Writ court cannot re-appreciate fact-finding on slum demarcation and traditional rights.

The petitioners, Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and Danda Koli Samaj, are registered societies representing the traditional fishing community of Khar Danda Koliwada, Mumbai.

They are primarily concerned with CTS No. D/1105, which they assert has been historically used for fish drying and allied activities and is reserved as such under various Development Plans since 1966.

This land is government-owned.

In 2018, a proposal to modify the reservation of part of CTS No. D/1105 from 'fish and net drying yard' to 'housing' was made under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966.

The petitioners challenged this modification by filing Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2019.

This proposal was rejected in 2022, retaining the original reservation.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), respondent No. 2, declared part of CTS No. D/1105 and CTS No. D/1079A (totaling 3449.26 sq. mtrs.) as a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) area on May 17, 2022.

The petitioners allege this declaration was made without proper survey or boundary demarcation and encroaches upon their reserved land, including a wall, a road, and two structures.

They further claim the area increased from an initial 2397.70 sq. mtrs. (based on a 1992 Lease Agreement with MHADA) to 3449.26 sq. mtrs.

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2025 challenging the SRA's order.

Both writ petitions were clubbed, and on December 17, 2025, the High Court disposed of them, directing a Special Committee (comprising the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, and the CEO, SRA) to resolve the boundary dispute and potential encroachment, maintaining the status quo until a decision was made.

The Committee was to specifically consider the traditional rights of the petitioners and fresh demarcation.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the Committee's report dated February 24, 2026, alleging it ignored their submissions, exceeded its jurisdiction, and wrongly affirmed the inclusion of their traditionally used land (wall, road, two structures) in the SR area.

They admitted they are not opposed to the SRA scheme if it does not encroach on their traditional land or violate the DCPR.

The respondent-Developer (Jasani Realty Private Limited, respondent No. 6) and Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti CHSL (respondent No. 7) argued that significant steps have been taken since the slum declaration, including vacating slum dwellers, demolishing structures, and obtaining various approvals, leading to laches on the part of the petitioners.

The Committee found that a stone fence wall existed, constructed by the Koli community, with the slum inside the wall and the fish drying area outside.

It concluded that a narrow footpath existed along the wall, primarily used by slum residents and unsuitable for vehicular movement, and that adequate access remained unchanged for the Koli community.

The Committee affirmed that the disputed passage was part of the slum scheme.

Whether the Special Committee's report dated February 24, 2026, which effectively upheld the inclusion of the disputed area (wall, road, and two structures) within the Slum Rehabilitation Area, should be quashed and set aside.

Whether the declaration dated May 17, 2022, passed by the CEO, SRA, and the related notification, allowing the Developer to encroach upon land in excess of 2397.70 sq. mtrs. by taking over land reserved for fish drying yard and allied activities, should be quashed and set aside.

Whether the developer should be restrained from carrying out any development work on the land covering the wall, road, and two structures as shown in the map at Exhibit-O.

The court applied the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act), specifically Section 3C(1) concerning the declaration of slum rehabilitation areas.

It also referred to the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR), particularly DC Regulation 33(10) regarding redevelopment for rehabilitation of slum dwellers and DC Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) read with Item 62 of Table 5, which deals with the development of reserved land under various provisions of Regulation No. 33.

The court also acknowledged the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically regarding reappreciation of facts and fact-finding exercises.

The Court noted that the petitioners' main grievance revolved around the alleged encroachment of approximately 1500 sq. mtrs. and the lack of proper boundary demarcation.

While the petitioners were not opposed to the SRA Scheme in principle, they sought to protect the portion of land traditionally used by them and reserved for fish drying activities.

The dispute was fundamentally one of demarcation and the impact on traditional rights.

The Court referenced its previous order from December 17, 2025, which limited the scope of the dispute to demarcation of the pathway along the boundary wall, explicitly stating that it did not intend to delve into the factual dispute on the boundary of the respective lands.

Therefore, the challenge to the broader SR scheme declaration under Section 3C was deemed beyond the scope of the current petition.

The Special Committee, composed of high-ranking officers, conducted a site visit and submitted a detailed fact-finding report.

The Committee found that the disputed area, including the wall and the narrow footpath, was part of the slum rehabilitation area, and that the footpath was primarily used by slum residents, not for vehicular movement by the fishing community.

It observed that the Koli community had ample alternative access and available land for their activities.

The Committee concluded that the disputed passage was "very much a part of the slum scheme".

The court highlighted that reappreciating the detailed factual findings of such a Committee would necessitate a detailed fact-finding exercise and adducing of evidence, which is outside the purview of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Regarding the applicability of DCPR Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) and DC Regulation 33(10), the court agreed that lands reserved for fish and net drying can be developed under the SR Scheme, subject to providing 20% BUA of the plot area to the Municipal Corporation for related facilities.

The BMC's confirmation that the plot was buildable for fish storage/godown, provided certain BUA is handed over free of cost, was deemed not contrary to law.

The challenge to the inclusion of the two structures was also given up by the petitioners.

Therefore, the court found no legal infirmity in the Committee's report that would warrant interference under Article 226.

It concluded that the petitioners' challenge primarily involved re-appreciation of factual findings made by the Special Committee after an on-site inspection, an exercise not suitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court found no merit in challenging the Committee’s report, noting that the dispute regarding demarcation and traditional rights could only be resolved before a competent Civil Court.

The interim application was also disposed of as it did not survive the dismissal of the writ petition.

However, the interim relief operating since December 17, 2025, was extended for a period of three weeks from the date of judgment.