Mangesh Yashwant Parave vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Urban Development Dept.

CNR No : HCBM020182782026

2026:BHC-OS:19000-DB
Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
SANJAY
SONAWANE
Date:
2026.08.25
16:22:24
+0530
WPL-18278-2026.DOCX
CHITRA
SANJAY
SONAWANE

Chitra Sonawane.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.18278 OF 2026
Mangesh Yashwant Parave & Ors. …Petitioners.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
Urban Development Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai & Ors.
…Respondents.
Mr Mohit A Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, Advocate a/w Aditya Miskita, Sanjeel
Kadam, Ms Netra Jagtap i/by Kadam & Co. for the
Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Additional Government Pleader a/w Vikrant
Parashurami, AGP for State.
Mr. Chaitanya Chavan a/w Anuja Tirmali i/by Komal Punjabi for
Respondent No.2-BMC.
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 11 AUGUST 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 25 AUGUST 2026.
Judgment ( Per Advait M. Sethna ) :-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the
consent of parties.
A. Preface :
2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
th
India seeking to quash and set aside Order dated 13 May 2026,
Page 1 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

passed by the Assistant Commissioner, ‘E’ Department of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation ( 'Impugned Order' for short) . The
Petitioners further seek appropriate orders directing Respondents
th
to implement/enforce the Undertakings dated 4 April 2007 and
th
12 March 2008, claimed to be executed by the Respondent No.4
and 5 respectively, before the Municipal Corporation i.e.
Respondent No.2.
3. The subject matter of the proceedings relates to C.S. No. 782
of Mazgaon Division, upon which, the structures of the Petitioners
being slum dwellers, are either entirely or majorly situated.
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 ( "Developers" ), are the owners of the
land bearing C.S. No. 1A/782, 2/783, 784, 785, 786, and 783 of
Mazgaon Division, Dr. Compound, Dattaram Lad Marg, 'E' Ward,
Chinchpokli (East), Mumbai - 400012 ( 'Developer's Land' for
short). A scheme under Regulation 33(7) of Development Control
and Promotion Regulations for Greater Bombay, 2034 (‘ DCPR,
2034 ’ for short) is being undertaken by the Respondent Nos. 4 and
5 on the Developer's Land.
4. The Respondent No. 2 had issued an Allotment Letter dated
rd
3 February 2026, whereby the Petitioners were allotted
permanent alternate accommodation by providing Project Affected
Persons (PAP) tenements in Bhandup. However, the Petitioners
insist that they be granted in-situ rehabilitation in the scheme
undertaken on the land belonging to Developers i.e. Respondent
Nos.4 and 5, in light of which they have filed the Petition.
Page 2 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

B. Factual Matrix :
5. The facts necessary for adjudication of present proceedings
are as under :
th
6. The Respondent No. 2 - Corporation on 29 March 2007,
issued an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) to Respondent No. 4 in
relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Developer's Land.
th
Thereafter, on 4 April 2007, Respondent No. 4 furnished an
undertaking to the Respondent No. 2 - Corporation, agreeing to
hand over the setback area to it, free of compensation.
th
7. On 12 March 2008, Respondent No. 5 furnished an
undertaking to Respondent No. 2 stating that eligible hutment
dwellers within Developer's Land would be accommodated in the
proposed redevelopment scheme.
8. Pursuant to the above, as dispute arose between the parties,
a Long Cause Suit No. 2605 of 2008 ( “Suit” for short) came to be
instituted before the City Civil Court at Bombay ( “Trial Court” for
th
short) on 15 October 2008, by the Petitioners herein and several
other slum dwellers. In the said Suit, the Plaintiffs therein which
includes the Petitioners herein, inter alia , sought directions against
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for allotment of permanent alternate
accommodation in the redevelopment scheme being undertaken on
the Developer's Land.
st
9. By an Order dated 21 September 2013, the Trial Court
dismissed the Suit filed, inter alia, by the Petitioners herein for
non-prosecution. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 2 herein filed a Notice
of Motion No. 3832 of 2013 seeking restoration of the Suit.
Page 3 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

