-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“This is a clear case where a rival developer desires to displace the petitioner–developer by adducing a completely frivolous and illegal case…” – In a significant ruling Bombay High Court decisively quashed all attempts to derail a lawfully sanctioned Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRA) at Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. The Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Arif S. Doctor in Sateri Builders & Developers LLP v. Minister of State, Home (Rural), Housing & Ors. sternly censured political interference, particularly by a local MLA, which was aimed at sabotaging the project and favouring a rival developer. The Court held: “The attempt by Respondent No. 9 is merely to scuttle redevelopment of the project and SR Scheme for their own ulterior motives and benefit.”
“The Developer has fulfilled all statutory obligations… there is no cause to withhold permissions” – Court directs authorities to act without delay
The slum redevelopment project pertained to Final Plot No. 187 (pt), admeasuring 4442.95 square metres, situated at Vile Parle (East) and undertaken by the Petitioner, Sateri Builders & Developers LLP, who was appointed in November 2020 by Shree Gurukrupa SRA Co-op Hsg Society. The scheme also included rehabilitation of 47 slum dwellers residing on the adjacent DP Road (Dayaldas Road)—classified as Project Affected Persons (PAPs)—as mandated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
A Letter of Intent (LOI) and Intimation of Approval (IOA) were issued in 2022. However, several non-cooperative slum dwellers, allegedly backed by Respondent No. 9, a local MLA, began raising objections, which culminated in a complaint dated 13th May 2025 to the Minister of State, Housing, seeking cancellation of the LOI.
The Minister, acting the very next day, issued a hearing notice dated 14th May 2025, thereby reopening issues that had already been settled by the Bombay High Court on 2nd April 2024 and affirmed by the Supreme Court on 13th May 2024.
“The Court has already adjudicated these issues conclusively… Respondent No. 9 is seeking to regurgitate issues already decided” – Petitioner
The Court examined the following core legal questions:
Whether the Minister could legally act upon a complaint and reopen a slum rehabilitation project already approved and upheld by the Courts.
Whether a deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 had been acquired.
Whether objections based on alleged insufficient consents or misrepresentation held merit in law.
The Court’s response was categorical:
“Findings returned by the AGRC… are clearly unsustainable and need to be interfered with.”
“There is no substance in Respondent No. 9's objection… the smaller area [DP Road] cannot be developed on its own.”
The Bench rejected all allegations about manipulation of consents:
“Even assuming that eligible slum dwellers from the DP Road area have to be included and considered for obtaining their consent… still the Society has clear consents of more than 51%.”
“Deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 applies… no further permission can be withheld” – Court upholds statutory right of the developer
The Court took serious note of the unexplained delay by SRA and MCGM in granting the Commencement Certificate (CC) despite the developer’s compliance with all statutory conditions, including rent deposits and updated annexures.
“Once the slum rehabilitation project was approved by the SRA, it was incumbent upon the MCGM to give building permission within 60 days… it shall be deemed to have been given.”
The developer’s repeated requests invoking “deemed NOC” under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 were ignored, leading to the present litigation.
Even after the Advocate General appeared in Court and clarified that the Minister had issued no binding order, the SRA continued obstructing the project. The Court said: “Despite the statement by the Advocate General… Respondent No. 2 continued to obstruct the progress of the said scheme.”
“Inclusion of DP Road PAPs was a pre-condition of the SRA—not a fraudulent attempt” – Allegations of fraud declared baseless
The Court strongly refuted the claim that the developer had manipulated the scheme by excluding certain slum dwellers or inflating consents.
“There can be no element of fraud played by the Petitioner–Developer… Inclusion of slum structures on the DP Road area is at the behest of the SRA, not the Developer.”
The Court reiterated that the inclusion of 47 PAPs from the DP Road was in public interest, to clear the path for traffic to T2 Terminal of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
“Once the DP Road is freed of hutments and structures, it can be made open for vehicular traffic, free of congestion.”
Final Directions by the Court:
The Court granted wide-ranging reliefs:
“The hearing notice dated 14.05.2025 is quashed and set aside.”
“Respondents are directed to issue the Commencement Certificate (CC)… and take all necessary steps for implementation of the SRA scheme.”
“Respondents are restrained from allowing any third-party interference in the project implementation.”
The Court cited Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa CHS (2024) 9 SCC 606, reinforcing that once legal approvals are in place, rehabilitation schemes cannot be indefinitely stalled.
“Equity is clearly in favour of the Petitioner–Developer and Respondent No. 4 Society” – Bombay High Court
This judgment marks a strong judicial rebuke to extrajudicial and political interference in public welfare schemes. By vindicating the developer’s rights and mandating strict statutory adherence, the Court underscored that rehabilitation of the urban poor must not be held hostage to rival developers’ ambitions or political convenience.
The ruling now clears the way for long-awaited redevelopment in Vile Parle, promising better housing and public infrastructure for affected residents.
Date of Decision: 22nd August 2025
