SHREE SAMARTH SPARK DEVELOPERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT

2026:BHC-OS:19064

                                                                                 23 wp4044 of 2026.doc

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.4044 OF 2026

            Shree Samarth Spark Developers and Anr.              ...         Petitioners
                 versus
            The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                    …           Respondents

            Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Samir Suryawanshi, Ms. Bhakti Wast, Mr.
            Malhar Bageshwar, for Petitioners.
            Mr. Vishwanath Patil with Mr. Harshwardhan Karande, for AGRC.
            Mr. Prakhar Tandon i/by Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for SRA.
            Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP for State.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      25 AUGUST 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 22 June 2026,

            whereby the Chairperson of the AGRC has corrected the order dated 15 May

            2026, whereby the stay was granted to the execution and operation of the

            order under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,

            Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, subject to the deposit of a sum of

            Rs.50 Lakhs towards the transit rent with SRA by issuing Corrigendum to the

            Roznama.      By the impugned order, the Petitioner – developer has been

            directed to deposit 50% of the audit amount.

            3.      The grievance of the Petitioners is that the said order was passed

            without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners and it constitutes


            SSP                                                        1/2
                                                                                     23 wp4044 of 2026.doc

                      a substantive review of the order dated 15 May 2026.

                      4.       The Court finds that, after the order dated 15 June 2026, the Authority

                      had accepted the deposit of Rs.50 Lakhs vide communication dated 17 June

                      2026.       There is a dispute about the quantum of transit rent, which the

                      Petitioner is liable to deposit.    In these circumstances, the Chairperson –

                      AGRC could not have passed the impugned order without providing an

                      opportunity of hearing to the parties. It would have been appropriate for the

                      AGRC to put the parties to notice and then decide the question as to whether

                      the terms on which the stay came to be granted were required to be modified.

                      Thus, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

                      5.       The communication dated 20 July 2026 stands quashed and set aside.

                      6.       If the AGRC is of the view that the conditions, subject to which the stay

                      to the order impugned in the appeal has been granted, are required to be

                      varied, the AGRC shall hear the parties and pass a fresh order.

                      7.       The Writ Petition stands disposed.




                                                                          ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                    2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/08/2026 15:10:45