Jyoti R. Kawa v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority

13-WP-4065-25.DOC JYOTI RAJESH MANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.01.19 18:58:53 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO.4065 OF 2025 Jyoti R. Kawa & Ors.

...Petitioners

Versus

Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors..

...Respondents

_______ Ms. Parisha M. Shah a/w. Ms. Smita D.for Petitioners. Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w. A. Yadav, for Respondent No.1-SRA. Ms. Pushpa Yadav, for Respondent No.2-BMC.

Mr. Rajesh G. Singh a/w. Ms. Rutika R. Mody, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. _______

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE:

17 JANUARY 2026 P.C.

1.

We are of the opinion that the dispute in the present proceedings can certainly be resolved, as there is willingness on the part of the developer. A part of the deficit transit rent has already been paid, though certain amounts remain outstanding. In our view, the dispute can be amicably resolved insofar as permanent alternate accommodation is concerned. The developer has expressed readiness and willingness to enter into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) Agreement within a period of 15 days from today. If that be so, the parties shall arrive at an appropriate consensus. The parties are at liberty to approach the Court with the Minutes of the Order. Stand over to 20th January 2026. 2.

We clarify that we have not examined the contentions raised on Mane

13-WP-4065-25.DOC behalf of the SRA, and more particularly the contention that the development in the present case is admittedly a development under DCPR 33(11). (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Mane