Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 9 September 2026 (Reserved on 25 August 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant/Defendant No.11 – Manav Developers Pvt. Ltd.; Respondents – Jaysing Yashwant More and 90 other plaintiffs (total 91) residing in Bhoite Chawl, Pune; Respondent‑State represented by AGP Dinesh J. Haldankar; Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) of Pimpri‑Chinchwad Area as Respondent No.92.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Revision Application No. 455 of 2017 filed by Manav Developers challenging the Trial Court order dated 24 July 2017 that rejected an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  • Background: The land (CTS nos. 3491‑3497, 4737.02 sq.m., Survey no. 16A/1, Bopodi, Pune) was declared a slum by Notification dated 23 August 1979. Manav Developers purchased the land via a registered sale deed on 6 November 2012 and submitted a proposal on 19 September 2013 for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 1938 of 2016 alleging that the SRA’s preparation of the primary eligibility list (Schedule II, Annexure‑2 dated 16 May 2015) was illegal, that they were wrongly declared ineligible, and that the SRA scheme should not be implemented without due process.
  • Legal Issues: Whether the suit is barred by Section 42 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, which bars civil courts from entertaining matters that can be decided by the designated slum authorities (Competent Authority, Appellate Authority, Grievance Redressal Committee, Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, or Tribunal). The plaintiffs also sought declarations and injunctions concerning the slum declaration and eligibility determination.
  • Statutory Provisions Cited: Section 42 (bar of jurisdiction), Section 4(3) (right to appeal slum declaration to Tribunal within 30 days), Section 35 (right to appeal notices/orders of Competent Authority to Appellate Authority, Grievance Redressal Committee, or Apex Grievance Redressal Committee).

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the bar under Section 42 of the Slum Act is attracted because the plaintiffs’ grievances relate to the slum declaration and the eligibility decision contained in Annexure‑2, both of which have specific statutory remedies.
  • The Trial Court’s finding that the plaintiffs had not challenged any SRA notice or order was rejected as a mis‑reading; Annexure‑2 is a decision of the SRA and is appealable under Section 35.
  • Consequently, the order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the Trial Court is set aside.
  • The application filed by Manav Developers (Exhibit 58) is allowed, and the plaint in Special Civil Suit No. 1938 of 2016 is rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code.
  • The suit is therefore dismissed, and no order as to costs is made.

Subsequent Developments Noted

  • A letter dated 10 March 2026 from the SRA indicated that, after the filing of the suit, 66 of the 91 plaintiffs were declared eligible in the final eligibility list, 33 had executed consent agreements on 21 June 2021, and 16 plaintiffs who remained ineligible had filed appeals under the Slum Act (pending before the appropriate authorities). Final approval to the scheme was issued on 25 August 2023.
  • The Court noted these developments only to confirm that the revision application is decided on the basis of the plaint’s averments; the subsequent settlements do not affect the jurisdictional analysis.

Topics: Court Jurisdiction, Slum Rehabilitation Act, Civil Procedure