Bombay High Court Rejects Slum Dwellers’ In-Situ Rehabilitation Claim; Holds Rehabilitation Right Is Not Ownership and Upholds Bhandup PAP Allotment by BMC
Bombay High Court Rejects Slum Dwellers’ Claim for In-Situ Rehabilitation; Holds Eligible Occupants Cannot Insist on Housing Only on Developer’s Land
Facts
The petition was filed by Mangesh Yashwant Parave and other slum dwellers under Article 226 challenging the Assistant Commissioner, ‘E’ Department, BMC’s order dated 13 May 2026 and seeking enforcement of undertakings dated 4 April 2007 and 12 March 2008 allegedly given by the developers.
The petitioners’ structures were situated wholly or substantially on C.S. No. 782, Mazgaon Division, while respondent developers owned adjoining lands at Dr. Compound, Dattaram Lad Marg, Chinchpokli. A redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR, 2034 was being implemented on the developers’ land.
BMC had issued an allotment letter dated 3 February 2026, offering the petitioners permanent alternate accommodation in PAP tenements at Bhandup. The petitioners, however, insisted that they were entitled to in-situ rehabilitation on the developers’ land at Chinchpokli.
The controversy had a long history. In 2008, the petitioners and other slum dwellers had filed a City Civil Court suit seeking similar reliefs against the developers. That suit was dismissed for non-prosecution in 2013, and attempts to restore it were unsuccessful.
A BMC communication dated 12 September 2014 classified 44 hutments and specified which were to be rehabilitated by BMC and which by the developer. Annexure-II dated 4 September 2015 thereafter treated the petitioners as eligible slum dwellers for rehabilitation by BMC under the bottleneck policy.
Issues
The main issues were whether:
- the petitioners had an enforceable legal or fundamental right to in-situ rehabilitation on the developers’ land;
- the 2007 and 2008 undertakings created a binding obligation upon the developers to accommodate these petitioners in the redevelopment scheme;
- the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 13 May 2026 was arbitrary, non-speaking or violative of natural justice;
- the petitioners were entitled to parity with other allegedly similarly situated occupants;
- the prior civil proceedings barred or weakened the present writ;
- Article 226 jurisdiction could be invoked to decide disputed questions concerning the exact location and entitlement of individual hutments; and
- the BMC’s offer of PAP tenements at Bhandup lawfully satisfied the petitioners’ rehabilitation entitlement.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners argued that the developers were bound by undertakings dated 4 April 2007 and 12 March 2008, particularly the latter undertaking which stated that eligible hutment dwellers on the developer’s land would be accommodated in the redevelopment scheme.
They contended that these undertakings created a binding obligation in their favour and that the developers could not later refuse in-situ rehabilitation.
They further argued that the impugned order did not properly consider these assurances, lacked adequate reasons and violated natural justice.
The petitioners also relied upon parity, claiming that similarly situated persons had been granted in-situ rehabilitation while they had been denied the same.
Finally, they asserted that in-situ rehabilitation was part of their fundamental right under Article 21, and that shifting them to Bhandup instead of rehousing them at Chinchpokli was arbitrary.
Respondents’ Arguments
BMC argued that Annexure-II dated 4 September 2015 and the allotment letter dated 3 February 2026 clearly established that the petitioners were to be rehabilitated by BMC, not by the private developers.
BMC stated that permanent alternate accommodation at Bhandup was already constructed and that it was ready to execute PAAAs in favour of the petitioners.
It further argued that the petitioners could not insist upon rehabilitation only at Chinchpokli, particularly when part of the relevant land had been taken over for road widening.
The developers separately argued that the writ was not maintainable because a civil suit seeking substantially similar reliefs had already been dismissed and never restored. They described the writ as an attempt to pursue parallel proceedings and take a “second bite at the cherry.”
They also argued that the 2008 undertaking applied only to eligible slum dwellers actually situated on the developers’ land. The petitioners’ structures were entirely or predominantly on BMC land.
Analysis of the Law
Prior Civil Proceedings Weakened the Writ
The Court first noted that the petitioners had already instituted a civil suit seeking similar reliefs.
That suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had never been restored. Even after the Bombay High Court gave liberty in July 2025 to challenge the earlier restoration rejection, no further steps were shown to have been taken.
The Court therefore accepted the developers’ submission that the present writ substantially represented a second attempt to obtain the same relief through another proceeding.
Annexure-II and 2014 Classification Controlled Rehabilitation Responsibility
The Court attached considerable importance to Annexure-II dated 4 September 2015, which had not been challenged by the petitioners.