nd
However, such Application was dismissed by an Order dated 22
July 2014 passed by the Trial Court on the ground of non-joinder
of parties, there being 26 other Plaintiffs, who were not parties
before it.
10. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 2 - Corporation vide
th
communication dated 12 September 2014 stated that there were
44 hutment/slum dwellers on the setback area, of whom 30 were
to be rehabilitated by the Respondent No.2-Corporation, 11 by
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and 3 structures used as society offices
to be demolished by Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
th
11. Annexure-II of Hutment Dwellers dated 4 September 2015
( ‘Annexure-II’ for short) was issued by the Respondent No.2-
Corporation for the purpose of rehabilitation of eligible hutment
dwellers in PAP tenements under the bottleneck policy.
Accordingly, the Petitioners were held to be eligible slum dwellers.
12. Pursuant to the above, another Notice of Motion No. 3941 of
2015 came to be filed by some of the Petitioners being Plaintiffs in
th
the Suit seeking restoration thereof. By an Order dated 16 June
2017, the Trial Court rejected such prayer, thereby declining
restoration of the Suit.
13. Respondent No. 4 thereafter instituted a Writ Petition
No.1677 of 2016 before this Court, seeking direction against
Corporation to remove encroachments on Developer's Land. This
th
Writ Petition was disposed of by an Order dated 18 July 2017 of
this Court, leaving it open to the Respondents to take appropriate
action in the matter, in accordance with law.
Page 4 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

14. Some of the Petitioners herein being aggrieved by the Trial
th
Court’s Order dated 16 June 2017, declining to restore the Suit,
filed an Appeal from Order No 654 of 2019, before this Court. The
th
Court by an Order dated 8 July 2025, disposed of the said Appeal
from Order, upon granting liberty to the Petitioners to file
nd
appropriate proceedings to challenge the Order dated 22 July
2014 passed in the first instance, rejecting restoration of the Suit,
which is not assailed till date.
rd
15. On 3 February 2026, the Respondent No.2-Corporation
issued an Allotment Letter whereby, the Petitioners were allotted
permanent alternate accommodation by providing PAP tenements
at Bhandup.
16. The Petitioners thereafter instituted Civil Writ Petition No.
nd
3207 of 2026 challenging such allotment. By an Order dated 2
April 2026, this Court disposed of the said Petition, directing the
Petitioners to file an Appeal under the bottleneck policy, before the
Assistant Commissioner of Respondent No.2. Pursuant thereto, on
th
15 April 2026, the Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the
Assistant Commissioner, ‘E’ Ward, inter alia , challenging the
rd
Allotment Letter dated 3 February 2026 and seeking
implementation of the Undertaking of the Respondent No. 5 dated
th
12 March 2008. The Assistant Commissioner, ‘E’ Ward, by the
th
Impugned Order dated 13 May 2026, rejected the Petitioner's
Appeal.
17. It is in such backdrop that this Writ Petition is filed, inter
th
alia, assailing the Impugned Order dated 13 May 2026.
Page 5 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

C. Rival Contentions :
I. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners :
18. Mr. Singh would emphatically submit that this is a clear case
where the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in the
Petition. This, firstly for the reason that the Respondents are bound
th th
by the Undertakings and assurances dated 4 April 2007 and 12
March 2008, furnished before the Competent Authorities.
19. He would urge that there exists a binding obligation on the
Developers i.e. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, to rehabilitate and
protect the eligible occupants i.e. the Petitioners. The Respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 cannot resile from their obligations under the
th
Undertaking dated 12 March 2008 by refusing to offer in-situ
rehabilitation to the Petitioners on the Developer's Land.
20. Mr. Singh has urged that the Impugned Order fails to
consider the case of the Petitioners in terms of the Undertaking and
assurances, which the Respondents are bound to comply with. The
Impugned Order is bereft of reasons and fails to afford opportunity
to the Petitioners to represent their case, thereby making it
contrary to the principles of natural justice. The same, therefore,
deserves to be set aside.
21. Mr. Singh would urge that the Petitioners are not being
treated at par with similarly placed persons. This is inasmuch as
such persons have been offered in-situ rehabilitation on the
Developer's Land, which the Respondents have, for reasons best
known to them, have deprived the Petitioners of. This is more
particularly with reference to one Mr. Kishore Amichand Kharva,
Page 6 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

