Bombay High Court
Shrikant Sukhdev Khupte And Ors. vs The Chief Executive Officer, Slum ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
4.LPA43_2018.DOC
2026:BHC-AS:6529-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4806 OF 2010
Shrikant Sukhdev Khupte & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, Pune & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2009
Bapu Shankar Gaikwad & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade with Mr. Anupkumar Prajapati for the petitioner.
Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil for respondent no. 4-PCNTDA.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. G.H. Keluskar for respondent no. 3.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 30 JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals challenge a common order dated 23 October, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 849 of 2009 (Bapu Shankar Gaikwad & Ors. vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Pune & Ors.) and in Writ Petition No. 4806 of 2010 (Shrikant Sukhdev Khupte & Ors. vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Page 1 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Pune & Ors.). In these Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged the order dated 3 June, 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Special Tribunal, Mumbai (for short "the Slums Tribunal") in Appeal Nos. 6 of 2008 and 12 of 2008.
2. The case of the appellants/petitioners is that they had preferred appeals before the Slums Tribunal challenging the order dated 2 November, 2007 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Pune & Pimpri Chinchwad Area, Pune (for short "SRA") under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, "the Slums Act"). They also assailed the Notification dated 8 November, 2007, published in the Official Gazette under Section 3 of the Slum Act, declaring the area comprised in Sector 22, Nigade admeasuring 3,37,742.80 sq. mtrs. as a slum rehabilitation area.
3. The primary contention of the petitioners before the Slum Tribunal was that prior to the year 1988, there were various slums, namely, Raj Nagar, Indira Nagar, Sanjay Nagar, Budh Nagar, Vilas Nagar and Milind Nagar in the jurisdiction of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (for short "PCMC") and in different sectors. The appellants/petitioners contended that they were residents rehabilitated under a slum rehabilitation scheme formulated vide letter dated 13 April, 1988, pursuant to which certain "otas" in Sector 22 of Nigdi (the land in question) were declared as slums and structures with tin sheets, angles were constructed thereon with financial assistance granted for erecting such Page 2 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC structures. It was further contended that some of the petitioners were rehabilitated by allotment of "galas" and were permitted to construct structures under the approved scheme of the local authority and pursuant to which, construction was carried out. According to the petitioners, all of them who have availed benefits of the otas and gala scheme, approached the Tribunal challenging the declaration of area as a slum, on a contention, these are areas earmarked for rehabilitation and accordingly they had been permanently rehabilitated. It was also contended that the area was already developed and had all basic amenities and facilities, and therefore, there was no question of redeclaring the area as a slum under Section 3 and 3C(1) of the Slums Act. Consequently, the appellants/petitioners prayed for quashing and setting aside the notification qua the area occupied by them.
4. From the record, it is evident that the Tribunal, after considering the contentions raised by the appellants/petitioners, passed a detailed order and, on the basis of material on record, including the report of the Medical Officer of PCMC, arrived at the conclusion that the area had become unhygienic and posed a danger to the health, safety and convenience of a large number of people. The Tribunal observed that the petitioners were concerned with only a small portion of the land, whereas there were thousands of structures constituting slums, and accordingly, a larger area was declared as slums. The relevant observations of the Tribunal in that regard are required to be noted, which read thus:
"26. The report of the Health Medical Officer of the PCMC dated 18-9- 2007 on page no.182 of the record addressed to the Competent Authority, PCMC depicts the conditions in sector 22. As per the said report there are 3468 two storied houses, 1502 Otas distributed by the PCMC, colony of Page 3 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC Municipal Sanitary workers consisting of 5676 Galas and colony of 256 Galas. That, all the premises are old and the area is dangerous from hygienic point of view. That, the provision of electricity and water are not adequate. It further states that on the whole sector 22 is unhygienic and filthy area which was become dangerous for the health, safety and convenience of the people residing in the said area and its infection to the city area is likely to prove harmful and therefore the said area of sector 22 being unhealthy or unhygienic it is requested that the same be declared as slum like.
27. The record further shows that taking into consideration inter-alia the above report of the health medical officer, the Competent Authority, PCMC has issued a certificate dated 26th October 2007 which is on page 189 of the record stating that the said area of sector 22 admeasuring 40 hectares should be declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area. Eventually, on 2nd November 2007 the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Pune Pimpri Chinchwad Area issued the order dated 2nd November 2007 declaring the said Rehabilitation Area which has been impugned in these appeals. The course of events seen above does not render credibility to the allegations of the Petitioners / Gala Holders that there was no application of mind in issuing the impugned order and that the same was issued with ulterior motives. It is important to note that it was emphatically asserted on behalf of the Respondents that in the proposed rehabilitation scheme no private developer is being given any participation or incentive FSI but the same is being done entirely with the funds and within the framework of the JNNRUM Scheme.
28. The record also discloses on page no.188 that under the proposed slum rehabilitation scheme in the land bearing sector No.22 in PCNTDA area it is noted that, with a basic need of habitable house, as per planning norms and as per the provision in the prevailing regulations, minimum 25 square meters built up area tenements is recommended to be provided to the beneficiaries".
...
33. Thus, the declaration of an area as slum Rehabilitation Area on a plain reading of the provision of the Act can be validly made when there is subjective satisfaction on the part of the Chief Executive Officer of SRA that the conditions exist in respect of such area warranting such declaration. Another argument advanced on behalf of the declared as a slum under section 4() of the act, it can be declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under section 3C(1) of the act or that only if the conditions contemplated under section 4(1) of the act are existing the declaration thereof under section 3C(1) can be made. However, this argument is not tenable and correct in view of the express scheme of the fact that there is a clear distinction in respect of the powers, conditions, situations and parameters requisite for operation of the provisions of section 4(1) and section 3(1) of the act. This position is endorsed by the observations of the Hon'ble High Court made in the order of the Division Bench dated 27th April 2001 in Writ Petition No. 2891 of 1999, in the case of Gokul Sahadev Rangnekar & Ors. V/s the state of Maharashtra & ors, which is reproduced below:
"The provision relating to power of issuing declaration of any areas as slum Rehabilitation Area are contained in section 3C sub section (1) of the section 3C provides that after publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme, Page 4 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC Competent Authority may as early as possible declare an area as Slum Rehabilitation Area, by an order to be published in the Official Gazette if it is satisfied that the circumstances exist for such a declaration. The regarding declaration of Slum Rehabilitation Area shall be given wide publicity as specified by the state Government. Under Sub-section (2) it is provided that any person aggrieved by the slum rehabilitation order may appeal to the Special Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the publication of such order and the decision of the Special Tribunal shall be final. Section 3D then deals with the application of the provision of the said act to the Slum Rehabilitation Area with certain modifications and section 3E puts restrictions against transfer of tenements allotted under the said scheme for a period of 10 years.
The state Government has issued draft Notification dated 16-12- 1995 constituting Slum Rehabilitation Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3A of the said Act and the final Notification was issued on 15-1-1998. clause (3) of the said notification lays down the parameters for declaring any area as Slum Rehabilitation Area and the official translation of the same reads as under:
"Criteria for Slum Rehabilitation Area"
Following area shall be treated as "slum rehabilitation area:
1) The area shall be treated as "Slum Rehabilitation Area "only after minimum 70 percent eligible slum dwellers from out of total eligible slum dwellers in the area censused in the year of 1996 or declared and notified under the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Removal and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971 therefore, come together and consent to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and only after the said scheme is sanctioned.
2) If some part of any slum or footpath is declared as "Slum Rehabilitation Area" by the Authority then the said area shall be treated as "Slum Rehabilitation Area".
3) If any area is eligible to be declared as Slum area under Section 4 of the Maharashtra slum (Improvement, Removal and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the said area or if any other area necessary for implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme is declared as "Slum Rehabilitation Area" by the Authority then such area shall be treated as "Slum Rehabilitation Area".
4) If any scheme proposed for the construction of transit Camps of either temporary of sanctioned by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, then the permanent nature, is said area shall be treated as "Slum Rehabilitation Area".
5) If any scheme sanctioned for shifting any slum to some open plot of land from some other land required for public purpose then the said open plot of land shall be treated as Slum Rehabilitation Area".
6) For proper implementation of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme if some of the surrounding area is required to be included in the said area can be declared Rehabilitation Area". as "Slum Area".Page 5 of 14
30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC In view of the provision as amended chapter 1A and the notification issued by the State Government dated 15-1-2008, it is clearly seen that in order to attract the provisions of Chapter 1A, declaration of the area as a slum area under section 4(1) is not a condition precedent. Chapter 1A contains a complete scheme for rehabilitation of the slum area and it provides for machinery for hearing of the objection and suggestions and further provides for appeal to the Special Tribunal against the order of the slum rehabilitation Authority. Therefore, the argument that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority could not have applied Slum Rehabilitation scheme without declaration under section 4(1) must be rejected."
