Bombay High Court
Raju Bhai Barad vs The Slum Rehabilitation Authority ... on 12 November, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-OS:20975-DB 301.WP.673.2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.673 OF 2025
Raju Bhai Barad and others Petitioners
versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority through CEO
and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Altaf Khan with Mr.Akash Mangalgi for Petitioners.
Ms.Ravleen Sabharwal with Ms.Aarushi Yadav for Respondent nos.1 & 2 SRA.
Mr.Nitesh Acharya for Respondent no.5.
Mr.Sahajirao Shinde with Mr.Kuldip T.Pawar for Respondent no.6 AGRC.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 12th November 2025
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed praying for the following substantive reliefs which read thus :s
"A) That this Hon'ble Court exercising powers under Article 226
under the Constitution of India, 1950, be pleased to issue Writ of
Mandamus by holding and declaring the Notice and to directing the
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 Developers to make payment of Corpus
Fund @ Rs.40,000/- per occupant for 210 tenements (173 residential
+ 30 commercial + 10 nos.school) prescribed fees/charges/premium
applicable for change in Developer/Partner/Director as per the office
Order dated 23.3.2015.
In the alternative to prayer clause (A)
A1)That This Hon'ble Court exercising powers under Article 226
under the Constitution of India, 1950, be pleased to direct the
Respondent SRA to adjudicate the Representation dtd.29.8.2022 and
Digitally signed by
Reminder Representation dtd. 20.7.2023 for payment of Corpus
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2025.11.14
16:31:29 +0530
Fund of occupants for payment of premium for change of
Developer/Partner/Director or their shareholding in a fixed time
bound manner within a period of 08 weeks, by giving the Petitioners
opportunity for hearing to the Petitioners.
Page 1 of 4
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:27:07 :::
301.WP.673.2025.DOC
B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition this
Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent nos.3 and 4
(Developer) to deposit the Corpus Fund and prescribed fee of
premium/fee/charges in the registry of this Hon'ble Court.
C) Ad-interim, interim reliefs in terms of above Prayer clause (A)
and (B) may be granted in the favour of the Petitioner.
D) Cost of this Petition be provided for."
2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent
No.1 Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in not adjudicating the representations
dated 29th August 2022 and 20th July 2023 made by the Petitioners for payment of
corpus fund @ Rs.40,000/- per occupant and for payment of premium for change
of developer/partner/director or their shareholding in a fixed time bound manner.
It is the Petitioners' contention that under the SRA Circular, the developer is under
an obligation to make payment of corpus fund @ Rs.40,000/- per occupant and
also to pay premium for change in developer/partner/director.
3. The Petitioners submit that by an agreement dated 8th June 2006
entered into between the society (wherein the Petitioners are occupants) and
Nirman Constructions (a partnership firm), development rights in respect of the
slum rehabilitation scheme of the Petitioners' society were granted to Nirman
Constructions. On 12th August 2007 the said Nirman Constructions was
reconstituted and converted into a company limited by shares in the name and
style as M/s.Nirman Realtors and Developers Limited. Further on 18 th January
2008, Nirman Realtors & Developers Ltd entered into an agreement with
M/s.Siddharth Housing Pvt.Ltd for development and construction of the slum
rehabilitation scheme of the society. M/s.Siddharth Housing Pvt.Ltd paid a sum of
Rs.3,08,96,000/- to M/s.Nirman Realtors & Developers Ltd towards rent to the
Page 2 of 4
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:27:07 :::
301.WP.673.2025.DOC
slum dwellers and Rs.3,75,00,000/- as deposit to M/s.Nirman Realtors &
Developers Ltd to carry out 80% construction of plinth of the Rehab Buildings in
the slum rehabilitation scheme of the society. Thereafter the SRA issued Letter of
Intent dated 10th August 2009 in favour of M/s.Nirman Constructions and
subsequently the IOA and C.C was issued for implementation of the slum
rehabilitation scheme.
4. It is the Petitioners' contention that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
of SRA by its office order No.SRA/CEO/Office Order/19/2015, dated 23 rd March
2015 issued a circular that if there was any change of developer/partner/director or
their shareholding in the slum rehabilitation scheme, then premium of 5% of land
cost of sale plot shall be payable by the new developer. On 8 th July 2015 a tripartite
agreement was entered between M/s.Siddharth Housing Pvt.Ltd, Nirman Realtors
& Developers Ltd and one M/s.Mass Enclave, whereby M/s.Mass Enclave agreed
to perform all the obligations and responsibilities of M/s.Siddharth Housing
Pvt.Ltd and M/s.Nirman Realtors & Developers Ltd in respect of redevelopment
project in slum rehabilitation scheme of the society, whereby shares and holdings of
the Developer stood changed. This change of shareholding in the developer was
not disclosed to the Petitioners' society.
5. The Petitioners have filed a representation dated 29 th August 2022 and
further representation dated 20th July 2023 requesting that the Respondent No.1
SRA ought to direct the developer M/s.Nirman Constructions to pay fee/premium
and a fine equal to five times as per the office order dated 23 rd March 2015 issued
by the CEO, SRA for change of developer, inasmuch as M/s.Mass Enclave was now
Page 3 of 4
Manish Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:27:07 :::
301.WP.673.2025.DOC
the new developer. Respondent No.1 SRA has not decided the aforesaid
representations and this has caused grave prejudice to the Petitioners and it is their
submission that the aforesaid representations need to be taken to their logical
conclusion and be decided expeditiously.
6. In our view, considering the limited relief that the Petitioners seek in
the petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the
Respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice
would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of
justice.
ORDER
(i) The Respondent No.1 SRA shall consider and decide the pending representations dated 29th August 2022 and 20th July 2023 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioners;
(ii) Let all necessary parties be heard. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;
(iii) The writ is petition is disposed of. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 4 of 4 Manish Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:27:07 :::