Bombay High Court
Jyoti R. Kawa vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 2 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:3387-DB 31.WP.4065.2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4065 OF 2025
1. Jyoti R.Kawa,
2. Neeta P.Vaghela,
3. Priti P.Dodia,
all R/o.Mumbai. Petitioners
versus
1. Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
2 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai,
3. Maitri Siya Enterprises,
4. Sachin Kantilal Bhatt,
5. Nilesh Surendra Poojari,
6. Mahesh Kantilal Bhatt,
7. Kshor Surendra Poojari,
8. Shiv Mahal Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. Respondents
_______
Ms.Smita Durve (V.C) i/by Adv.Parisha Shah for Petitioner.
Ms.Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent no.1 SRA.
Ms.Anjali Ghuge for Respondent MCGM.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 2nd February 2026
P.C.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed
praying for the following substantive reliefs :
"A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or any
other Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari inter
alia calling for the records and proceedings in the matter of Intimation
of Approval dated 14th June 2024 bearing Reference
No.R-S/PVT/0095/20240215/AP/C issued by Respondent no.1
(Exhibit K) hereto and after considering he legality, validity and
MANISH
Digitally signed by
MANISH
SURESHRAO
propriety thereof, be pleased to pass appropriate direction and orders;
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.02.05
10:36:42 +0530
Page 1 of 5
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:10:52 :::
31.WP.4065.2025.DOC
B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus
or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus, Orders and directions
ordering and directing Respondent no.1 and its Officers to forthwith
take action on the complaints/representations submitted by the
Petitioners and further strictly enforce the conditions of Intimation of
Approval bearing Ref.No.R-S/PVT/0095/ 20240215/AP/C dated
14th June 2024 and further thereupon order and direct Respondent
no.3 to 7 to forthwith implement, observe, perform and discharge all
the pending obligations and conditions as per the Development
Agreement dated 12th July 2021 and accordingly Respondent no.3 to
7 be ordered and directed :-
i. To forthwith make payment of the entire outstanding/arrears of
transit compensation as on June2025 payable to the Petitioners
amounting to a sum of Rs.9,05,745.40 (Rupees Nine lakhs five
thousand seven hundred and forty five and forty paise only) for old
Flat No.21 and Rs.8,83,548/- (Rupees Eight lakhs eighty three
thousand five hundred and forty eight and eighty paise only) for old
Flat No.22 and further continue to make payment of such amount for
subsequent period as per the terms and conditions of the
Redevelopment Agreement dated 12th July 2021 until the Petitioners
are not handed over the possession in accordance with the said
Agreement;
ii. To execute and cause registration of the Agreement of permanent
alternate accommodation of their respective premises being a
residential premises bearing No.801 on the 8 th floor, admeasuring
about 605.36 sq.ft unable carpet area in favour of the Petitioner Nos.1
and 2 and a residential premises bearing No.802 on the 8 th floor
admeasuring about 593.75 sq.ft usable carpet area in favour of
Petitioner no.3 in the composite building proposed to be constructed
on all that piece and parcel of land bearing CTS No.3, admeasuring
about 1106.1 sq.mtrs, CTS No.3/1, admeasuring about 930.3 sq.mtrs
lying, CTS No.3/2, admeasuring about 22.8 sq.mtrs, CTS No.3/3,
admeasuring about 23.9 sq.mtrs, CTS No.3/4 admeasuring about
17.3 sq. mtrs, CTS No.3/5, admeasuring about 16.5 sq.mtrs, CTS
No.3/6 admeasuring about 16.5 sq.mtrs, CTS No.3/7, admeasuring
about 18.1 sq.mtrs, CTS No3/8 admeasuring about 18.1 sq.mtrs, CTS
No.3/9 admeasuring about 18.7 sq.mtrs, corresponding to Survey
No.88, Hissa No.12 at Village Malad (North), Taluka Borivali, lying
being and situated at Mathuradas Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai-
400 067 in furtherance of the Redevelopment Agreement dated 12 th
July 2021."
