Bombay High Court
Gerald Shivanand Warty vs The Municipal Commissioner, Brihan ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2025.09.26
17:10:04
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1295 OF 2024
Gerald Shivanand Warty ...Petitioner
Vs
The Municipal Commissioner, BMC & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Pradeep Kadam with Mr. Hemant Hasnale for Petitioner.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, A.G. with Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal
and Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/b. RS Justicia Law Chambers for Respondent Nos.7, 8,
10, 11 & 12 (SRA).
Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Kausar
Banatwala and Ms. Riya Thakkar i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for Respondent No.9.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21 AUGUST 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 SEPTEMBER 2025.
ORDER (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.) :-
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on admission and on prayers for interim reliefs.
2. The petitioner who is a senior citizen is asserting rights in respect of land admeasuring 671 sq. yards (equivalent to 561 sq. meters) in Survey No.254 Hissa No.8 out of total area of CTS No.824 (for short 'the said land') situated at Village Kanjur, Taluka-Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioner contends that he was in peaceful use, occupation and possession of the said land since more than 50 years. The petitioner constructed a chawl on the said land in the year 1969 which was permitted to be constructed by the owners who had agreed to transfer their rights in his favour in the year 1956 and to that effect a writing was Page 1 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC executed in the year 1974 by the erstwhile owner namely Sir. Mohd. Yusuf Khot. His contention is that CTS No.824 is admeasuring 3046 sq. meters, and out of the said land the petitioner is in possession of 561 sq.meters of the land on the southern side of the said CTS No.824, situated at Ashok Nagar, opposite Datta Mandir, Kanjur, Mumbai. It is also his case that on such land admeasuring 671sq. Yards equivalent to 561 sq. meters, 13 shops were constructed in the year 1969. The petitioner has contended that the land in question is surrounded by four boundaries as on the north by the road opposite 'Datta Mandir' going through the CTS No.824, on the east by part of the CTS No.824, and on the south by CTS No.827.
3. The petitioner has set out the relevant facts to demonstrate as to in what manner he asserts his unchallenged possessory rights in respect of the said land in paragraphs 3(a) to 3(o) in the petition. These facts include the petitioner filing eviction suits under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and defending some suits filed by the tenants as set out in sub-paragraph (o) of paragraph 3. The petitioner has also contended that he has pursued the proceedings before the Slum Tribunal in regard to declaration of slum in respect of the property admeasuring 671 square yards bearing CTS No.824 resulting into an order dated 9 April 2013 by the Slum Tribunal setting aside declaration of the said property as 'slum' which, according to the petitioner, has attained finality.
4. The dispute as raised in this petition revolves around a slum rehabilitation development being undertaken by respondent No.9 on the land adjoining to the petitioner's land being Plot CTS No.827. In such context, the case of the Page 2 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC petitioner is that on 16 June 2022, the petitioner noticed that a board was installed on the petitioner's land in the name of " Durgashtami SRA CHS", indicating the name of respondent No.9-Shraddha Land marks Pvt. Ltd. as a developer (for short 'the developer'). The board indicated that CTS no.827, Village Kanjur, was owned and was to be developed by the said developer and that the trespassers would be prosecuted. On this, the petitioner made a complaint to the police as also addressed a notice by registered post acknowledgment due for removal of the said board, however, the said notice was not responded. The petitioner in his enquiry learnt that respondent No.9 - developer was granted a permission by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to develop the slums on the property CTS No.827 which is not the property belonging to the petitioner, which was the adjoining land. He has contended that CTS No.827 comprised of an area admeasuirng 1777.14 sq.meters on which there were total 99 slum dwellers. The petitioner's enquiry revealed that the SRA had issued a "Letter of Intent" (LOI) in favour of the developer on 19 April 2023 so as to undertake the said scheme. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner by its further letter dated 14 June 2023 addressed to the SRA, objected to such trespassing of the developer on the petitioner's land/property CTS No.824, however, no action was taken.