whose instance has been specifically pointed out by Mr. Singh in
support of his contention on parity with the Petitioners.
22. Mr. Singh would contend that the Petitioners have a right
including a fundamental right of in-situ rehabilitation and they
cannot be divested of such constitutional protection. The
Respondents, by their actions depriving the Petitioners of their
right to in-situ rehabilitation have acted arbitrarily and contrary to
law. The failure of the Respondents to rehouse the Petitioners by
offering them in-situ rehabilitation on the Developer’s Land
without following due process tantamounts to violation of Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
II. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.2 :
th
23. Mr. Chavan would first submit that the Annexure II dated 4
rd
September 2015 coupled with the Allotment Letter dated 3
February 2026 would clearly indicate that the Petitioners as
eligible tenants are to be rehabilitated by the Respondent No. 2.
This has been duly confirmed in the Impugned Order, which is
passed within the four corners of law, and therefore, deserves to be
upheld by this Court. In view thereof, the Petitioners cannot insist
on in-situ rehabilitation on the Developer’s Land.
24. Mr. Chavan would urge that the Respondent No.2 is ready to
execute Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements (‘ PAAAs ’
for short), in favour of the Petitioners to rehabilitate them on its
land at Bhandup, where the buildings are already constructed. He
has tendered photographs in this regard, during the hearing, in
support of the bonafides of the Respondent No.2. According to Mr.
Page 7 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

Chavan, the Petitioners cannot insist upon being rehabilitated only
at the land situated in Chinchpokli and not in Bhandup, despite
such construction being ready to house the Petitioners. Mr. Chavan,
on instructions, would urge that the road passing through the land
owned by the Developer and Respondent No. 2 is taken over for
road widening/development by the Road Department, which
would make the claim of the Petitioners for in-situ rehabilitation
further untenable. Thus, the Petitioners, in the given case, have
failed to demonstrate any legal right and/or fundamental right of
the Petitioners to claim in-situ rehabilitation. The Petition is,
therefore, devoid of merit, warranting dismissal.
III. Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 :
25. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.4
and 5 has vehemently opposed the Petition. He would submit that
the Petition in the present form is clearly not maintainable. This,
primarily on two counts. Firstly, the Petitioners have approached
the Trial Court, where a Civil Suit filed for similar reliefs stands
dismissed for non-prosecution and is admittedly not restored until
date. The cause of action being similar, the Petitioner cannot
pursue parallel proceedings by taking a chance before this Court.
The Petitioners have suppressed material and relevant facts which
is also a sufficient ground to warrant dismissal of the Petition. This
is inasmuch as the Petitioners claiming parity have not disclosed
the fact of a pending Writ Petition (L) No. 18510 of 2026 filed by
Mr. Kishore Amichand Kharva, seeking similar reliefs. No interim
protection has been granted in the said Petition.
Page 8 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

26. Mr. Khandeparkar would urge that the Petitioners, in their
th
endeavour to rely on the Undertaking dated 12 March 2008, have
misconstrued such Undertaking and its true purport. A bare
perusal thereof would reveal that it would apply only to eligible
slum dwellers on the Developer’s Land and not to all of them, in
th
accordance with the Annexure II dated 4 September 2015 and the
rd
other documents including the Allotment Letter dated 3 February
2026. Even though such Allotment Letter is a subject matter of
challenge in the Impugned Order, the Petitioners have failed to
point out any error in law or otherwise, in the absence of which,
the same ought to be confirmed.
27. Mr. Khandeparkar has also referred to paragraph 4(d) of the
th
Affidavit-In-Reply of the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 dated 9 June
2026. It sets out the demarcation of the hutments on the land of
the Developer and Respondent No. 2 respectively, to indicate that
the structures of the Petitioners entirely and/or majorly fall on the
land of the Respondent No. 2. He would therefore urge that no
case is made out by the Petitioners for in-situ rehabilitation, on the
Developer’s land. Mr. Khandeparkar would thus pray that the
Petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
D. Analysis :
28. The core controversy in the proceedings relates to the right
sought to be enforced by the Petitioners in regard to in-situ
rehabilitation of their structures only on the Developer’s land, to be
th
examined in light of the Impugned Order dated 13 May 2026.
29. At the outset, to place the issue/ lis in perspective, it may be
Page 9 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