The said argument therefore deserves to be rejected, and there is no requirement of the Act that only in respect of the areas declared under section 4(1) as slum can the declaration under section 3C (1) of the Act as Slum Rehabilitation Area can be issued. Though the areas declared under section 4(1) of the Act can be and are always fit to be declared as Slum Rehabilitation Area under section 3C(1), the converse is not true, if the provisions of the Act are plainly construed.
40. From the foregoing discussion it would follow that if under the JNNRUM improvement and betterment of slum areas is inter alia incorporated, then the area declared as slum Rehabilitation Area cannot be kept out of its purview. In my opinion, the objection of the Petitioners/Gala Holders for applying JNNRUM scheme to the property in question is unjustifiable, unconceivable and unacceptable. Further, as disclosed from the submissions of the Petitioners/Gala Holders and papers produced on record, the JNNRUM scheme is proposed to be made applicable to sector 22 of Mouje Nigadi not only to the Petitioners / Gala Holders or to the residents of Otas and Galas but also for the rehabilitation of other slum dwellers within the PCMC area which are on ecologically dangerous locations and for the slum which are existing on lands earmarked as Hill tops, slopes, green belts, river beds, water bodies, no development zones in DP, open spaces in sanctioned lay outs wherein the residential land use and development is otherwise not possible and slum areas where in situ rehabilitation is not envisages the rehabilitation of the sanitary workers (safai Kamgars) and class four employees of the PCMC who reside in building which have become dangerous for human habitation. On this backdrop there is no valid reason for objecting to the application of JNNRUM scheme for the purpose of Slum Rehabilitation scheme to the said area declared as slum Rehabilitation Area for the purpose of its rehabilitation."
5. The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal was assailed in the Writ Petitions, which came to be adjudicated by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge, considering the contentions as urged by the appellant/petitioner, which were not different from what was urged before the Slums Tribunal, observed that even if the larger area, including the area Page 6 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC occupied by the petitioners' structure, was declared as a slum, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants/petitioners. Reference was also made to the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge wherein the authorities have taken a position that the appellants/petitioners would be relocated to a different area, as objections have been raised by defence establishments in the vicinity of this area. It appears that due to such objections from the defence authorities, there was an embargo on the redevelopment of the slums, which otherwise would have taken place. The contentions urged before the learned Single Judge are recorded in paragraphs 12 to 19 of the order, which read thus:
"12. According to Mr.Thokade, this does not take care of the apprehension that the construction has been halted by the Defence Authority. Mr.More, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, on taking instructions, makes a statement that the Writ Petition before the Division Bench is scheduled on 23.11.2012. The authorities will place all material before the Division Bench and are trying their best to resolve the issue with the Defence Authorities. They are hopeful of getting clearance and permission and steps would be taken to complete the construction after receipt of permission and clearance and within a period of two years from the date of receipt of such clearance. In the event clearance and permission cannot be obtained, the authorities will ensure that the Petitioners are not rendered homeless or even if they are shifted from the existing structures, provisions for their housing will be made within the vicinity and in the plots or lands belonging to the Corporation. Equally, such plots or lands which come to the share of the Corporation under any Scheme will also be utilized for the purpose of housing the Petitioners and such others whose tenements could not be constructed at the present site on account of restriction by the Defence Authorities.
13. To my mind, once such assurances are given to the Court and they are accepted as undertakings given to this Court, then, the Petitioners need not have any apprehension and particularly that they would be rendered homeless. While the Court appreciates their anxiety that having been relocated at the present site after being termed as slum dwellers, they will be shifted from the present site again. I am sure that the Authorities do not expect the Petitioners to reside within the Municipal limits in such a state that they are treated as nomads and those who have no permanent abodes. They should not be left at the mercy, either of the authorities or developers for their shelters. Once the State has taken a decision to displace the Petitioners and others from the present location and rehabilitate them in proper accommodation, then, that obligation of the State and its officials cannot be said to be, in any manner, complied with by such intermittent shifting of slum dwellers. The Authorities cannot avoid to fulfill their duty and obligation by urging that the land is not available and if the land is Page 7 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC available the construction thereon is not permitted on account of some restriction. The authorities cannot make halfhearted measures and ought to be vigilant in such matters. In these circumstances, but finding that the scheme is at advanced stage of implementation, very few like the Petitioners have questioned it, about 27 buildings having been constructed and provision for housing a large number of people is made, that this is not a fit case for interference in my discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and more so when the order under challenge does not suffer from perversity nor is vitiated by any error apparent on the face of record. Ultimately, in matters such as declaration of a particular area as slum and taking remedial measures so as to remove sufferings of those who are living in unhygienic state, the decision should be best left to the experts in the field. Once they determine that people are not living in proper conditions, then, it is not for this Court to substitute its views with that of the authorities. The authorities incharge of such projects have taken steps and considerable expenses have been incurred by utilizing public funds. In these circumstances all the more this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction and as rightly urged by Mr.Dhakephalkar. the clock cannot be set back at this belated stage.