5. The petitioner in these circumstances, approached the Bombay City Civil Court by filing Suit No.1730 of 2023 against the developer, praying for an injunction against the developer for entering into the petitioner's property. A Notice of Motion was filed in the said suit praying for interlocutory relief in the Page 3 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC nature of a temporary injunction. Such notice of motion was contested by the developer. The developer contended that in the said land, there was a provision for 18.30 meter D.P. Road, and that the developer would be entitled to the benefits of the D.P. Road. It was also contended that the petitioner was not the owner of the land CTS No.824 and in fact, the tenants of the petitioner were being granted benefit under the SRA Scheme being implemented by the developer on the land being CTS No.827. It is contended that the learned Judge, City Civil Court heard the parties on 8 August 2023, when the hearing of the said proceedings was adjourned for orders to be passed on 14 August 2023. It is contended that in the meantime respondent No.9 demolished Shop/Room Nos.1 and 2 in the night of 10 August 2023 and 11 August 2023 and installed tin sheets, around the same. The photographs to that effect are placed on record.
6. The learned Judge, City Civil Court, passed an order dated 21 August 2023 dismissing the Notice of Motion, however, in such order, the learned Judge observed that it was an admitted fact that the said land consists of 13 shops and which were in use and occupation of 13 tenants and that the petitioner was pursuing possessory title in respect of the said land. Admittedly, there was no owner or any other person who had come forward asserting the rights in respect of the said land except the petitioner. Respondent No.9 could never have claimed any right, title and interest in the said land (CTS No.824) on which such demolition action was taken by respondent No.9. The learned Judge also observed that a Letter of Intent (LOI) as also Intimation of Approval (IOA) were issued in favour of the developer qua land CTS No.827 (part). The relevant Page 4 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC observations as made in the said order are required to be noted, which read thus:
13. Point Nos.1 to 3 :- From the submissions made by Mr. Kadam the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, it would appear that the present suit is based on possessory title and not on the basis of ownership/title to the suit property. Hence, I do not find it appropriate to go into the aspect of the title of the suit property at this stage. So far as the fact of possession of the suit property is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the suit property which consist of 13 shops on CTS No.824 is in use and occupation of 13 tenants. It is also not in dispute that the defendant is appointed as a developer for developing CTS No.827 (pt) of village Kanjur, Bhandup (E), Tal. Kurla Mumbai, for proposed SRA Scheme under the Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034 for Durgashtami, CHS (prop) by SRA vide Letter of Intent (LoI) dated 13.04.2023. From the letter dated 26.09.2022 issued by the MCGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) to the Executive Engineer (SRA) S-Division, Bandra (E), Mumbai, it would appear that the defendant vide its letter dated 30.01.2021 requested the MCGM to prepare an annexure in respect of the hutments existed in CTS No.824 which is to be affected in D.P. Road Plan 2034 whereby the present 9.20 meters road is to be widened to 18.30 meters road and to shift those affected persons. Accordingly, the MCGM prepared annexure/schedule-2 of total 22 hutment dwellers for their rehabilitation in SRA Scheme. It is also an admitted fact that the SRA issued Intimation of Approval (IoA) dated 05.06.2023 to the defendant under sub-regulation of Regulation 33(10) Development Control and Promotion Regulations-2034 for Greater Mumbai and allowed the defendant to commence the development work at CTS NO.827(pt.) for Durgashtami SRA CHS (prop) subject to the conditions stipulated therein."
(emphasis supplied)
7. However, on the aforesaid observations, the notice of motion was dismissed. We may observe that these observations are relevant insofar as this petition is concerned, which would clearly indicate that the developer who is developing C.T.S. No.827, in no manner, would have a concern with the land C.T.S. no.824 on which the petitioner is asserting rights, except for the fact that the D.P. Road which is shown in plot No.824 appears to be advantageous to C.T.S. No.827 where the developer is undertaking his scheme. Such D. P. Road Page 5 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC cannot be constructed and available, until the land for the purpose of D.P. Road is acquired, in a manner known to law. Thus, such land on which the petitioner is claiming rights, could not have been available to the developer for the purpose of his project, except after the same would vest in the Municipal Corporation in accordance with law.
