Authority: Bombay High Court, Mumbai (Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale)

Order Date: Reserved on 24 August 2026; Pronounced on 29 September 2026

---

Case Overview

  • Parties: petitioner – Ruparel Buildcon Private Ltd; respondents – State of Maharashtra, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and its officials, Siddharth Colony Vikas Sena Sangh Sahakari Grihnirman Sanstha (Federation), various cooperative societies of slum dwellers, and individual developers (Adishakti Developers, Bhatt Group, KKB Developers, Richa).
  • Land: Approximately 66,000 sq m of government land in Chembur, Mumbai (CTS Nos. 470 (part), 471 (part) and 366/6 (part)).
  • Background: The slum scheme was initiated in August 2006 but remained stalled for about 20 years due to inter‑developer disputes and multiple litigations (Writ Nos. 1716/2011, 2482/2012, 678/2012, etc.). The Federation of 33 societies appointed Adishakti Developers in 2006; later disputes led to a High‑Power Committee (HPC) order (20 July 2011) directing a fresh consent process.
  • Consent Terms (1 March 2021): A 36‑page agreement between the Federation, the erstwhile developers and Ruparel, wherein:
  • Ruparel was appointed as the sole developer.
  • The Federation agreed to pay Rs 11.75 crore to settle electricity dues (BEST/MSEDCL), Rs 3.85 crore to Adishakti Developers, and Rs 18.74 crore to the Bhatt Group.
  • Compensation amounts to be paid to the former developers:
  • Nikaljes (including Adishakti): Rs 69,83,44,800 (≈ ₹69.83 cr).
  • Bhatt Group (including AGNPL & KKB): Rs 58,74,80,000 (≈ ₹58.75 cr).
  • Richa: Rs 92,52,20,000 (≈ ₹92.52 cr).
  • Ruparel undertook to secure all necessary approvals, bear construction costs, and not to relinquish the appointment without SRA consent.
  • Subsequent Approvals:
  • SRA approved Ruparel as developer on 25 March 2021.
  • Letter of Intent (LOI) issued 6 August 2021 after verification of 51 % consent (823 of 1520 eligible hutment dwellers).
  • Intimation of Approval (IOA) for eight rehabilitation buildings (3153 tenements + 96 amenity units) issued 13 August 2021.
  • Revised LOI issued 18 November 2025.
  • Permanent Transit Camp (PTC) allotment for 586 units issued 8 July 2025; Ruparel deposited Rs 1,52,50,000 as rent on 16 July 2025.
  • Review Petition (3 2022): Some societies challenged the 1 March 2021 order, arguing that the Federation had not obtained proper General Body Resolutions. The Division Bench on 14 September 2022 set aside the 1 March 2021 order, restored the writ petitions, and directed that the societies be impleaded.
  • Further Proceedings: Numerous interim applications, a special General Body Meeting notice (13 Feb 2026), and a SRA internal communication dated 4 Feb 2026 directing verification of consent and financial capacity. The SRA later withdrew the 13 Feb 2026 notice.
  • Petitioner’s Submissions: Argued that the consent terms remain a binding contract between signatories, that SRA had already granted LOI/IOA and PTC allotment, and that substantial sums (totaling over ₹2.5 cr in deposits and ₹2.5 cr in developer payments) had been expended.
  • Respondents’ Submissions: Contended that the 51 % consent requirement under Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR‑2034 had not been satisfied, that the Federation’s resolutions were defective, and that the developer should be removed pending a fresh consent verification.

---

Final Outcome

1. Open‑door for Further Challenge: Slum‑dwellers or societies may approach the Chief Executive Officer, SRA (or any appropriate statutory forum) within three weeks of this order; the SRA must adjudicate the matter within six weeks.

2. Compensation Directive: If the SRA decides to remove Ruparel as developer, it must compensate Ruparel for expenditures incurred, with interest at a commercial rate.

3. Impugned Communications Stopped: The SRA’s internal letter dated 4 February 2026 and the special General Body Meeting notice dated 13 February 2026 shall not be acted upon.

4. PTC Allotment Restored: Any cancellation of the Permanent Transit Camp allocation or refund of the paid amount must be reversed.

5. Disposition of Related Petitions:

  • Writ Petition (L) No. 7387/2026, Writ Petition No. 658/2026, and Writ Petition No. 24849/2026 are disposed as per the above terms.
  • The older writ petitions (Nos. 1716/2011, 2482/2012, 678/2012) are disposed of; their merits are expressly kept open.
  • All interim applications filed in these matters are disposed of.

6. Policy Observation: The Court emphasized that for slum schemes on government land, the 51 % consent clause should be bypassed and the State should directly undertake redevelopment through an appointed architect and developer.

---

Topics: Slum Rehabilitation, Developer Appointment, Public Land Utilization