Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor, has directed that the Commencement Certificate be issued for a slum rehabilitation project and ordered the concerned authorities to finalize Annexure II within a fixed time frame. The Bench further restrained statutory authorities from entertaining complaints or interference from rival developers or political representatives in the project. The Court recorded that statutory authorities had not discharged their duties in accordance with law and consequently mandated expeditious implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme.

The petitions concerned redevelopment of land situated at Vile Parle, Mumbai, under a slum rehabilitation scheme. In November 2020, a developer was appointed by a society of slum dwellers for redevelopment of Final Plot No. 187 under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The proposal was submitted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in December 2020. Annexure II, containing names of eligible slum dwellers, was verified by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in January 2021.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Order XXI Rule 102 CPC Bar Not Applicable Where Suit Property Purchased From Third Party and Not Judgment-Debtor

On 25 February 2021, the SRA accepted the proposal on the condition that the developer would also rehabilitate slum dwellers from the adjoining Dayaldas Road (DP Road Plot). Draft Annexure II of the Project Affected Persons (PAPs) was verified and published by MCGM in May 2021. Subsequently, in April 2022, the Assistant Commissioner of K/East Ward issued a no objection certificate (NOC) to the developer with the same condition of accommodating the PAPs. An LOI dated 4 May 2022 and an Intimation of Approval (IOA) dated 10 May 2022 were issued.

Objections were raised by certain non-cooperating slum dwellers before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). By its order of 28 July 2022, the AGRC quashed the LOI. Both the developer and the society challenged this order before the High Court. By a common order dated 2 April 2024, the High Court set aside the AGRC decision and reinstated the LOI and IOA. This order was further upheld by the Supreme Court on 13 May 2024, upon dismissal of Special Leave Petitions.

Following this, the developer requested cooperation from slum dwellers. However, dissenting members refused to vacate, leading to a Stop Work Notice issued on 21 June 2024 by the SRA. The developer subsequently complied with requirements, including depositing advance rent and submitting phased plans. On 21 November 2024, the SRA issued a revised IOA. The developer then applied for the Commencement Certificate (CC). Despite compliance, the CC was not issued, with the SRA citing non-submission of additional NOCs. A supplementary Annexure II for the DP Road PAPs was published on 7 January 2025, listing 66 PAPs.

Meanwhile, eviction orders were passed against non-cooperating slum dwellers in February 2025, upheld by AGRC in May 2025. However, no steps were taken to execute the eviction order. On 13 May 2025, a complaint was filed by a local MLA before the Minister of State, who on 14 May 2025 issued a notice for consideration of cancellation of the LOI. The Advocate General later clarified that no binding decision was taken in this regard.

Despite these clarifications, on 31 July 2025, the SRA called upon the developer to submit a fresh acceptance proposal for the DP Road Plot. The developer challenged this, contending that the DP Road Plot was already included by precondition and upheld by earlier judgments. Petitioners argued that repeated interference was obstructing the scheme’s implementation.

Respondents denied acting under external pressure. The SRA submitted that the July 2025 letter was in response to the developer’s application for amalgamation of plots. The MCGM stated that an NOC had already been issued on 22 April 2025, and finalisation of Annexure II was underway. Intervenors contended they were wrongfully excluded from rehabilitation and classified as PAPs, contrary to the developer’s undertaking before the Supreme Court.

The Court observed: “It is an upsetting day for the High Court when we find it necessary to remind statutory authorities, including the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (‘AGRC’). If the Slum Act is a welfare legislation, the welfare is not that of builders.” The Bench recorded that authorities often overlooked the objectives of the Slum Act, acting instead in the interests of rival developers.

The Bench noted: “There is and can be no dispute that the Petitioner’s initial proposal regarding the redevelopment of the Original Plot had been accepted by the Respondent Authorities and that the Petitioner had been granted a valid and subsisting LOI and IOA in respect thereof. The grant of the said LOI and IOA… has been expressly upheld by the Order of this Court dated 2nd April 2024 and also confirmed by the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13th May 2024.”

Further, the Court observed: “There is and also can be no dispute that the DP Road Plot has been included in the said scheme pursuant to the precondition imposed by Respondent No. 2 itself while accepting the Petitioner’s proposal vide administrative order dated 25th February 2021, as is evident from the revised IOA issued by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner.”

The Court stated that the issuance of the 31 July 2025 letter requiring fresh compliance with Circular No. 144 was unjustified. “We say so because Respondent No. 2 has issued the letter dated 31st July 2025, requiring the Petitioner to submit a fresh proposal for the DP Road Plot… despite the fact that (i) the DP Road Plot was already included… and (ii) this Court, in the Order dated 2nd April 2024, has expressly held that the Petitioner has already complied with the provisions of Circular No. 144.”

The Bench also recorded: “It would indeed reflect a most sorry state of affairs when any statutory authority abdicates its statutory duties on account of any extraneous or extrajudicial intervention and conducts itself in a manner which is contrary to the very Statute under which such Statutory Authority is required to discharge its duties.”

As regards intervenors, the Court noted: “We are prima facie of the view that the Applicants are attempting to raise issues that have already adjudicated upon by this Court vide its Order dated 2nd April 2024 and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 13th May 2024.”

The Court disposed of the petition with multiple directions. It held that in light of the Advocate General’s statement, prayers regarding quashing of the notice issued by the Minister had become infructuous. The Court recorded that the NOC issued by the Estate Department on 22 April 2025 rendered related reliefs infructuous.

It directed: “We direct Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to complete the finalisation of the Annexure II’s within a period of 6 weeks from the date on which a copy of this Order is placed before them.” The Bench also mandated: “Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue the Commencement Certificate to the Petitioner in respect of the rehabilitation component of the Petitioner’s scheme.”

Additionally, the Court ordered: “The Respondents are directed to take all necessary steps, including executing eviction orders, for the smooth implementation of the Petitioner’s slum rehabilitation scheme.” It further restrained interference: “Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are hereby restrained from entertaining any complaints and/or interference from Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 insofar as they pertain to the present slum scheme.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of Section 193(9) BNSS, 2023 | Further Investigation Power Not Arbitrary | Right to Default Bail Under Section 187(3) Held Distinct

The court stated that Since Writ Petition (L) No. 18923 of 2025 has been disposed of in the aforesaid terms, nothing further survives for adjudication in Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025. Accordingly, Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025 also stands disposed of.

For the reasons recorded in paragraph 36(G), and having regard to the directions contained in paragraphs 37 and 38 above, we reject Interim Application (L) No. 24090 of 2025 in Writ Petition (L) No. 18923 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No. 24087 of 2025 in Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025. However, all rights and contentions of the Applicants are expressly kept open, to be pursued in such proceedings as they may adopt in respect of the grievances raised in the said Interim Applications.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Mr. Rishi Nirav Bhatt; Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Makarand M. Kale i/b Yogesh S. Sankpal.

For the Respondents: Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal i/b R S Justicia Law Chambers for SRA; Ms. Lavina Kriplani, AGP for State; Mr. Vikrant Parashurami, AGP for State; Mr. Makarand M. Kale i/b Yogesh S. Sankpal; Mr. Rishi Nirav Bhatt; Mr. Firoz Bharuch i/b M/s. Pandya & Poonawala Ms. Farida Poonawala Tata; Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Payal Vardhan; Ms. Reena Salunke a/w Ms. Rupali Adhate i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for BMC.

Case Title: Shree Gurukrupa SRA Co-op Hsg Sty v. Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department & Ors; Sateri Builders & Developers LLP v. Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:14013-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025; Writ Petition (L) No. 18923 of 2025

Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor