Bombay High Court
KAILASH CHANDRA AGARWAL THROUGH POONAM MOHAN JANIversusTHE SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that upon the petitioners handing over possession as ordered, the developer's liability is fully discharged.
Summary
The petitioners, Kailash Chandra Agarwal and Mohan Jani, sought relief from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the developer regarding possession of a structure. The developer indicated that it had already handed over alternate accommodation to the petitioners and requested the court to note that the petitioners would hand over the original structure within 48 hours, thereby discharging the developer's liability. The court examined whether such a handover could fully satisfy the developer's obligations under the slum rehabilitation scheme. It ordered the petitioners to surrender possession of the original structure by 21 August 2026, after which the developer's liability would be deemed fully discharged. The court further directed demolition of the surrendered premises to facilitate road widening and required the petitioner's attorney to indemnify the developer against any future claims by the petitioner's heirs.
Issues considered
- Whether the developer's liability towards the petitioners is fully discharged upon the petitioners handing over possession of the original structure.
- Whether the court can order the handover and indemnity as a means to dispose of the writ petition.
Subjects
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- possession handover
- developer liability
- writ petition
- demolition
- road widening
Judgment
Digitally signed
by MAYUR
MAYUR KONDIRAM
ADANE
KONDIRAM Date: 5-WP-4096-2024 (OS).DOC
ADANE 2026.08.19
18:22:15
+0530
Mayur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4096 OF 2024
Kailash Chandra Agarwal Through Poonam …Petitioner
Mohan Jani
Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority …Respondent
Mr. Piyush Shah, a/w Mr. Dishang Shah, Mr. Kinjal Gogri, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Makrand Raut, for the Respondent No. 4 - Developer.
Mr. Kedar Nhavkar, a/w Mr. Harshwardhan Karande, i/b M.
Vishwanath Patil, for the Respondent No. 1 - SRA.
Ms. Anuja Tirmali, i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent No.
2 - BMC.
Mr. Shrikant Patil, JEMW present for BMC.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
DATED: 19th AUGUST 2026.
PC:-
1. By referring to our orders dated 28 th July 2026 and 31st July
2026, Mr. Shah, representing the Petitioner through his constituted
attorney, viz., Poonam Mohan Jani, submits that the developer, i.e.
Respondent No. 4, has handed over possession of the permanent
alternate accommodation to his client yesterday evening, i.e. on
Page 1 of 3
5-WP-4096-2024 (OS).DOC
18th August 2026. Therefore, in discharge of his obligation in the
matter, the Petitioner would hand over possession of the original
structure occupied by him within 48 hours from today. He further
submits that by recording such undertaking of the Petitioner, the
Writ Petition can be disposed of.
2. Responding to the above submission, Mr. Makarand Raut,
learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, submits that he would have
no objection, if such an order is passed. He, however, prays for an
observation from this Court that the above transaction would fully
discharge the liability of the developer towards the Petitioner or his
representative. The above submission has not been opposed by any
of the counsel.
3. In view of the above, we dispose of this Writ Petition by the
following :-
ORDER
(i) The Petitioner shall hand over possession of the
original structure to Respondent No. 4 on or before
21st August 2026 at 10.00 a.m., by complying with
the requisite formalities, including execution of the
handing over possession note.
(ii) Upon handing over possession of the premises, the
Page 2 of 3
5-WP-4096-2024 (OS).DOC
liability of Respondent No. 4, developer, shall stand
fully discharged towards the Petitioner as well as his
legal representative.
(iii) After the premises are handed over, the developer
shall demolish the same and allow the Corporation to
continue with the work of widening of the road
without any further delay.
(iv) Mrs. Poonam Jani, the constituted attorney
representing the original Petitioner would indemnify
the Respondent No. 4 against the action if any of the
legal heirs/representative of the Principal/writ
petitioner with regard to consequences if any arising
pursuant to the above transaction.
4. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.