitation of slum-dwellers on Government land, stands grossly
delayed on account of disputes inter alia concerning the requirement of 51% or more of
the eligible hutment-dwellers and the appointment of developers by societies formed by
the slum-dwellers. The present case is a classic case where the redevelopment of the slum
has been delayed for almost 20 years.
101. Thus, considering the nature of the horse-trading which takes place in slum
rehabilitation schemes, and more particularly in respect of slums situated on
Government land, we are of the clear opinion that, henceforth, as a matter of policy, the
Chief Executive Officer, SRA, needs to invoke the proviso below Clause 1.15 of the
Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, so as to avoid such conflicting claims of the slum-
dwellers in the appointment of the developer. Thus, the entire responsibility and
accountability of redevelopment of the slums situated on Government land in a manner
the State Government/public body may deem appropriate in situ or otherwise should be
entrusted to the State Government, in terms of the proviso below Clause 1.15 of the said
Regulation. In taking any such steps the State Government/Public body needs to
85 of 86
consider whether the public lands need to be utilized only for slum redevelopment or the
same needs to be used for any other public purpose so that the redevelopment of slum
land can be dispensed with and the slum dwellers if eligible can be accommodated/
rehabilitated elsewhere.
102. We are accordingly inclined to direct that, henceforth, as the law may mandate,
the State Government or the public bodies shall take over the redevelopment of slum
schemes on their lands, as may be permissible in law, so that the slum-dwellers do not
adversely suffer, being entangled in litigation with developers. This would also ensure
that the redevelopment of slums on Government land, to the extent permissible in law,
remains within the obligation and control of the State Government, or the public bodies,
failing this, a chaotic situation which is usually brought about in respect of
redevelopment of slums on government/ public lands, as noticed in the present
proceedings, and the scores of litigations coming before the Court, can never stop. Let
these observations be brought to the notice of the Secretary, Urban Development
Department, as also the Municipal Commissioner, MCGM, and all the respective
Municipal Corporations in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region and the Pune Municipal
Corporation, Nagpur Municipal Corporation and Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.
103. We accordingly conclude the present proceedings.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 86 of 86
Date: 29/09/2026 15:45:52
Checking your session…