pertinent to observe that the dispute between the Petitioners and
Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 was first taken to the Trial Court in the
Suit filed by the Petitioners claiming similar reliefs. However, the
chronology of events, as narrated above, makes it clear that the
said Suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and is not restored, as
on date.
30. Contextually, we may observe that the issues raised and
reliefs claimed in the said Suit, vis- à -vis, the present proceedings
are similar/overlapping, indicative of parallel proceedings for
similar cause of action. Some of the Petitioners had filed an Appeal
from Order before this Court, and as the chronology of events
(supra) would clearly indicate, the same was disposed of by an
th
Order dated 8 July 2025. It was left open to the Petitioners to
pursue their remedies against the dismissal of the earlier
Application of the Petitioners, for restoration of the Suit by the
Trial Court. Nothing from the record is pointed out to indicate any
further steps initiated/taken by them, pursuant to such Order. In
view thereof, we find substance/merit in the submission of Mr.
Khandeparkar that the present Petition is nothing but a second bite
at the cherry, particularly, when similar reliefs are being sought in
these proceedings.
31. We may now advert to the submissions of Mr. Singh in the
th
context of his reliance on the Undertaking dated 12 March 2008
(Exh. G to the Petition). In this regard, it is necessary to first refer
th
to Annexure-II dated 4 September 2015 issued by the Respondent
No. 2 (Exh. D to the Petition) which would clearly indicate that all
the Petitioners are eligible for rehabilitation by Respondent No.2-
Page 10 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

Corporation. The fact that the said Annexure-II is not under
challenge is undisputed and therefore, the same holds the field.
th
32. Adverting to the Undertaking dated 12 March 2008, we
have also noted the submission of the Respondents that though the
Petitioners are eligible slum dwellers, to be rehabilitated by
Respondent No. 2, they are not eligible under a scheme under
Regulation 33(7) of DCPR, 2034, which applies only to the
Developer's Land. To appreciate such contention, it is necessary to
refer to the subsequent developments on record. In this regard, it
appears that subsequent to said Undertaking, Respondent No.2 had
th
issued a letter/communication dated 12 September 2014
certifying the slum dwellers to whom Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
were under obligation to rehabilitate and the slum dwellers to
whom Respondent No.2 was equally under legal obligation to
rehabilitate, by offering permanent alternate accommodation.
33. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the relevant extract
th
of the communication dated 12 September 2014, which reads
thus:
"List of all 44 hutment dweller along with total station
survey plan and table showing each tenant occupying
percentage of area on M/s J.Gala Enterprises and MCGM
land on Krantiveer Bhai Bal Mukund Marg was sent by
Maintenance Deptt. of 'E' ward to colony officer on
17.12.2013 at Pg C-171 for scrutinizing the eligibility of
the hutment dwellers. Now, scrutiny of colony officer is
received by Maintenance Deptt. Colony officer 'E' Ward
has considered 30 hutment dwellers which are to be
rehabilitated by MCGM and has recommended that out
of 30 hutment dwellers 18 are made eligible for alternate
accommodation Pg C-173-to C-185. It is to be mentioned
here that out of 44 huts, 11 huts are to be rehabilitated
Page 11 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

by M/s. J Gala Enterprises Developer and, 3 huts which
were used as society office out of which 2 are demolished
by M/s J Gala Enterprises and remaining 1 will be
demolished by M/s J Gala Enterprises.
SUMMARY OF TOTAL NO. OF 44 HUTS IS AS BELOW.
Hut No. as Area Remarks
per Inventory (Sq.mtr.)
Total no.of huts 44 nos. 394.15
1, 15, 44 3 nos. 29.21 Out of this
total area,
14.96 sq.mtr
of MCGM land
will be cleared
by M/s J.Gala
Enterprises.
Huts demolished/to be
demolished (Society
office)
Completely on MCGM 2, 13, 14, 40 4 nos. 31.40 Huts will be
land removed by
MCGM
8 nos. 68.44 Huts will be
removed by
M/s J. Gala
Enterprises.
Completely on M/s J. 4, 9, 10, 26,
Gala Enterprises land 27, 28, 30 and
41
7,42, 43 3 nos. 42.21 These huts are
occupying
18.56 sq. mtrs
of MCGM land
which is
cleared by M/s
J. Gala
Enterprises.
Area of huts is certified
by MHADA as per list
at Pg.C...... and they
are included in
redevelopment
scheme.
26 nos. 222.89 Huts will be
removed by
MCGM. These
huts are
occupying
160.71 sq.mtr.
of MCGM land
and 62.18
sq.mtrs of M/s
J. Gala
Enterprises
land.
3, 5, 6, 8, 11,
12, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22,
23,24,25,29,31
,32,33,34,35,3
6,37,38,39.
Huts partly on MCGM
land (147.45 sq.mtr)
and partly on M/s J.
Gala Enterprises
(42.88 sq.mtr)
Page 12 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