8. Be that as it may, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, the tenants of CTS No.824 (the land on which the petitioner is asserting his rights) having taken a decision to join the slum scheme of the developer, could not have changed the legal character and status in respect of the land CTS No.824 so as to label such land to be a "slum area" as the Slums Act would define. The said land has continued to remain a private land and not part of any slum scheme. Despite such clear legal position, in the night between 10 August 2023 and 11 August 2023, there was demolition of structures on the petitioner's land and tin sheets were put up as a fence covering the said structures which, the petitioner alleges could be resorted by none other than the developer-respondent No.9. However, respondent No.9 has suitably denied such attribution of the petitioner. None of the parties and more particularly the SRA or the Municipal Corporation or the State Government are taking a position that they have undertaken the demolition. It is in these circumstances, as to who can be the ultimate beneficiary, is the test being applied by the petitioner. There is nothing on record which would indicate that the Municipal Corporation on any of its official record has undertaken demolition or spent amounts to put up the tin sheets. The petitioner's contention that the only beneficiary to undertake such demolition Page 6 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC was the developer-respondent No.9. It is not denied by the developer- respondent No.9 that it has not installed the tin fencing, however, the fact of demolition by the developer-respondent No.9 has been denied.
9. On such factual backdrop, the petitioner approached this Court in assailing the orders dated 21 August 2023 passed by the City Civil Court dismissing the petitioner's notice of motion, in filing Appeal from Order No.889 of 2023. A learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 30 October 2023 adjudicated the said appeal from order. In such order, the learned Single Judge has clearly observed that the developer is undertaking the development on the plot of land bearing CTS No.827 and not on the plot of land bearing CTS No.824 of which the petitioner is asserting his rights. However, the learned Single Judge making a reference to the letter of approval, and more particularly paragraph 9 and on the factual matrix that 22 tenants on the petitioner's plot of land having decided to join the slum scheme, observed that there is relevance of the petitioner's plot of land being CTS no.824 in regard to the slum scheme, and it is for such reason, keeping open all contentions of the petitioner to assail the LOI in appropriate proceedings, learned Single Judge did not interfere in the orders passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. The following observations as made in paragraph (4) of the order are required to be noted which read thus:
"4. It therefore cannot be stated that the development undertaken by the Defendant on Plot bearing C.T.S. No.824 is totally unauthorised. If Appellant-Plaintiff has any rights in respect of Plot No.824 and if he is aggrieved by the action of the Municipal Corporation or the SRA in granting any rights in respect of Plot No.824 in Defendant's Page 7 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC favour, he can always file appropriate proceedings against the M.C.G.M. and SRA by challenging their permissions. As of now, some permission issued by Planning Authority is noticed under which 22 tenement holders covered by the widening of the DP road, situated at Plot bearing CTS No.824 are held eligible for rehabilitation in the project undertaken by the Defendant. If this action of the Planning Authority is believed to be erroneous by the Appellant-Plaintiff, he can challenge the Letter of Approval issued by the SRA on the basis of request sent by the M.C.G.M. In my view, therefore no prima-facie case is made out by the Appellant-Plaintiff."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia challenging the LOI in asserting the petitioner's rights in respect of CTS No.824. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court heard learned Counsel for the parties on 24 January 2025 on the present proceedings, when the Court directed respondent Nos.2 and 8 to file a detailed reply affidavit. It also granted an ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (i) which reads thus:
"1) Taking into consideration the serious allegations made against the Respondents, we direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 8 to file detailed reply to the Petition.
1.1) This be done within a period of four weeks from today.
2) Stand over to 28th February, 2025.
3) Till the returnable date, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (i)."
