← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2472/2025disposed off

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority Through The Chief Executive Officer

2025-10-14Hon'Ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'Ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak2 pages

302WP2472-25.DOC by PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date:

2025.10.15 12:50:57 +0530 PRASHANT VILAS RANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 2472 of 2025 Netrekrishan Deraj Puri & Anr.

...Petitioners

VS Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.

...Respondents

_______ Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhupesh, Nitya Parikh, Aditi Bhargava, Saurabh Jain i/b. Divya Shah Associates, for Petitioners. Ms. Priyanka N. Bhadrashete, for Respondent No.1-SRA. Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, for BMC. Ms. Poonam Mittal, AGP for the State.

______

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE:

14 October 2025 P.C.

1.

In the present petition the Court needs to be informed as to how the project in question is the SRA project so that Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, can exercise jurisdiction. This would be required to be explained on affidavit, which be filed by CEO, SRA.

2.

In the event, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a conclusion that the SRA is not at all concerned, further orders would be required to be passed including on the legality of the construction. In the meantime, it is open to the petitioners to enter into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements in regard to the adequate area which would be legally entitled to the petitioners, and all necessary formalities in this regard be completed on or before the adjourned date of hearing, which shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and what has been observed by us hereinabove.

P. V. Rane

302WP2472-25.DOC 3.

Stand over to 17 November 2025. HOB.

4.

At this stage we are informed by learned Counsel for the developer that there is a clubbing of the schemes and therefore, the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR would be applicable. If this be so, not only the SRA but also the developer is required to explain the detail thereof on affidavit. Let a reply affidavit be filed by the developer.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) P. V. Rane