ARUNASHREE RAJU DUSAversusSLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY AND ORS

                                                          923-WP-10256-2026.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             WRIT PETITION NO. 10256 OF 2026
Arunashree W/o. Dr. Raju Dusa              .....Petitioner
                  Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.                   .....Respondents
                                    .....
Mr. R. A. Yadav, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Prakhar Tandon i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for the Respondent
No.1-SRA.
Mr. Santosh Parad, for the Respondent No.2-BMC.
Mr. Devansh Shah a/w Mr. Santosh Pathak and Mr. Vimish Lotlikar
i/b Law Origin, for the Respondent No.4.
                                ..…
                                   CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                           SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
                                   DATE     : 21st AUGUST 2026


ORDER (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) :-
1.        By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking direction

to the Respondents to allot permanent alternate accommodation to

the Petitioner on the ground floor in lieu of the premises i.e.

Structure No.92A, (J-1), Om Dattaji Nagar, CTS No.109(pt), 110(pt),

2/136(pt), Dhobi Ghat, D. S. Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. (“the

said structure” for short) The Petitioner’s case is that, the Petitioner

was carrying out her profession in the dispensary (Clinic) since 9th

May, 1994 in the said structure mentioned above. The said structure

Manisha                                                                   1/5
             Digitally signed by
MANISHA      MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.08.25
             18:43:45 +0530
                                                      923-WP-10256-2026.doc


was declared as slum and the redevelopment under the Maharashtra

Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971

(“the Slum Act” for short) commenced. The name of the Petitioner

was shown as eligible in Annexure II. The Developer entered into an

agreement    on   14th   October,   2009   for   permanent     alternate

accommodation initially for residential premises and thereafter, there

was a fresh agreement executed on 30 th March, 2012 with the

Respondent Nos.3 and 6 for permanent alternate accommodation of

commercial premises admeasuring at about 225 sq. ft. It is the case

of the Petitioner that, on 15th April, 2026, the Petitioner was issued

Allotment letter along with the keys in respect of Shop No.227. The

Petitioner accepted the same, however, after accepting the same it

was found that the structure is on the 2 nd floor. The Petitioner

therefore returned the keys and denied the said accommodation. It is

the contention of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was carrying out

her profession on the ground floor even prior to declaration of the

property as slum and therefore, she will not be able to carry the

profession on the second floor. She requested to allot structure to her

on the ground floor.




Manisha                                                               2/5
                                                           923-WP-10256-2026.doc


2.        Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 filed an affidavit-in-

reply and opposed the contention. It was stated that, earlier one M/s.

Omega Shelters was appointed for implementation of the Slum

Rehabilitation Scheme. Thereafter, M/s. Omega Shelters were

removed under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act vide Order dated 15 th

March, 2024. The Respondent No.4 was appointed to carry out the

development. It is the contention of the Respondent No.4 that, the

Petition is not maintainable. The Respondent No.4 contends that, in

the agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (for short

“PAA Agreement”) there was no condition mentioned that the

allotment would be only on the ground floor. It is contended that,

there are no vacant premises available on the ground floor. It is

further contended that the Petitioner had accepted the premises on

the second floor however, after few days she returned keys back to

the office. He sought dismissal of the said proceedings.



3.        The Petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit.



4.        We have gone through the documents on record. We have

heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The ‘PAA



Manisha                                                                    3/5
                                                         923-WP-10256-2026.doc


Agreement’ at page no.41 shows that the Petitioner would be entitled

to a commercial premises admeasuring about 225 sq. ft. The said

agreement is signed by the Petitioner and the erstwhile developers.

This agreement does not mention that the Petitioner would be

entitled to any structure on the ground floor. The Petitioner being an

educated person could definitely have objected at the time of

entering into the ‘PAA Agreement’. However, she had accepted the

said agreement without any demurrer.



5.        The possession letter dated 15th April, 2026 which is signed by

the Petitioner also mentions that, Shop No.227 was allotted on the

second floor. This possession letter was accepted by the Petitioner

and only after a week, the Petitioner has refused to accept the said

Shop No.227 on the ground that the same is on the second floor. The

reliance of the Petitioner on the letter dated 19th June, 2018 issued

by the erstwhile Developer to buttress her claim that she is entitled

to the shop on the ground floor cannot take the case of the Petitioner

any further. The said letter is not addressed to the Respondent No.4.

The said Developer was removed under Section 13(2) of the Slum

Act by the competent Authority. The said letter was issued in the year


Manisha                                                                  4/5
                                                      923-WP-10256-2026.doc


2018 however, till 2024 the erstwhile Developer did not do anything

and that, now, this letter cannot be relied on behalf of the Petitioner

to contend that the Petitioner is entitled to be rehabilitated on the

ground floor only. Admittedly, the Petitioner is being allotted a Gala/

Shop in the commercial building on the second floor. The Petitioner

is not disputing the allotment on the ground that some lesser area is

allotted to her. The dispute only lies regarding the floor on which the

allotment should be made. The Petitioner does not have right to be

allotted a premises at a particular place or on a particular floor. We

do not find any infirmity in the action taken by the Respondent No.4.

We do not find any merits in the case of the Petitioner that she is

entitled to a Gala on the ground floor only.



6.        In view of above, the Petition being devoid of merits, is

dismissed. Hence, Writ Petition No.10256 of 2026 stands dismissed.




(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.)                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                               5/5