11. The ad-interim reliefs have continued to operate till date. We may also refer to a detailed order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (G. S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, on 3 July 2025 . The said order reads thus:
"1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties for sometime, we are shocked to notice the nature of LOI as issued in favour of respondent no. 9 and more particularly, when the slum scheme pertains to CTS No. 827 Part, Village Kanjur, Bhandup (East), Taluka Kurla, Mumbai - 400 042, i.e., the land on which the petitioner is asserting ownership rights and which is subject matter of pending Civil Suit. Despite this, the land bearing CTS Page 8 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC No. 824 Pt. which is in no manner whatsoever connected with the SRA Scheme in question, has been included in an extremely highhanded manner wherein in paragraph 9, the following conditions were inserted:
"9. Eligibility of Slum Dwellers:
The eligibility of the slum dwellers on slum plot is certified by Addl. Collector (Enc/Rem.) Eastern Suburb district Mumbai, in prescribed format and issued Annexure II vide letter dated 15.11.2022 as at Pf. C/51 to C/207. In this case, reference is requested to the letter received from Executive Engineer ('S' Ward) MCGM dated 26.09.2022 for 22 nos of tenants which are affected by 18.30 m wide D.P. Road on plot bearing CTS no. 824 which is a private land (Copy as at pg. C/185 to C/207) and Ward Executive Engineer (S Ward) has requested to accommodate these 22 nos. (Res.-13 & Comm.-91) in subjected S.R. Scheme which are eligible in the said S.R. Scheme as per the letter received from local MLA to clear the road. Architect has proposed 13 nos. of eligible residential tenements at upper floors and 9 nos. of eligible commercial tenements at Ground floor. Architect has not taken any benefit of land component as well as additional rehab component by adding these 22 tenants. As there are 05 nos of PAP generated after accommodate these 22 nos units. These 22 tenants are the members of Durgashtami SRA CHS Society and given consent to the said developer, letter to the MCGM will be issued in regard to the land benefit to be given in future to the owner of CTS no. 824 on which these 22 nos. of tenants are residing. As per the said summary sheet of Certified Annexure-II & supplementary Annexure-II issued by Tahasildar (SRA), the details are as tabulated below:
User Eligible Non Eligible Eligibility Total
pending
Residential 77 Nil 05 82
Commercial Nil Nil Nil Nil
Total (A) 77 Nil 05 82
Additional Eligibility Certified by BMC which are affected by 18.30 m.
wide D.P. Road Residential 13 ---- --- 13 Commercial 09 ---- --- 09 Total (B) 22 ---- --- 22 As per clause 3.12(C) of Reg. 33(10) of DCPR 2034, all slum dwellers are considered for alternative accommodation in the S.R. Scheme.
"As per clause 1.15, where 51% or more of the eligible hutment - dwellers in a slum and stretch of road or pavement contagious to it at one place agree to join rehabilitation scheme, it may be considered for approval, subject to submission of irrevocable written agreement of eligible hutment-dwellers before LOI."Page 9 of 22
26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC
2. We have been informed by Mr. Godbole, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 9 that the slum scheme in no manner concerns land bearing CTS No. 824 Pt. on which the petitioner is asserting rights. Such scrutiny report forms part and parcel of LOI is dated 14 February 2023. What has happened subsequent to such report is something extraordinary, peculiarly the structures on CTS No. 827 Pt. which the petitioner alleges to be on his land, were demolished. The Municipal Corporation would be concerned with CTS No. 824 Pt. Only insofar as part of which was to be utilized for a Development Plan Road. The Municipal Corporation through its learned counsel Mr. Chavan stated that the MCGM has not in any manner whatsoever demolished the petitioner's structure.
3. The developer/respondent no. 9, who is also the owner of the land on which the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is being undertaken, i.e., CTS No. 827Pt. has also denied of any inaction on the part of respondent no. 9 to demolish the structure. However, certainly it appears that such demolition is only to aid the SRA Scheme being undertaken by respondent no. 9. Mr. Reddy, learned counsel for SRA has also stated that SRA is not involved in such demolition.
4. Thus, a very peculiar situation has arisen, namely, the land bearing CTS No. 827 Pt. [Sic. 824 (pt)] on which the petitioner is asserting his rights stands adversely affected in such manner. None of the respondents owe a responsibility in regard to two things - firstly, to include such land in the SRA scheme as set out in paragraph 9 as noted by us hereinabove. The Municipal Corporation is also clear in its contention that it would be concerned with the D.P. Road and for acquisition of the D.P. Road, if the land from CTS No. 824 Pt. is to be utilized, it would be utilized in the manner known to law by issuing appropriate prior notices and acquiring the land for such purpose. The Municipal Corporation has certainly distanced itself from the SRA project.
5. It is in this complexion of facts, we have a serious doubt in regard to the bonafides of Mr. S.S. Dudhbhate, S.E. (SRA), Mr. Y.S. Gosavi, A.E. (SRA) and Mr. M.A. Wani, Executive Engineer (SRA) to jointly prepare the scrutiny report and more particularly, including the petitioner's land on CTS No. 824 Pt., on which the petitioner is asserting rights. There was no reason whatsoever including in regard to any DP issue which were purely issues between the Corporation and whosoever would be the owner of CTS No. 824. There was also no concern whatsoever of tenants and occupants of CTS No. 824 to be in any manner included in the slum scheme in question. This shows not only highhandedness but prima facie a complete abuse of the powers which are vested in these officers. We, accordingly, direct the petitioner to implead these officers personally as parties to the petition. Let amendment be carried out within two days from today and copy of the amended petition be served on all the parties. Reverification is dispensed with. Notice be issued to the added respondents.