14. The argument of Mr.Thokade that the Slum Act envisages that upon declaration of a particular area as slum and making a scheme for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, those residing and occupying the structures should be given an opportunity to develop the property, is concerned, that is clearly misplaced. Once the property has been declared as slum which declaration is under challenge in this case and which declaration and decision is not vitiated by any error apparent on the face of record or perversity, then, what measures have to be taken so as to avoid any area being source of danger to health, safety, convenience of public of that area or neighborhood, is a matter which is to be resolved by the authorities framing and implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. In this case the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, which notifies a scheme in terms of the guidelines, has to take into account the matters which are enlisted in Section 3B(4) of the Slum Act. One such matter is that the scheme for development of the slum rehabilitation areas under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by the landholders and occupants by themselves or through a developer and the terms and conditions of such development and the option available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for taking up such development in the event of non-participation of the landholders or occupants. That is but one of the matter which shall be provided in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. There are parameters for declaration of an area as slum rehabilitation area. Once these parameters are satisfied and rehabilitation of the slum dwellers or occupants is equally a matter of concern, then, the scheme notified under Section 3B(3) of the Slum Act has to take into account all relevant matters. However, the argument that it is only occupants who can by themselves or through a developer develop the property is concerned, that appears to be not as a matter of right and flowing from the Scheme itself. In individual schemes and which have to be notified, the object and purpose of the Slum Act and particularly to improve, clear and redevelop the areas is to be achieved. Any decision which is to be taken is with reference to the areas and the rehabilitation scheme that is proposed. The manner in which it is to be done, the matters or any of them which are enlisted in Section 3B(4) of the Slum Act, must be provided for is significant. However, from that alone it cannot be concluded that the occupants have to be given a precedence or preference Page 8 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC for developing or redeveloping the property. In this case the property belongs to the Corporation. It is the Corporation in association with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority which is going to take care of the interest of the occupants on its own lands and properties. If they propose a scheme for redevelopment and that too from the Government grants and particularly under the Central Government scheme, then, merely because some of the Petitioners desire that they should be given an opportunity to develop the property by themselves and that opportunity being not granted, does not mean that the mandate of the provisions in question has been violated. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this contention either.
15. In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petitions fail and they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
16. At this stage, Mr.Thokade prays that the ad-interim order passed on these Writ Petitions be continued so as to enable the Petitioners to challenge this order in a higher court or to take appropriate measures. In this behalf, my attention has been invited to the order passed by this Court on these Writ Petitions on 09.12.2010. That order protects the Petitioners from dispossession till the hearing of these petitions.
17. This request is opposed by Mr.More.
18. Bearing in mind that the Petitioners are residing in the structures for considerable length of time and the contesting Respondents have to obtain certain clearances and permissions, interest of justice would be served if this ad-interim order is continued for a period of eight weeks from today, but without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties.
19. The Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs."
6. On the aforesaid premise, the present Letters Patent Appeals came to be filed. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 26 June, 2013, admitted the appeals and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The said status quo order has continued to operate till date.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is quite evident that a considerable period of time has elapsed since the land in question, which admittedly belongs to the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, was declared a slum rehabilitation area. However, it appears that circumstances have undergone a change, namely, that insofar as the land occupied by the otas and Page 9 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC galas on which the appellants/petitioners are asserting rights, there does not appear to be any slum rehabilitation scheme presently under contemplation. This is clearly borne out from the affidavit dated 14 January, 2026 filed on behalf of the SRA by Shri Hrishikesh Vijay Ghate, Assistant Director, Town Planning, SRA, Pune and PCMC. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are required to be noted, which reads thus:
"3. I say that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has been established under the provisions of Slum Act to achieve the aims and objectives of the Slum Act. I say that the aim and object for establishing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for the limits of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Corporation areas is mainly to eradicate the slum as situated within the city limits of the two local bodies. I say that present authority has been established in the year 2005 more particularly with effect from 30th June 2005. I say that the Respondent No.1 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Pune (hereinafter referred to 'Respondent Authority'). The said Authority is established u/s 3A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Slum Act").
