ALICE ALBERT DSOUZAversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

                                                          38-WP-3474-2026.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 3474 OF 2026
Alice Albert D’souza                           .....Petitioner
              Versus
The Chief Executive Officer and Ors.                    .....Respondents
                                  .....
Ms. Drishti Khurana i/b Mr. Atif Shaikh, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Dilip Vasu Poyyara i/b Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, for the Respondent-
SRA.

Mr. Amit Dubey a/w Mr. Sandeep Dubey, for the Respondent Nos.2 to
4.
                              ..…
                         CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                  SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
                                    DATE   : 25th AUGUST 2026
P.C.:-

1.        Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.


2.        Heard learned Counsel for the Respondent-SRA and also

learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4.


3.        The Petitioner had submitted a proposal to the Slum

Rehabilitation Authority (S.R.A) on 9th December, 2024 which was

duly received by the S.R.A on 11th December, 2024. By the aforesaid

letter dated 9th December, 2024 of the Petitioner, permission was

sought from the Office of S.R.A. for the sale of Flat No.306 in the

Manisha                                                                 1/3
              Digitally signed by
MANISHA    MANISHA
           BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
TALEKAR    Date: 2026.08.27
              10:54:25 +0530
                                                         38-WP-3474-2026.doc


rehabilitation building no.3/A of the Respondent No.2-Society as per

the Circular CR145 of S.R.A.


4.        Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2-Society submits that

at the relevant time there was administrator who was holding charge

of the Society. However, so far as their stand is concerned, they have

nothing to state as regards to no objection for they recognize the

Petitioner as the Member of the Society. Once the Respondent No.2-

Society is recognizing the Petitioner as Member of the Society, the

question of no objection from the Society does not arise as it is now

for the S.R.A. to take an appropriate decision on the proposal which

is received from the Petitioner dated 9th December, 2024.


5.        In such view of the matter, the S.R.A. to decide the request

made by the Petitioner vide the proposal dated 9th December, 2024

for transfer of the Petitioner’s flat bearing No.3/A, 3 rd Floor, Shanti

Nagar Rahivashi Society, in favour of the “Donee” Claude Dominic

D’Souza under the Gift Deed dated 13 th September, 2023 within a

period of four weeks from the date of communication of the Order,

without insistence of the no objection from the Respondent No.2-

Society. The decision be communicated to the Petitioner.


Manisha                                                                2/3
                                                      38-WP-3474-2026.doc


6.        If the S.R.A. wants the Petitioner to comply with any

requisition, the same be communicated within a period of one week

from the date of communication of this Order.


7.        In view of above, Writ Petition No.3474 of 2026 stands

disposed of.




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




Manisha                                                             3/3