Shree Gurukrupa SRA Co-op Hsg Sty v. Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School

15 On 9th December 2024, the Executive Engineer of Respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of MCGM (Estate Department), Respondent No. 5, and Respondent No. 6 seeking an NOC in terms of Regulation 2.83 of 33(10) of the DCPR 2034.

16 The Petitioner also addressed various communications to the Respondent Authorities, requesting that a survey be conducted for the DP Road Plot and the Annexure-II certifying the names of the eligible PAP’s be issued. The Petitioner also addressed several letters to the Respondent Authorities requesting them to issue the CC to the Petitioner. 3 2.[8] As soon as the approval is given to the Project, the NOC for building permission of the landowning authority shall be given in respect of that slum located on lands belonging to any department, undertaking, agency of the State Govt. including MHADA, or any local self- Government such as the MCGM within 60 days after the intimation of such approval to the Project is communicated. In the event of its refusal to grant NOC, reasons thereof shall be stated and in the event of its not being given within the period, it shall be deemed to have been given.

17 Eventually, on 19th September 2024, Respondent No. 2 conducted a survey of the DP Road Plot and, three months thereafter, on 7th January 2025, published the supplementary Annexure – II in respect of the PAP’s, which included the names of 66 PAPs and not 47 PAP’s as recorded in the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

18 On 26th December 2024, Respondent No. 2 addressed a letter to the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s architect informing them that the CC could not be issued due to non-compliance with various requirements, including nonsubmission of various NOC’s, inter alia from the civil aviation authority, CRZ clearance, and the detailed floor plans, the site not being jointly inspected along with SRA’s staff members etc. The Petitioner’s architect, vide a letter dated 11th February 2025, confirmed having complied with all the conditions set in the letter dated 26th December 2024 despite which Respondent No. 2 did not issue a CC to the Petitioner.

19 It was in the aforesaid circumstances that the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s architect, vide letters dated 18th February 2025 and 27th February 2025 addressed to Respondent No. 2 sought to invoke the provisions of of 33 (10) of DCPR 2034 for the grant of a deemed NOC since the MCGM (the landowner) had, even after the passage of 60 days from the grant of the IOA, neither granted nor rejected the NOC which had been 4 2.[8] As soon as the approval is given to the Project, the NOC for building permission of the landowning authority shall be given in respect of that slum located on lands belonging to any department, undertaking, agency of the State Govt. including MHADA, or any local self- Government such as the MCGM within 60 days after the intimation of such approval to the Project is communicated. In the event of its refusal to grant NOC, reasons thereof shall be stated and in the event of its not being given within the period, it shall be deemed to have been given. sought for by Respondent No. 2 vide the letter dated 9th December 2024.

20 On 27th February 2025, the Deputy Collector, i.e., the Competent Authority under the Slum Act, issued an eviction order to the non-cooperative slum dwellers under Sections 33 to 39 of the Slum Act. This order was then challenged by the non-cooperative slum dwellers before the AGRC.

21 Compounding matters, Respondent No. 9, on 13th May 2025, filed a complaint before Respondent No. 1, i.e., the Hon’ble Minister of State, Home (Rural), Housing, School, Education, Co-operative, and Mining Department, seeking cancellation of the LOI issued in favour of the Petitioner.

22 Respondent No. 1, swiftly acting upon the complaint filed by Respondent No. 9 on the very next day, i.e., 14th May 2025, issued a notice to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, calling upon them to convene a meeting with regard to the cancellation of the LOI issued to the Petitioner.

23 The AGRC vide an order dated 23rd May 2025 upheld the order of eviction passed against non-cooperating slum dwellers, after which 3 out of the 9 non-cooperating slum dwellers consented to the Petitioner’s scheme. However, despite the eviction order being passed and being upheld by the AGRC, no further steps were taken by Respondent No. 2 to execute the eviction order. It is the case of the Petitioner that this inaction on the part of Respondent No. 2 was on account of “political pressure”.