4. I say that as Per Notification Dated 11th March 2013 The Maharashtra High Court (hearing of Writ Petition by Division Bench and abolition of Letters Patent Appeal) (amendment) Act 2008 (27 of 2008) came into effect with effect from 18th March 2013. The Present Appeal is therefore not maintainable and same may be dismissed on this ground.
5. I say that in Year 2007 Respondent No. 3 have undertaken redevelopment of JNNURM Project, The Proposal was moved by respondent No. 3 to Respondent No.2 for declaring the entire area of sector 22 of Vilage, Nigdi as Slum admeasuring 3,37,742.80 sq. Rehabilitation Area Accordingly Slum Rehabilitation order has been passed on dated 02/11/2007 this respondent declared sector 22 Of Village Nigdi as Slum Rehabilitation Area. As per the said project in all 147 buildings were proposed to be constructed consisting 11760 tenements Out of these 43 buildings were completed and 2720 tenements were allotted to beneficiaries.
6. I say that Meanwhile one Smt. Seema Savale Filed Petition No. 1806/2011 against Respondent No. 3 for not obtaining environment clearance. Hon'ble High Court by order dated 19/03/2012 and order dated 12/04/2012 has passed order directing Respondent No.3 not to carry construction till further order Similarly the Defence Authority has informed that area is under Red Zone and therefore by letter dated 28/09/2012 the Defense Authority had instructed Respondent No. 4 to stop the work under JNNURM Project hence project remain incomplete. Hereto annexed and Marked as Exhibit "A" is copy of Closure Proposal approved by Respondent No. 3. I say that the Respondent No.3 decided to close the project considering various difficulties vide an Approval of Commissioner dated 07/02/2014.Page 10 of 14
30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC
7. I say that some of the Slum - Dwellers of Anna Bhau Sathe Nagar of Sector 22 Nigdi filed Appeal before Slum Tribunal thereby challenging order passed U/s 3 (c) of the slum Act dated 02/11/2007. The Slum Tribunal Bandra dismissed those appeals on the ground that the area is dangerous from hygiene point of view and provisions of electricity and water are not adequate. The tribunal further held that when people living in unhygienic condition and uninhabitable state are being accommodated under JNNURM Mission, therefore appeals cannot be entertained. Those order were challenged by Writ Petition No. 849 of 2009.
The Respondent no 3.Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal corporation in reply affidavit to writ Petition has stated that-
"I say that the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation has undertaken the rehabilitation programme of Sec. No. 22. Nigdi Pradhikaran under Central Government's programme known as JNNURM scheme. The Corporation has proposed to construct under 147 buildings accommodating 11760 tenements under this scheme, which is funded by Central Government, State Government, Local Self Government and beneficiary's contribution. I say that the said Scheme is approved by the State Government and by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad and same being implemented by Corporation being a planning authority for the said area.
I Submit that this is one of the biggest insitu rehabilitation project undertaken by local self-government for rehabilitation of various families staying in unhygienic and unhealthy atmosphere which is dangerous for human habitation, families staying near railway tracks and affected by floods etc. which also includes the area wherein the structures of the petitioners are located, which are unfit for human inhabitation. The said project is the biggest rehabilitation project in the country under JNNURM Scheme spread over 100 acers of land for 11760 beneficiaries in sector 22. I say that this being dynamic project all those eligible beneficiaries up to year 1.1.2000, who fulfill the necessary criteria for rehabilitation under the said program/scheme and the formalities for same, are being considered for allotment in the new buildings. I say that the said allotments will be made by transparent public draw system and thereafter all beneficiaries will be shifted to their flats in newly constructed buildings, and old structures will be demolished. I say that the phase wise development work will be carries out on such site as made available Hon'ble Bombay High Court by order dated 23/10/2012 rejected writ petition.
