The Bombay High Court questioned the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on how the petitioner’s private land, which has 5 to 6 structures, could be declared a slum merely because it is near an adjoining slum area.
The Bombay High Court mandated the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Maharashtra’s Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to personally submit an affidavit explaining how a specific piece of private land was proposed to be classified as a slum under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, simply because an adjacent plot had been designated as such.
A bench comprising Justices GS Kulkarni and Manjusha Deshpande was reviewing a petition by Ramesh Singh, a landowner in Malad, who claimed that he received a unilateral notice from the SRA declaring his property a slum.
Earlier, On September 2, the Court provided Singh with interim protection, determining that he presented a compelling prima facie case regarding the protection of his property rights. The Court ordered that the status quo be maintained, preventing Singh’s land from being included in any slum rehabilitation scheme until a final decision is reached.
The Court sought a personal affidavit from the SRA’s CEO regarding the classification of Singh’s land as a slum.
The Court stated,
“We also direct the Chief Executive Officer, SRA to place on record as to how the petitioner’s land which has 5 to 6 structures could be declared as ‘Slum’ merely because the adjoining land is declared as slum,”
The Court expressed surprise at the SRA counsel’s claim that decisions on slum classifications were not made by the CEO, but by subordinate officers within the SRA. It ordered the CEO to clarify this point in his affidavit.
The Court remarked in its order on September 2,
“We are quite surprised at this submission. This position also be made clear in the affidavit of the SRA as to whether the officers subordinate to the Chief Executive Officer take such decisions and under what authority in law,”
When the case was revisited on September 9, the Court dismissed the SRA counsel’s request to accept an affidavit from the authority’s Deputy Chief Engineer instead of insisting on the CEO’s affidavit.
The Court reiterated,
“We required the Chief Executive Officer to file an affidavit, as specifically directed by such order. Accordingly, affidavit of the Chief Executive Officer be placed on record within one week from today, so that further appropriate orders can be passed,”
The matter has since been postponed to September 24.
The petition challenges a November 2024 notice issued under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, which grants the SRA powers to develop Slum Rehabilitation Areas.
The petitioner argued that his 440 square meter plot in Malad (East), which contains only 5 to 6 structures and is designated for a garden and a DP road in the city’s Development Plan 2034, was incorrectly included with an adjoining slum area housing 128 residents.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s right to develop his private land was previously affirmed in an order from August 2024, asserting that the SRA could not forcibly incorporate his plot into the slum rehabilitation scheme. It also questioned the legality of classifying the land as a slum based solely on a few existing structures.
Pending the final resolution of this petition, the Court ordered,
“We direct status quo as of today to be maintained in respect of the petitioner’s land, and/or the petitioner’s land shall not form part of any slum rehabilitation scheme being undertaken on the adjoining plot either at the hands of the owners of the adjoining plots or by the developer appointed by any society of slum dwellers.”
However, it allowed redevelopment of the adjacent notified slum land, provided that it complies with legal requirements.
Advocates Sankalp A Sharma and Ameya Vaidya, represented by Advocate Karthic Iyer, appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate Ravleen Sabharwal represented the SRA, while Additional Government Pleader Rakesh Pathak appeared for the State. Advocate KH Mastakar, briefed by Advocate Komal Punjabi, represented the BMC.
Case Title: Ramesh Swaminath Singh v SRA & Ors