BHAVANA R BBAROTversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

                                                                                   15-wp 2690-25.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2690 OF 2025
Date: 2026.08.25
18:07:40 +0530
                      Bhavana R Babarot                                           … Petitioner
                             Versus
                      The Chief Executive Officer, SRA & Ors.                     ... Respondents

                                               __________________________

                      Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Ms. Aparna Devkar for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Sachin Mhatre, Ms. Smriti
                      Sajeev i/b Mhatre Law Associates for Respondent No.4.
                      Mr. Prakhar Tandon i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal for the Respondent-SRA.
                                            __________________________

                                                        CORAM       : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                                      SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                                        DATED       : 25th AUGUST, 2026.

                      P.C. :

                      1.       We have heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner

                      and Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.4.

                      2.       We are not referring to the facts and arguments in detail considering

                      the fair stand of the learned counsel for the respondent-SRA after the

                      matter was heard for some time.

                      3.       Suffice it to observe that the petitioner is the owner of a plot

                      adjoining which respondent No.3 is constructing a high rise building. It is

                      the contention of the petitioner that composite PTC Scheme under Section

                      33 (11) of the Development Control Regulations was proposed adjoining

                      the petitioner’s property on the vacant plot of land. It is the contention of

                       Amk                                                                   1/4
                                                            15-wp 2690-25.doc

the learned counsel that taking advantage of the composite scheme and the

exemptions which were permissible, the marginal open spaces were carved

out in respect of the PTC composite project considering at the height as

37.55 meters. It is the submission that respondent No.4 did not proceed

with the PTC project but have later on, upon obtaining permissions from

the SRA which are not in accordance with law, are proceeding to construct

the high rise building of the height of 51 meters taking advantage of

exemptions which were available for PTC          project.   Moreover, it is

submitted by the learned counsel that respondent No.4 has encroached on

the petitioner’s property to the extent of 44 sq. meters as can be seen from

the report of the SRA. Even this are of 44 sq. meters has been taken into

consideration while submitting the plans and the sanction thereof by the

SRA which is completely contrary to law.          It is submitted that a

representation has been preferred to the SRA, but the SRA has not paid

any attention to the representation.

4.     Learned counsel for the SRA as well as learned Senior Advocate for

respondent No.4 vehemently opposed all the contentions of the petitioner.

Mr. Godbole pointed out that a suit was filed by the petitioner for

somewhat similar reliefs and the same was dismissed.         Moreover, it is

pointed out that so far as 44 sq. mtrs. Encroachment is concerned, there

has been an adjustment in the past and therefore the petitioner cannot



 Amk                                                                 2/4
                                                            15-wp 2690-25.doc

take advantage of the report of the SRA wherein reference is made by the

SRA to the encroachment.        It is the submission of Mr. Godbole that

encroachment is not a matter which can be dealt with by the planning

authority. It is then submitted by Mr. Godbole that all the plans have been

sanctioned in consonance with         DCPR and after obtaining all the

permissions. Mr. Godbole submitted that the building is fire compliant and

all permissions have been duly obtained as per the DCPR.

5.     Learned counsel for the SRA though argued against the petitioner,

after obtaining instructions, submitted that the representation which the

petitioner has preferred, a reference to which is in the prayer clause of this

petition will be duly considered after hearing the petitioner as well as

respondent No.4.

6.     We make it clear that in view of the concession of the learned

counsel for the petitioner, SRA as well as respondent No.4, that we are

passing the following order. We are not making any observations on the

contentions as raised.

       (i)    The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 to appear before the

       SRA on 2nd September, 2026 at 11.00 a.m.

       (ii)   The Chief Executive Officer of the SRA after hearing the

       petitioner as well as respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders on

       the representation, a reference to which is made in the prayer



 Amk                                                                   3/4
                                                            15-wp 2690-25.doc

       clause, or this petition itself could be treated as a representation on

       which the SRA to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

       within a period of four weeks from 2nd September, 2026.

       (iii) It is also open for the petitioner to make an appropriate

       application before the Chief Executive Officer for appropriate

       interim relief if the representation is not decided within the

       aforesaid period.

       (iv)   It is also open for respondent No.4 to file a detailed

       representation before the Chief Executive Officer, SRA.

7.     The petition is disposed of.




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




 Amk                                                                  4/4