Area occupied by these 225.63
huts on MCGM land
168.52
Area occupied by these
huts on M/s J.Gala
Enterprises land
The above also forms a part of Affidavit-in-Reply of
th
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 dated 9 June 2026, making it clear that
majority of the hutment dwellers which includes all the Petitioners
are to be offered rehabilitation by Respondent No.2. Such details
th
are similar to that set out in Annexure-II dated 4 September
2015, issued by the Respondent No.2, which is not challenged by
the Petitioners.
th
34. We have carefully perused the Impugned Order dated 13
May 2026. We find that the same is a speaking Order. There are
elaborate factual findings recorded by the Competent Authority
after due consideration of the contentions raised by the hutment
dwellers and the contesting Respondents. There is a clear finding
of fact recorded by such fact finding authority, inter alia to the
effect that the hutments of the Petitioners are majorly situated on
plot bearing C.S. No.782 of Mazgoan Division, owned by
Respondent No. 2 and not by the Developers i.e. Respondent Nos.
4 and 5. On a perusal of the Impugned Order, we find that the
contention of the Petitioners with regard to the Undertaking has
been duly dealt with in the Impugned Order. Such aspects
involving intricate factual nuances, form a part of the
reasoning/findings in the Impugned Order. Accordingly, the same
would not warrant our interference in writ jurisdiction.
Page 13 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

35. Contextually, we are therefore not persuaded to accept that
the Impugned Order is passed in violation of principles of natural
justice, as averred in the Petition. Moreover, a mere averment in
the Petition, to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, to disclose and
place on record complete rehabilitation records, allotment details,
eligibility records, approved plans, agreements, undertakings, is in
the nature of roving enquiry, which is legally impermissible in the
given proceedings.
36. Mr. Singh has vehemently argued that there are similarly
placed persons like the Petitioners, one of them being Mr. Kishore
Amichand Kharva, who have been offered in-situ rehabilitation by
Respondent Nos.4 and 5 on their land. However, we find substance
in the interjection of Mr. Khandeparkar on this count. It is brought
to our notice that a Writ Petition (L) No. 18510 of 2026 is
preferred by Mr. Kishore Amichand Kharva before this Court. It
appears that the reliefs sought in that Petition are similar to those
in the present proceedings. We may note that there are orders
passed in the said Petition which clearly indicate not only the
pendency of the said Petition, but also that, there is no interim
relief granted by this Court in favour of the said Petitioners, as
contended by Mr. Khandeparkar. Therefore, such position aids no
assistance to the case espoused by the Petitioners.
37. The submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners on
parity, is unacceptable and untenable, in light of aforementioned
factual position. Such fact of the said pending Writ Petition being
relevant, material and having a bearing on the present
proceedings, ought to have been disclosed in the present Petition.
Page 14 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