6. These officers shall place on record their respective affidavits, within two weeks from today, to justify such prima facie highhandedness of the action on their part by filing their affidavits to this petition. After such affidavits are placed on record, we shall proceed to hear the parties and pass further appropriate orders including issuing necessary directions to restore the structure as also restore the rights of these 22 persons, who are situated on land bearing CTS No. 824, as we Page 10 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC are very clear that not only the rights of the petitioner, who alleges ownership, if he succeeds in the suit, would not only adversely affect but the eminent rights of these 22 persons are likely to be affected, as it is quite likely that even if they are included in the SRA scheme, such inclusion would be totally illegal.
7. Mr. Reddy, learned counsel for SRA would inform the respective officer, if they are already in service of SRA to file affidavits. There shall not be any further extension to file such affidavits.
8. We may also note that Mr. Godbole, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 9 had raised an objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that there is alternate remedy under section 35 of the Slums Act. However, considering the gross facts of the case, we reject the objection on maintainability.
9. Stand over to 17 July 2025 (F.O.B.)
10. Interim relief, if any granted earlier, shall continue to operate till the adjourned date of hearing.
12. It is on such backdrop, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties on admission and on interim reliefs.
13. Mr. Kadam, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts clearly indicate that the developer is concerned with the development of the slum scheme only in respect of CTS No.827 (pt) and in no manner whatsoever is concerned with the land at CTS No.824 on which the petitioner is asserting its right in the manner as set out. It is his submission that merely because there is a proposed DP Road and when admittedly such land for the DP Road has not been acquired in the manner known to law, neither the official respondents nor the developer can assert any rights in respect of land CTS No.824. It is Mr. Kadam's submission that merely because the tenants on the petitioner's land CTS No.824 were lured and were being granted benefit in the slum rehabilitation scheme of the developer (respondent no.9) on adjoining plot bearing CTS no.827, this would not bring about a situation, much less of any legal consequence that the land under CTS No.824 can be appropriated for the slum rehabilitation scheme of respondent no.9, so that rights of the petitioner which are enjoyed by him for Page 11 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC about last 70 years, can stand extinguished, much less by referring to the prima facie observations as made by the learned Judge of City Civil Court as also by the learned Single Judge of this Court. This more particularly, when admittedly the developer who, insofar as his slum scheme is concerned, cannot claim any legal right qua the land under CTS no.824, hence, such land in no manner whatsoever can form part of the slum scheme. It is submitted that any condition of eligibility as incorporated in the LOI, also cannot be read to mean that the same has extinguished or in any manner taken away the petitioner's right on the plot of land. It is next submitted that the developer has asserted rights in respect of CTS no.824 and/or threatened the rights of the petitioner, the same could have been done only in a manner known to law and in this regard, no suit for declaration has been filed by the developer so as to assail the petitioner's rights in respect of the land under CTS no.824. It is Mr. Kadam's submission that as the land for the DP road proposed from the petitioner's land has not been acquired in a manner known to law, neither the SRA, Municipal Corporation nor the developer can claim right, title and interest on the basis or the presumption that merely a proposed DP road needs to be made available to the adjoining project of the developer. It is thus his submission that this is a case where the valuable rights of the petitioner in respect of the said land under CTS no.824 cannot be usurped or violated by the SRA and ultimately for the benefit of the developer / respondent No.9. He submits that in fact the actions of the SRA are in collusion with the developer, they are highhanded and arbitrary, violating the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution. It is Mr. Page 12 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC Kadam's submission that the petitioner having made out a prima facie case, is entitled to the interim reliefs.
14. Per contra, Mr. Godbole, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this petition and most surprisingly questioning the petitioner's right in the land CTS no.824 when respondent No.9-developer in no manner whatsoever is concerned with CTS no.824 in regard to the slum scheme being implemented, which is admittedly on CTS no.827 (pt). In the course of his submissions, Mr. Godbole has drawn our attention to the documents on record. The tenor of these submissions is as if respondent No.9 is setting up a title adverse to the petitioner in respect of CTS No.824 that too in this writ petition. We find this to be quite astonishing as respondent no.1 is asserting such rights for securing a DP Road for which the land in CTS No.824 is not acquired. Thus, beyond the slum rehabilitation scheme being undertaken on the subject CTS No.827, the land CTS No.824 has no relation to the slum rehabilitation scheme.
15. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General appearing for SRA has taken a balanced position. He has drawn our attention to the LOI to submit that the LOI as issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is only in respect CTS No.827 (pt) which is clear from the subject of the LOI which reads thus:
"Subject: LOI for proposed S.R. Scheme on plot bearing CTS No.827 (pt) of village Kanjur, Bhandup (E), Tal-Kurla, Mumbai - 400 042, under Reg. 33(10) of DCPR 2034, for Durgashtami SRA CHS (Prop)."
16. Dr. Saraf has also drawn our attention to Clauses 22 and 27 of the LOI in regard to the road requirement, which read thus:
Page 13 of 22
26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC "22. That you shall get D.P.Road / set back land demarcated from A.E. (Survey)/ D.P. T&C department of M.C.G.M. and handed over to M.C.G.M. free of cost and free of encumbrances by transferring the ownership in the name of M.C.G.M. duty developed as per Municipal specification and certificate to that effect shall be obtained and submitted before obtaining C.C. for the last 10% of sale built up area approved in the scheme. .........
27. That you shall develop existing road to the width of 9.00 mts. Before requesting further C.C. beyond 32.00 mtr. Of composite building."
17. Dr. Saraf is not contending that such conditions even in respect of the DP Road as set out in the LOI are per se conditions which can be imposed by the SRA in respect of the petitioner's land at CTS No.824. Our Analysis:-
18. On such conspectus, we have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have perused the record. We are of the clear opinion that the petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim reliefs. The following discussion would aid such conclusion.
19. Admittedly the petitioner in asserting legal rights in respect of CTS No.824, does not appear to be without basis. The City Civil Court also has observed that the petitioner is asserting possessory title in respect of the plot/ said land CTS No. 824. In this regard, the petitioner has made detail averments as to the nature of the rights the petitioner was exercising and enjoying in regard to the land in question, including of constructing a chawl which housed 22 tenants. Litigation was initiated by the tenants against the petitioner as also the petitioner filing city suit against the tenants. Such litigation can happen only between the Page 14 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC landlord and the tenants when the petitioner was exercising rights as a landlord, which would include the rights qua the land and structure as there is no party who is challenging these rights of the petitioner. Also there are proceedings initiated before the Maharashtra Slum Tribunal in respect of the land in question. Thus, petitioner's such rights being asserted by the petitioner and in the manner the same are being asserted, cannot be lightly brushed aside in the peculiar controversy as arisen in this petition.
20. Further the observations of the City Civil Court are not disturbed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in disposing of Appeal from Order No.889 of 2023 to which we have made a reference hereinabove. In the context of the order passed by the City Civil Court as also by the learned Single Judge, we may however observe that neither the order passed by the City Civil Court, nor the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, can be read to mean that the petitioner is not permitted to assert its possessory title over the property, namely, CTS No. 824 or such rights of the petitioner in any manner stand extinguished.
21. In any event, if at all the SRA-Slum Rehabilitation Authority was of the opinion that the 22 tenants of the chawl, who were on plot no. 824 on which the petitioner is asserting his rights, are to be included in the slum scheme being executed by the developer/respondent no. 9 on the land bearing CTS No. 827 (Pt.), in such event, it would be an implied recognition that CTS No. 824 to the extent of the area in occupation of these residents being ostensibly considered to be slum dwellers and such land to be a slum land, when benefit to these tenants Page 15 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC was being accorded in a slum redevelopment scheme, to such residents of CTS no. 824. However, this in the absence of any declaration of CTS No. 824 or any portion thereof to be a slum under the Slums Act. It also could not be that merely because a D.P. Road is passing through CTS No. 824 on which the structures of these 22 tenants were existing, the said land could be categorized as a slum. If this be the position, then in our prima facie opinion, such action of the SRA would be nothing short of treating CTS No. 824 as a "notified slum" and/or a slum rehabilitation area, in the absence of any such declaration in a manner known to law under the Slum Act. Even assuming that CTS No. 824 was to be declared as a slum and a redevelopment of the slum tenements if at all was to be permitted, the same would be required to be permitted recognizing peremptory rights of the owners of the said land in respect of which only the petitioner, in the absence of any other owner, is coming forward to claim ownership of the land CTS No. 824. The principles of law in this regard are well settled (see: Indian Cork Mills, as upheld by the Supreme Court in Tarabai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society vs. State of Maharashtra 1 and the decision of this Court in Bishop John Rodrigues vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. as upheld by the Supreme Court in Saldanha Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bishop John Rodrigues 2 (supra).