8. I say that His Lordship Mr. Justice S.C Dharmadhikari while dismissing writ Petition Observed that "In this case the property belongs to the Corporation. It is the Corporation in association with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority which is going to take care of the interest of the occupants on its own lands and properties. If they propose a scheme for redevelopment and that too from Government Scheme, then, merely because some of the Petitioner desire that they should be given an opportunity to develop the property by themselves and that opportunity being not granted, does not mean that the mandate of provisions in question has been violated. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this contention either ".
9. I say that the judgement of Bombay High Court was challenged by LPA 108/2013. It is learned that LPA was admitted on 26/06/2013 with order of Page 11 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC Status Quo made returnable on 14/08/2013. I say that the LPA 108/2013 till date remains pending as respondent corporation did not inform that the scheme which was under challenge was closed as per approval dated 07/02/2014. I say that since Respondent No. 3 has closed the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under JNNURM project the Cause of Action for LPA 108/2013 also does not survive. I say that the JNNURM scheme was based on in-situ rehabilitation and therefore Rehabilitation was to be implemented on the same land or surrounding area. The basic difficulties faced while implementation of the project was the Red Zone and proximity to defense area.
10. I say that it is therefore submitted that Present Letters Patent Appeal may be rejected with cost and necessary order may be passed in the interest of Justice.
11. I say that whatsoever stated hereinabove is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and I believe the same to be true and correct. I say that the above stated facts can be borne out from the records maintained in my office which I believe to be true and correct."
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is thus clear that from the contents of paragraph 9 (supra) that there is no slum rehabilitation scheme in contemplation, which would also mean that the structures of the petitioners would now not be the subject matter of any redevelopment under any scheme.
9. Mr. Keluskar, learned counsel for PCMC also would not dispute what has been set out in paragraph 9. It appears that the embargo on redevelopment continues on account of the proximity of defence establishments.
10. Be that as it may, as contended by Mr. Thokade, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners, the appellants/petitioners are asserting ownership rights in respect of their respective structures. According to him, under valid agreements, which are not disputed by the Corporation, otas/galas were allotted to the petitioners, on which structures have existed for several years. It is submitted that once such ownership rights are established, the petitioners would have a Page 12 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC peremptory right to undertake redevelopment in the event any redevelopment is contemplated under the slum notification .
11. We find substance in the contentions as urged by Mr. Thokade. If petitioners are asserting ownership rights, which of course would be subject matter of consideration by the SRA, as and when a slum scheme is contemplated or being undertaken in respect of the area with which the petitioners are concerned, such issues would be required to be gone into, and if the petitioners are able to establish ownership rights in law, then following the well settled principles of law as laid down by this Court in Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra1 as also Bishop John Rodrigues vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary and Ors.2 and as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Tarabai Nagar Co-Op. Hog. Society (Proposed) vs. The State of Maharashtra3 and Saldhana Real Estate Limited vs. Bishop John Rodrigues4, the petitioners would be entitled to assert their peremptory legal rights to undertake redevelopment of this area. However, we do not intend to delve on these issues, as it would be premature inasmuch as today, as pointed out on behalf of SRA in its affidavit (supra), there is no slum rehabilitation scheme and therefore as noted herein above as and when the redevelopment scheme is notified for the area in question, the petitioners would be entitled to assert all rights which are available to them as on date.
1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1214 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632 3 2025 SCC Online SC 1795 4 2025 SCC Online SC 1794 Page 13 of 14 30 January 2026
4.LPA43_2018.DOC
12. In view of the aforesaid observations, we are not inclined to interfere with the declaration of the land as a slum rehabilitation area under the impugned notification. We do not find that any grounds are made out so as to interfere in the declaration of the area as slum rehabilitation area/slum area and as adjudicated by the Slum Tribunal and confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
13. However, as observed above, we have kept open all rights and contentions of the appellants/petitioners in respect of redevelopment of land as a slum rehabilitation area or as a slum, and in the event the same is resorted in a manner known to law. The orders of status quo are also rendered inconsequential inasmuch as there is no scheme in contemplation. It is clarified that in the event PCMC or any other authority intends to disturb the rights of the petitioners in respect of the structure which they are occupying, a minimum 30 days notice shall be issued to each of the appellant/petitioner or persons who are in occupation of such structures, so that if aggrieved, they can take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be available in law. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
14. Both the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 14 of 14
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 30 January 2026
Date: 09/02/2026 15:24:24