Sanctioned redevelopment projects cannot be stalled by pending boundary demarcation surveys under revenue laws.

The Petitioner, a public trust representing the fisherfolk (Kolis) of Dharavi, challenged the inaction of State authorities in demarcating the outer boundaries of Dharavi Koliwada.

They contended that 2,00,830 square meters of land traditionally used for fishing activities were being illegally included in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP).

The DRP, implemented by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) as the Special Planning Authority, was sanctioned via a Government Notification dated March 3, 2016, under the MRTP Act.

While the Gaothan area (23,665.64 sq. meters) was excluded from the DRP, the Petitioner sought the exclusion of a much larger "extended land" currently occupied by slums and various housing societies (GRP, MTNL, BEST, etc.).

Respondent No. 4, a Special Purpose Vehicle, began barricading these lands for redevelopment following the voluntary handover of possession by the housing societies.

The court primarily applied the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, specifically Sections 40 and 115, which govern the appointment of Special Planning Authorities and the finality of sanctioned planning proposals.

It also considered the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, regarding the implementation of rehabilitation schemes.

The court referred to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), 1966, concerning the administrative procedure for boundary demarcation.

Regulation 33(16) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which provides protections for Koliwadas and Gaothans.

The court reasoned that while Dharavi was historically a fishing hub, it has evolved into a vast "agglomeration of slums," necessitating holistic redevelopment.

The DRP planning proposals were sanctioned in 2016 following a statutory process involving public suggestions and objections; notably, the Petitioner never challenged the 2016 Notification.

The court found that the Petitioner’s claim over the "extended land" was "highly belated," as they had failed to object when housing societies and infrastructure were originally constructed on those lands decades ago.

Regarding the boundary demarcation under the MLRC, the court held that an ongoing general administrative survey for all Mumbai Koliwadas cannot stall a specific, sanctioned DRP scheme that has attained finality.

The court noted that the character of the disputed land had fundamentally changed due to decades of encroachment and urbanization, and halting the project now would prejudice stakeholders and the public interest.

The court clarified that Respondent No. 4 is entitled to proceed with redevelopment on the sanctioned areas, provided they do not encroach upon the already excluded 23,665.64 square meters of the Gaothan.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to pursue administrative representations regarding boundary demarcation under the MLRC with the relevant authorities, but such pursuits would not grant them the right to halt the ongoing DRP.

No order as to costs was made.