Bombay High Court
Worli Urban Development Project Llp ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru, Acs ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
21.DOC
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.02.23
21:46:17
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 936 of 2026
Worli Urban Development Project LLP (formerly known as
Lokhandwalal DB Realty LLP) ...Petitioner
VS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Aspi Chinoy Senior Counsel with Mr. Pravin Samdani, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Rutuja Patil, Yohaan Shah with Hasan Mushabber,
Divishada Desai i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Jaymala Ostwal, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for the State.
Mr. Pralhad Paranjapte (through V.C.) with Ms. Pushpa Yadav, for
Respondent/BMC.
Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal with Mr. Aman Anand with Mr. Prakhar
Tandon with Ms. Aarushi Yadav with Mr. Aatish Tayade, for Respondent
No.2/SRA.
Mr. Prashant Kamat, AE(DP) City, Mr. Rajendra Parab, Ch.E (MSDP), Mr.
Santosh Patil, Dy. Ch.E (MSDP), Mr. Anil Bhoite, Ch.E.(S.O.), Mr. Suresh
Yemekar, EE(SO) PS City, Mr. Ananda Kolekar, AE (MS) City, present.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 23 February 2026.
P.C.
1. On the backdrop of our detailed order dated 9 February 2026, the proceedings are listed before us today.
2. On behalf of the State Government and more particularly in pursuance of the observations made by us in paragraph 17 read with paragraph 29, an affidavit Page 1 of 4 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:39:36 :::
21.DOC of Mr. Chandrashekhar Dattatraya Tarange, Deputy Secretary, Housing Department, Mantralaya, is placed on record. Also on behalf of the Municipal Corporation - respondent No.3, an affidavit of Mr. Shashank Narayanrao Bhore is filed, which, according to the municipal corporation, would address the concerns which are echoed by this Court in the said order. We intend to examine these affidavits in the context of an area of about 27698.10 sq. meters which was reserved under the development plan for the purpose of "sewerage pumping station / sewerage treatment plan / expansion and for solid waste management", as per the need of the municipal corporation which has been reduced to an area of 17750 sq. meters under an order passed by the State Government dated 12 June 2024.
3. Mr. Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that insofar as the construction of transit camp which has been undertaken on the area of 17756.40 sq. meter, the same would be removed within a period of 90 days as recorded in the earlier order passed by the Court and no construction of any nature shall be undertaken on such area demarcated for the purpose of sewerage pumping station and sewerage treatment plan expansion which is to be handed over to the municipal corporation.
4. We intend to examine the issue as flagged by us in paragraph 17 of our earlier order namely as to how the extent of the reservation of a larger area of 27964.04 sq.meters could be reduced to an area of 17756.40 sq.meters at the instance of the plans / proposal submitted by the petitioner - developer on the State Government passing an order dated 12 July 2024 and its Page 2 of 4 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:39:36 :::
21.DOC authority/jurisdiction thereof. Further, we would also examine whether it was so permissible to do so under Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation for Greater Mumbai 2034 (DCPR 2034) as set out in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government.
5. The Court would be concerned with the overarching public interest when the specified requirement of land admeasuring 27,043.10 sq. meters, was the requirement of the municipal corporation. We may observe that merely because the said land belonging to the municipal corporation was encroached by slum dwellers, whether such large area of land, would be required to be deleted from the reservation, and in the manner as understood by the State Government and the SRA that too on the proposal as submitted by the developer, would be required to be addressed. In our opinion, this is a significant issue surrounding the slum redevelopment in question, considering such eminent public interest. This, more particularly, as the municipal corporation itself has taken a serious cognizance of the matter, for the reason as no action was being taken on the part of the SRA to remove the illegal constructions of transit building(s) on such area reserved for "sewerage pumping station / sewerage treatment plan / expansion and for solid waste management", the municipal corporation itself decided to take action of demolition, and that is how, the proceedings reached this Court.
6. In the Court examining such issue, we propose to appoint Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, learned Senior Advocate of this Court as the Amicus Curiae. The office is directed to provide a set of the proceedings to learned Amicus who will address on the legal issue on the adjourned date of hearing. Page 3 of 4 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:39:36 :::
21.DOC
7. We also permit the parties to place on record further affidavit on this issue.
8. The proceedings are accordingly adjourned to 9 March 2026.
9. We clarify that as the area of 17756.40 sq.meters is available, it would be open to the municipal corporation to utilize the said area, however, insofar as the balance area is concerned and its utilization for the purpose of the slum redevelopment project, it would require further consideration of this Court as such area has stood deleted from the reservation, being now available to the petitioners for construction.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 4 of 4 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:39:36 :::