Page 2 of 5
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:10:52 :::
31.WP.4065.2025.DOC
2. The primary grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent no.1 i.e.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has not ensured compliance of the terms and
conditions of the sanction granted by it with respect to the redevelopment project
by Respondent nos.3 to 8 in terms of Circular dated 1 st August 2023. Further, the
Petitioner is also aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent no.3 i.e. the
developer Maitri Siya Enterprises in not executing the Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) and in not paying the transit rent to the
Petitioners from June-2025.
3. This Court by an earlier order dated 24th November 2025 had passed
the following order in the absence of the developer not taking any further steps,
and also directed Respondent no.1 SRA to place on record the correct position in
regard to the redevelopment scheme which it sanctioned in favour of Respondent
no.3 developer. The order dated 24th November 2025 reads as under:
"1. The Developer has not taken any further steps. As to how SRA has not taken
action against the developer is the question. We accordingly direct the Competent
Authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, to place on record the correct
position on affidavit, in regard to the scheme in question, and in regard to
whether the developer at all is interested to carry forward the project in question.
More particularly that despite repeated notices the developer has refused to appear
in the present proceedings.
2. We also clarify that in the event on the adjourned date of hearing, if the
developer is not represented, we shall proceed to pass appropriate order, including
directing the SRA to take over the project and take all permissible steps as the law
may mandate, so that rehabilitation of the slum dwellers can be undertaken
expeditiously. List on 27th November 2025.
3. Copy of the affidavit be placed on record, as also be served on all the parties.
4. This Court also in its order dated 17 th January 2026 had categorically
noted that the dispute in the present proceedings could be resolved as there was
willingness on the part of the developer to settle the aforesaid dispute and to pay
Page 3 of 5
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:10:52 :::
31.WP.4065.2025.DOC
the outstanding transit rent and also to execute PAAA with Petitioners. The order
dated 17th January 2026 reads thus :
"1. We are of the opinion that the dispute in the present proceedings can
certainly be resolved, as there is willingness on the part of the developer. A part of
the deficit transit rent has already been paid, though certain amounts remain
outstanding. In our view, the dispute can be amicably resolved insofar as
permanent alternate accommodation is concerned. The developer has expressed
readiness and willingness to enter into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation
(PAA) Agreement within a period of 15 days from today. If that be so, the parties
shall arrive at an appropriate consensus. The parties are at liberty to approach the
Court with the Minutes of the Order. Stand over to 20th January 2026.
2. We clarify that we have not examined the contentions raised on behalf of
the SRA, and more particularly the contention that the development in the present
case is admittedly a development under DCPR 33(11).
5. Today, when the matter has come up for hearing, there is no affidavit
which has been placed on record by Respondent no.1 SRA as directed by this Court
vide order dated 24th November 2025. Learned counsel on behalf of Petitioners
has appeared through Video Conferencing and Ms.Ghuge appears for Respondent
no.2 MCGM. None appears on behalf of Respondent no.3 developer despite
being served and its counsel having appeared on 17th January 2026 when a
statement was categorically made on behalf of the developer that Respondent no.3
would execute a PAAA with the Petitioners and transit rent would be paid to the
Petitioners.
6. Considering our earlier orders and the submissions made on behalf of
the Petitioners, Respondent no.1 SRA and Respondent no.2 MCGM, we deem it
appropriate to pass the following order in the interest of justice :
ORDER
(i) The Respondent no.3 i.e. the developer shall execute Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) with the Petitioners and shall pay Page 4 of 5 M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:10:52 :::
31.WP.4065.2025.DOC the transit rent from June-2025 till date to the Petitioners, within a period of ten days from the date this order is made available to Respondent no.3;
(ii) If there is any dispute regarding quantum of transit rent which is payable by the Respondent no.3 developer to the Petitioners, then the Petitioners shall file an appropriate representation to the Special Cell constituted by Respondent no.1 SRA in pursuance of order of this Court in Om Shri Sai SRA Co- operative Housing Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1. Such representation, if made, shall be decided within the time frame as directed by this Court in the said decision after hearing the Petitioners on all such contentions which may be raised in respect of quantum of the transit rent;
(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;
(iv) The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1Writ Petition No.3140 of 2019, decided on 23-12-2025 Page 5 of 5 M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:10:52 :::