22. Another vital aspect of the matter is what is seen from the observations of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court (supra) that the petitioner was claiming possessory title on CTS No. 824 subject matter of the present proceedings. It is 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1795 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1794 Page 16 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC well settled that possession of any property/land is said to have nine points in law. In such context, what is of immense significance is that apart from the petitioner, no person has come forward to claim ownership of this land. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner asserting his rights on CTS No. 824 can ever have been overlooked by either the SRA or respondent no. 9. It is well settled that in the context of property law 'title' refers to the legal rights to own something, while 'ownership' is a state of legally possessing and controlling that property. There is no bar in law for a person to assert rights in respect of the land by claiming possessory title. In the context of definition of an "occupier" as defined under Section 2(e) of the Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the petitioner asserting possessory title cannot be rendered to be something which was irrelevant or of no consequence, and an appropriate recognition of such legal position is certainly required to be accorded. This more importantly when respondent no. 9/developer is not setting up any title or any other legal rights adverse to the petitioner in land CTS No. 824 Section 2(e) reads thus:
"(e) "occupier" includes,--
(i) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(ii) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his land or building;
(iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and
(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;"Page 17 of 22
26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC
23. The second most important aspect is that the land CTS no.824 on which the petitioner is asserting his rights, is in no manner whatsoever concerned, connected or part of the slum rehabilitation scheme being undertaken by respondent No.9 developer. The LOI which has been granted by the SRA to developer-respondent No9, is only in respect of CTS No.827 (pt). Thus, respondent No.9 in no manner whatsoever can assert rights on land CTS no.824 with which the petitioner is concerned. If this be the case, then qua such land the relevance remains only on the issue that the petitioner's land has a Development Plan (DP) Road and reservation. Merely for the reason that the structure having the tenants was located on CTS No. 824, this cannot ipso facto create any nexus with the said structure and the tenants, so as to consider that the petitioner's land would form part of the slum scheme of respondent no.9, for the reason of the tenants joining the scheme. This would certainly not extinguish and/or obliterate any legal rights of the petitioner on land CTS No. 824 and prima facie no rights of respondent No.9-developer in the land CTS no.824 can be recognised.
24. In fact, it is surprising that respondent No.9-developer is setting up a case against the petitioner in respect of CTS No.824, when respondent No.9- developer itself has taken a position by not disputing the LOI issued by the SRA in its favour as the LOI does not take in within its ambit either the land under CTS no.824 or the FSI pertaining to the entire land under CTS no.824.
25. Thus, respondent No.9, prima facie, has no locus whatsoever to assail any position being taken by the petitioner in respect of the land CTS No.824. However, prima facie, it appears to be that the motive of respondent No.9 - Page 18 of 22
26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC developer is sinister as respondent No.9 by a back-door method is trying to subvert and breach the petitioner's right in respect of CTS No.824. This also for the reason that as a DP road is passing through the petitioner's land, which is beneficial to the SRA scheme being developed by respondent no.9. It is for such reason it prima facie appears that respondent No.9-developer has high-handedly taken an action to put up tin sheets, at the same time, denying that respondent No.9-developer has not demolished the petitioner's structure when there is no other beneficiary, who can be held to be responsible for such illegal removal of the structures, by accommodating the occupants of the said structures in the SRA scheme being developed by respondent no.9. Although such action on the part of respondent No.9 is being denied, we do not find that such denial can, prima facie, be accepted. It prima facie appears to be some mischief also being played by the SRA officials. In our opinion, in collusion with respondent No.9, the SRA officials in some manner have tried to accommodate the tenants on the petitioner's land in the SRA scheme, so as to create some nexus of the petitioner's land (CTS No.824) with the SRA scheme. Considering these facts, prima facie this would be wholly impermissible, as such position could never have been taken by the SRA, when an incorporation of such condition is noted by this Court in the order dated 3 July 2025. In our prima facie opinion, this is a clear case where valuable rights of property of the petitioner, which are sought to be threatened by respondent No.9-developer in collusion with the SRA officials, needs to be protected. The petitioner cannot suffer an irreparable prejudice and injury and/or fait accompli at this interim stage. Respondent No.9-developer in Page 19 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC no manner can avail of any benefit including the proposed DP road from CTS no.824 so as to benefit its project CTS no.827 as per the LOI.