24 It is thus that the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking the following substantive reliefs: “a. Issue a writ of Mandamus and/or writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the hearing notice dated 14.05.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1, in relation to the complaint dated 13.05.2025 by MLA, and further quash and set aside any other consequential directions and/or Order issued pursuant to impugned notice/letter dated 14.05.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 with respect SR Scheme situated at Final Plot NO. 187, TPS-V, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai; b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction directing Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to restrain any third party, including political representatives or rival developers, from interfering in the implementation of the Petitioner's approved SRA Scheme; c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, thereby confirm that Respondent No. 5 has already granted its NOC to the SR Scheme of the Petitioner by its order dated 11.04.2022 and that NOC with respect to Regulation 2.[8] of 33(10) of Development Control and Promotional Rule, 2034 from the Respondent No. 5 and 6 in respect of SR Scheme of Petitioner is deemed as per letter dated 09.12.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2 and as per Regulation 2.[8] of 33(10) of Development Control and Promotional Rule, 2034; d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 to issue the final certified Annexure-II with respect to Annexure dated 19.01.2021 and Supplementary Annexure II dated 07.01.2025 in respect of structures on Final Plot No. 187, TPS-V, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai as per direction and order dated 13.05.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its true sense and spirit within stipulated time bound period; e. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to issue the Commencement Certificate (CC) and necessary sanction to that effect be granted by Respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in respect of the rehabilitation component of the Petitioner's SRA Scheme within a stipulated period; f. Direct the Respondents to take all necessary steps, including but not limited to execution of eviction order, issuance of Commencement Certificate and pass appropriate orders for the smooth implementation of the approved Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in a time bound manner as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yash Developers Vs. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society (2024) 9 SCC 606; g. Direct the Respondent No. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to restrain any third party, including political representatives or rival developers, from interfering in the implementation of the Petitioner's approved SRA Scheme;”

25 Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the entire redevelopment was being systematically stymied at every stage solely due to the interference of Respondent No. 9, who he submitted was acting in support of Respondent No. 8, i.e., a rival developer. Mr. Sakhare submitted that the interference of Respondent No. 9 was extrajudicial and entirely unjustified since all the issues raised by Respondent No. 9 in his various complaints stood conclusively negated and determined by the Order dated 2nd April 2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in the previous two Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4.

26 Mr. Sakhare took us through the complaint dated 13th May 2025 filed by Respondent No. 9 and pointed out that the same essentially raised the following grievances (i) that the Petitioner had illegally obtained the LOI by ousting about 100 slum dwellers, on the basis of which the Petitioner had obtained the requisite consent required for a slum rehabilitation scheme to proceed; and (ii) that the Petitioner had allegedly obtained the consents of the slum dwellers by including 50 to 60 fake names. Mr. Sakhre then also took us through the Order dated 2nd April 2024 and pointed out that both these issues had been conclusively decided by the Learned Single Judge in the said Order, which, inter alia, held as follows:

27 Mr. Sakhare then submitted that the Petitioner having complied with all its obligations and having obtained all the necessary permissions, there was absolutely no reason for Respondent No. 2 not to have issued a CC to the Petitioner. He pointed out that Regulation 2.[8] of 33(10) of DCPR 2034 specifically mandated that once the slum rehabilitation project was approved by the SRA, it was incumbent upon the landowning authority, i.e., the MCGM in this case, to give building permission, i.e., an NOC, within 60 days from the intimation of such approval having been granted. Mr. Sakhare submitted that pursuant to the letter dated 9th December 2024 addressed by Respondent NO. 2 to the MCGM, it was incumbent upon the MCGM to have granted the Petitioner an NOC, which Respondent No. 2 had not done. He, however, pointed out that as per Regulation 2.[8] of 33 (10) of the DCPR, the said NOC was deemed to have been granted since 60 days had lapsed from the date of issuance of the IOA. He thus submitted that there was absolutely no reason for the said scheme to be stalled and/or not proceeded with by Respondent No. 2.