However, the Petitioners for reasons best known to them, have
chosen to refrain from doing so.
38. We have noted the detailed averments made in the Affidavit-
in-Reply filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to the Petition,
which inter alia contain the complete the break-up of the details of
rehabilitation by the Respondents in respect of 44 hutment
dwellers, including the Petitioners. The Petitioners have not chosen
to file a Rejoinder to such Affidavit-in-Reply, though they have
proceeded on denial. Be that as it may.
39. We may observe that if the case of the Petitioners is to be
accepted, we would be called upon to adjudicate the entitlement
including the details thereof of the Petitioners, on the land
belonging to the Respondent No.2 vis- à -vis the Developer’s Land.
The said issue stands addressed under the Impugned Order dated
th
13 May 2026. These are not admitted facts and are seriously
disputed/contested by the parties. In such view of the matter, we
would refrain from entering into the realm of factual disputes in
light of contesting claims and counter-claims raised by the parties.
To adjudicate the same in a Writ Petition, would not fall within the
ambit of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
40. We find that the Respondent No.2 is ready and willing to
offer permanent alternate accommodation to the Petitioners on the
land and buildings situated at Bhandup. They have furnished the
photographs of the said buildings/structures/premises to the Court
during the hearing. However, the Petitioners would insist to be
Page 15 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

rehoused in-situ at the land owned by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 at
Chinchpokli instead of Bhandup which is being offered by the
Respondent No. 2.
41. Mr. Singh for the Petitioner has lead much emphasis on the
right, including fundamental right of the Petitioners to in-situ
rehabilitation. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the
judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Abdul Majid Vakil
1
Ahmad Patvekari & Ors. vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.
In a similar factual complexion, this Court held that the fact of
being protected slum dwellers, cannot elevate their protection to
such an extent that such slum dwellers have to be rehabilitated
either on the same land, if any remaining, after the project work is
completed or they may be provided a permanent alternate
accommodation, within the vicinity. Mere right of rehabilitation
cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership.
More particularly, when it is not the case that the Petitioners are
being denied of the benefit of rehabilitation. In our view, the ratio
in the said decision would clearly apply in the given case.
42. As analyzed above, we are not persuaded by the Petitioners
in the given facts and circumstances, to interfere in writ
jurisdiction, on the ground that the Petitioners have a right as also
a fundamental right of in-situ rehabilitation on Developer’s Land,
as claimed by them. Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel
for Respondent No.2, the record bears out that the road
adjoining/passing through both the Developer’s Land and the land
1
. 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719
Page 16 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

owned by Respondent No.2 – Corporation is taken over for
development by the Road Department in the year 2014-15. Even
on this count, the Petitioners’ case for in-situ rehabilitation ‘cuts no
ice’ and/or assist the cause canvassed by them in these
proceedings.
43. We may note that the averments in the Petition disclose an
attempt on the part of the Petitioners to invoke the doctrine of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in their favour.
However, there is no material and/or submissions advanced before
us in this regard. In any event, in the absence of any representation
and/or promise pointed to us by the Petitioners, for invoking the
doctrine of promissory estoppel in the given facts, as also the
endeavour to invoke legitimate expectation, without an
enforceable right, would not aid and/or assist the case of the
Petitioners, in any manner.
44. In light of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this
Writ Petition. However, in the interest of justice, the Petitioners are
at liberty to raise such claims/counter-claims before the
Appropriate Authority/Court, as the law would permit.
45. The Petition is Disposed Of in above terms. No orders as to
costs.
46. Before parting with the record, it would be pertinent to refer
to a recent decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in High
Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State of Maharashtra through
2
Government Pleader . The Supreme Court had referred the issues
2
Suo Moto in Writ Petition No.1 of 2024, decided on 8th May 2026.
Page 17 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58

WPL-18278-2026.DOCX

arising in Yash Developers Vs. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing
3
Society Ltd. & Ors. in the context of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopmet) Act, 1971 (“ Slum
Act ” for short), calling upon this Court to conduct a performance
audit of the slum legislation, expressing serious concern over its
implementation. This Court made specific observations deprecating
the claim of in-situ rehabilitation. This, in the backdrop of the
avalanche of disputes governed under the Slum Act, reaching the
Courts. Similar findings are echoed in Judgments of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh Vs.
4
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Bishop John Rodrigues Vs.
5
State of Maharashtra & Ors. . This Court has, inter-alia, observed
in High Court On Its Own Motion (supra) that such claims of in-
situ rehabilitation find no justification within our constitutional
scheme and is unconscionable.
47. All concerned, to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
3
(2024) 9 SCC 606
4
WP (L) No.7714 of 2023, decided on 19th and 20th June, 2023
5
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632.
Page 18 of 18
Uploaded on - 18/09/2026 Downloaded on - 21/09/2026 11:48:58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)