26. If the DP road is to be developed, the land would be required to be acquired by the planning authority in accordance with law, by following the lawful procedure under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP Act) read with the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Any deprivation of the land in the absence of such lawful procedure being followed, would be ex facie illegal and invalid. It also cannot be permitted that in a high-handed manner the petitioner is deprived of the legal rights being asserted on land CTS No. 824. We may also observe that if respondent No.9-developer is asserting or setting up any rights contrary to the possessory rights being asserted by the petitioner at CTS No.824, which in fact are not being asserted and if respondent No.9-developer has any material to that effect, it is for respondent No.9-developer, to file appropriate proceedings and seek declaration that respondent no.9-developer has legal right in respect of the land under CTS no.824 and not otherwise. Respondent No.9 cannot take a position that it would use the machinery of SRA and breach the rights including possessory rights of the petitioner.
27. The SRA appears to have fully cooperated in the design of respondent no.9-developer to permit inclusion and in our prima facie opinion and without authority in law to include the 22 tenants of the chawl constructed on CTS No. 824 so as to bring about an ostensible situation that CTS No.824 is part of the slum scheme. This has also tacitly aided the unlawful design of respondent no.9- Page 20 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC developer to enable the Municipal Corporation to pursuade that as these 22 tenants are accommodated, it can utilize the land CTS No. 824 for development of the D.P. road without acquisition, so that such road is available for the commercial utility of the larger construction scheme of respondent no.9- developer.
28. We may also refer to the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Saldanha Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bishop John Rodrigues (supra) in which in regard to expectation from the slum rehabilitation authority qua their public duties, the following significant observations are made:-
"49. Throughout "this case, the SRA and its CEO appear to have abandoned their public duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the rights of the landowner. On the contrary, the facts reveal a prejudiced attempt by the SRA to undermine legislative and judicial efforts and hand over the Subject Land and the benefits of its rehabilitation to Saldanha. Such actions of a public authority, marred by collusion and connivance and motivated by extraneous profit interests of private builders, are highly depreciable and underline the possibility of bureaucratic misuse of statutory provisions.
50. The facts of the instant case compel us to infer that Saldanha's overreaching influence went beyond the slum- dwellers' proposed society. In its attempt to take over the Subject Land, the developer appears to have gotten the typically slow- moving bureaucratic wheels of the SRA to run at full speed. Moreover, Saldanha was able to achieve this manoeuvre at a time when the entire country was under lockdown and the machinery of governance was overwhelmed by the unprecedented challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
...............
51. These circumstances underpin the need for practical and actionable safeguards in a legal system involving competing interests among private parties. The Slums Act, while providing wholesome protection to slum dwellers and their homes and livelihood, does not give such express protection to the interests of the owner of the land. The ensuing vacuum, as we have seen in these appeals, allows opportunistic developers to swoop in, exploit the circumstances of the poor slum dwellers, manipulate Page 21 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 ::: WP-1295-RESERVED.DOC the hand-in-glove authorities, and enrich themselves off the helpless owner's land."
29. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the clear opinion that a strong prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner for grant of interim reliefs. We accordingly pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Rule.
(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, ad-interim orders passed by this Court in terms of prayer clause (i) shall continue to operate.
(iii) Respondents are restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of CTS No.824 by the petitioner.
(iv) Respondent No.9 is also directed to remove tin sheets which have been put up, if not already removed.
(v) Petitioner is permitted to fence the land CTS no.824 which be recorded and notified to the parties with appropriate photographs.
(vi) In the event, the planning authority intends to acquire area of the land under CTS No.824 for DP road, the procedure as per law needs to be followed. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
(vii) Let the pleadings on the petition be completed within 8 weeks from today.
(viii) List the petition for final hearing after 8 weeks.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 22 of 22 26 September 2025 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2025 02:46:24 :::