28 Given the grave and serious nature of the allegations made against Respondent No. 1 and the suggestion that Respondent No. 1 was acting at the instance of Respondent No. 9, we requested the Learned Advocate General to appear in the matter. The Learned Advocate General appeared on 10th July 2025 and clarified as follows:

Since, in our view, the aforesaid statement ought to have been sufficient to effectively redress the major grievance of the Petitioner, we adjourned the matter to 21st July 2025 by passing the following directions:

29 Mr Sakhare, however, pointed out that despite the statement made by the Learned Advocate General, Respondent No. 2 continued to obstruct the progress of the said scheme. He pointed out that even after the statement made by the Learned Advocate General Order as recorded in the Order dated 10th July, 2025, Respondent No. 2 had, on 31st July 2025, addressed a letter to the Petitioner inter alia calling upon the Petitioner to submit a fresh acceptance proposal for the DP Road Plot, even though the DP Road Plot was already included in the Petitioner’s scheme.

30 Basis the above, Mr. Sakhare submitted that there was absolutely no reason for Respondent No. 2 not to grant the Petitioner a CC and allow the said slum rehabilitation project to commence. He reiterated that the only reason was on account of the extrajudicial interference by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. He thus submitted that the Petitioner was entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

31 Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025, also made extensive submissions on similar lines as those of Mr. Sakhare. However, for the sake of brevity, the same are not being separately recorded herein.

32 Per contra, Dr. Sathe, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, at the outset denied that Respondent No. 2 was acting under any pressure, political or otherwise. He submitted that Respondent No. 2 had issued the letter dated 31st July 2025 to the Petitioner only because the Petitioner had on 25th July 2025 submitted its application for revision of the LOI on the basis of amalgamation of the Original Plot with the DP Road Plot. He submitted that as per Circular 144, it was incumbent upon Respondent NO. 2 to first ensure that the proposal for amalgamation of the DP Road had been accepted, and it was only thus that the said letter had been issued. Dr. Sathe submitted that Respondent No. 2 would issue the LOI subject to the Petitioner making the requisite compliances in accordance with Circular 144.

33 Ms. Salunke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submitted that on 22nd April 2025, the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Estate Department of MCGM) had granted the NOC, and accordingly, the MCGM had initiated the process of preparing the final Annexure II, which she submitted would be completed in 16 weeks.

34 Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenors in the captioned two Interim Applications, submitted that the intervenors were slum dwellers seeking impleadment in the respective Writ Petitions as necessary and proper parties since they had wrongfully been excluded from the rehabilitation scheme. He submitted that the Applicants, who were 75 in number, had not been included in the Petitioner’s slum rehabilitation scheme, despite being eligible slum dwellers, and had instead incorrectly been classified as PAPs.

35 Mr. Dhakephalkar submitted that the Petitioner had given an undertaking before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to accommodate 164 slum dwellers and 47 occupants of the DP Road Plot area, which included the Applicants. However, in complete violation of the undertaking given to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Petitioner had failed to include the Applicants in the said slum rehabilitation scheme. He thus submitted that it was that the Interim Applications ought to be allowed and the issuance of the CC and other permissions be stayed until such time as the Applicants were included in the said slum rehabilitation scheme.

36 After having heard Learned Counsel and having considered the rival contentions, we have no hesitation in holding that the present Writ Petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons: (A) At the outset, it is more than well settled in a catena of judgments that the Slums Act is a welfare legislation enacted to improve the living conditions of persons compelled to reside in slums, in poverty, filth and squalor. The primary object of the Slums Act is to ensure that slum dwellers are protected from eviction without rehabilitation and are provided with decent, secure, and hygienic housing/living conditions. It is also equally well settled that slum rehabilitation schemes are not ordinary real estate projects, but they infact involve a public purpose, the primary beneficiaries of which are the slum dwellers and not developers. In this context, it is useful to note the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jijaba Dashrath Shinde v. State of Maharashtra[5] which we find are entirely apposite to the case at hand: “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.” (emphasis supplied). It pains us to note that despite the above observations, the position is no different today, as is borne out by the conduct of Respondent No. 2 in the facts of the present case. We must most regrettably note that in case after case the Respondent Authorities, and in particular Respondent No. 2, seemingly forget and/or overlook the very object for which the Slums Act was enacted and continue to act in the interest of developers, and hence slum rehabilitation projects are often delayed solely due to competing interests of rival developers. (B) In the present case, 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 in favour of the Petitioner 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.

