Surendra Krishnaji Dabholkar v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Slum Rehabilitation Authority And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8220 OF 2025 Mr. Surendra Krishnaji Dabholkar

...Petitioner

Vs.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.

...Respondents

_________ Mr. Madhur Surana for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni a/w Gourav V. Shahane a/w Shreyas R. Zarkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr. Shreeyash Lalit a/w Shweta R. Rathod i/by Elixir Legal Services for Respondent No.4.

__________

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATE:

08 JULY 2025.

P.C.

1.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2.

The substantive prayer pressed in this Petition is prayer clause (b) which reads thus:

"b) In the alternative, this Honourable Court, in its Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, be pleased to issue the direction and/or order to the Respondent No.1 and 2 to hear and decide the Petitioner's Representation dated 07/03/2025 as early as possible and within the stipulated time;"

3.

The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is the owner of the land in question, which is declared to be slum rehabilitation area. The Petitioner also contends that without following the due procedure in law, the said land was sought to be acquired by issuing notice under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopments) Act, 1971. Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date:

2025.07.22 15:17:04 +0530 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR

4.

It appears to be not in dispute that such order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the said order is itself has been stayed. It also appears that in the meantime Respondent No.4, who is appointed as a developer by Respondent No.3-Society, intends to proceed with the redevelopment and it is in this context the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Petition to seek a relief that the representation in this regard that Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not have any legal rights to submit any plans and/or proposal for redevelopment and such representation would be required to be considered by Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer. 5.

We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the representation made by the Petitioner needs to be considered and more particularly in view of the fact that the acquisition itself has been stayed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. If that be so, the rights of the Petitioner in respect of his own land to undertake development certainly were required to be recognised so as to recognise any rights of Respondent Nos.3 and 4. 6.

In these circumstances, we direct Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 7th March 2025 and after granting an opportunity to hear the Petitioner as also to Respondent No.3, pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7.

All contentions in that regard are expressly kept open. 8.

Till such representation is decided, we direct that proposal from Respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall not be processed by Respondent No.2.

9.

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms keeping open all contentions in any pending proceeding or the subject matter of representation. 10.

At this stage, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 stated that the SRA has already informed his client that the proposal is not being processed. If that be so, appropriate decision be taken by Respondent No.2-Chief Executive Officer. 11.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)