(C) 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. This order of Respondent No. 2 was not only affirmed by the MCGM on 11th April 2022 but was also upheld by this Court in its Order dated 2nd April 2024 which specifically recorded that the inclusion of the the area of the DP Road Plot was a precondition for the acceptance of the Petitioner’s scheme. Crucially, this Court has, in the Order dated 2nd April 2024 specifically held that the Petitioner has complied with the requirements of Circular No. 144 issued by Respondent No. 2.

(D) Insofar as the issuance of the Annexure II’s are concerned, it is an admitted position that the Annexure II in respect of the Original Plot was published on 19th January 2021, and a Supplementary Annexure II in respect of the occupants of the DP Road Plot was published on 7th January 2025. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have further admitted that an NOC has been obtained from the Estate Department of the MCGM on 22nd April 2025. Thus, all that remains is for the MCGM to now undertake the ministerial act of finalisation of the respective Annexure II’s which Learned Counsel for the the MCGM assures the Court will be done in sixteen weeks. (E) In the aforesaid context, the issuance of the letter dated 31st July 2025 by Respondent No. 2 is indeed (mildly stated) surprising and lends credence to the Petitioners' contention that Respondent No. 2 is not acting in faithful discharge of its statutory duties but in a manner so as to stymie the said slum scheme. 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 and comply with provisions of Circular No. 144, despite the fact that

(i) the DP Road Plot was already included in the Petitioner’s scheme as a precondition which was imposed by Respondent No. 2 itself, 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. It is thus we find that the issuance of the letter dated 31st July 2025 is therefore wholly unjustified, to say the least. (F) The Petitioner's entire case is that Respondent No. 2 has been acting at the instance of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9. The Petitioner has placed on record several letters addressed by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to the authorities which, in our view, squarely set out such interference. Crucially, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have not denied the Petitioner’s contentions. Even otherwise, the interference by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 is writ large and borne out from the material placed on record. Respondent No. 2, being a statutory authority, is required to discharge such duty so as to ensure that the said slum rehabilitation scheme was expeditiously proceeded with and the object of the Slums Act was best achieved. However, as already noted above, Respondent No. 2 has regrettably not done so. 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, which is clearly what Respondent No. 2 appears to have done in the present case. (G) Insofar as the Interim Application (L) No. 24090 of 2025 in Writ Petition (L) No. 18923 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No. 24087 of 2025 are concerned, 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. Even assuming otherwise, we find that the Applicants cannot, in these proceedings, be granted the substantive relief that they seek. Thus, the remedy of the Applicants, if any, would lie elsewhere.

37 Hence, we dispose of Writ Petition (St.) No. 18923 of 2025 as follows: a. Accepting the statement made by the Learned Advocate General and as recorded in order dated 10th July 2025, we find that prayer clause (a) and (b) of the Petition have become infructuous; b. In light of the statements by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that NOC of the estate department has been obtained on 22nd April 2025, prayer clause (c) has also become infructuous; c. For the reasons recorded in paragraph 36 (A), (B), (C) and (D) above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (d). 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. d. For the reasons recorded in paragraph 36 (A), (B), (C) and (E) above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (e). 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. e. For the reasons recorded in paragraphs 36 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (f). The Respondents are directed to take all necessary steps, including executing eviction orders, for the smooth implementation of the Petitioner’s slum rehabilitation scheme. f. For the reasons recorded in paragraph 36 (F) hereinabove, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (g). 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.

38 Given that we have disposed of Writ Petition (L) No.18923 of 2025 in the aforesaid terms, nothing would in our view survive for adjudication in Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025. Hence, Writ Petition (L) No. 18500 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

39 For the reasons recorded in paragraph 36 (G) and in light of the directions passed in paragraphs 37 and 38 hereinabove, we reject the Interim Applications, i.e., 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, we keep open all rights and contentions of the Applicants in any proceedings that they may adopt in regard to the grievances set out in the said Interim Applications. [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.] [G.S. KULKARNI, J.]