That document showed that the petitioners were eligible for rehabilitation by BMC. Since Annexure-II continued to hold the field, the petitioners could not ignore it and insist that the developers alone were obliged to rehabilitate them.
The Court also examined BMC’s 12 September 2014 communication, which divided the 44 hutments according to location and rehabilitation responsibility.
The table reproduced on page 12 of the judgment is significant: it shows that only 8 huts were completely on the developers’ land, while 26 huts were partly on BMC and partly on developer land but were to be removed by BMC; the Court later noted that the majority of the hutments, including those of the petitioners, fell within BMC’s rehabilitation responsibility.
Impugned Order Was a Speaking Order
The petitioners’ natural justice challenge was expressly rejected.
The Division Bench found that the Assistant Commissioner’s order contained detailed factual findings, dealt with the parties’ contentions and specifically addressed the 2008 undertaking.
The competent authority had found that the petitioners’ hutments were mainly located on BMC-owned C.S. No. 782 rather than the developers’ land. The High Court held that such fact-based findings did not warrant interference under Article 226.
Writ Court Would Not Decide Intricate Factual Disputes
The Court emphasised that the precise location of each hutment, entitlement against BMC vis-à-vis the developer and extent of land occupation involved contested factual issues.
Those questions could not appropriately be converted into a fact-finding exercise under Article 226.
The Court therefore refused to enter into disputed claims and counter-claims concerning entitlement to particular land.
No Fundamental Right to In-Situ Rehabilitation
This was the most significant legal holding.
The Court relied upon Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari & Ors. v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719.
It held that merely because a person is a protected slum dweller does not mean that rehabilitation must necessarily occur on the same land or within the immediate vicinity.
The Court expressly stated that a right to rehabilitation cannot be equated with a right of ownership. Where the petitioners are being offered permanent alternate accommodation, they cannot insist upon a particular site merely because it is preferable to them.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the argument that Article 21 creates a fundamental right to be rehabilitated specifically on the developers’ land.
Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation
The petition contained suggestions of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, but the Court held that no specific enforceable representation or promise had been demonstrated.
Without an enforceable right or a clearly established promise in favour of these petitioners, neither doctrine assisted their case.
Precedent Analysis
Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
This was the primary precedent applied.
The coordinate Bench had held that protected slum-dweller status cannot be stretched into a right to rehabilitation only on the same land or nearby.
The present Division Bench adopted that principle and held that rehabilitation entitlement is not equivalent to ownership or site-specific entitlement.
High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra
The Court referred to this recent suo motu decision concerning implementation of Maharashtra’s slum legislation.
It noted that the coordinate Bench had strongly deprecated claims insisting upon in-situ rehabilitation, observing that such claims find no justification within the constitutional scheme and were “unconscionable.”
Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
The judgment notes that the Supreme Court had earlier referred broader issues arising under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act to the Bombay High Court for performance-audit scrutiny. This formed part of the broader context in which the Court discouraged automatic site-specific rehabilitation claims.
Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Bishop John Rodrigues v. State of Maharashtra
These Bombay High Court authorities were cited as reflecting the same judicial approach against treating in-situ rehabilitation as an automatic or constitutional entitlement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found several independent reasons to reject the petition.
First, the petitioners had already pursued substantially similar civil proceedings, which remained dismissed.
Second, the unchallenged Annexure-II categorised them as eligible occupants to be rehabilitated by BMC.
Third, the factual material showed that their structures were wholly or substantially situated on BMC land, not the developers’ land.
Fourth, the Assistant Commissioner had already examined these factual disputes and passed a reasoned order.
Fifth, the petitioners were not being denied rehabilitation. On the contrary, BMC had offered ready permanent alternate accommodation at Bhandup and was willing to execute PAAAs.
Sixth, rehabilitation does not create a property right or an entitlement to choose the precise land on which alternate housing must be provided.
Finally, their parity argument failed because the person relied upon as comparator, Kishore Amichand Kharva, had himself filed a similar writ petition which was still pending and in which no interim relief had been granted.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition.
It upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s decision and rejected the petitioners’ insistence that they had to be rehabilitated in-situ on the developers’ land at Chinchpokli.
The Court held that the petitioners’ entitlement was to rehabilitation, not to ownership or a site-specific permanent alternate accommodation. Since BMC was offering ready PAP tenements at Bhandup, the petitioners could not claim a fundamental right to be rehoused only on the redevelopment site.
The Court nevertheless left the petitioners free to raise such claims or counter-claims as may be available before an appropriate authority or court in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case: Mangesh Yashwant Parave & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 18278 of 2026; CNR No. HCBM020182782026
Judges: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna
Date: 25 August 2026
Result: Writ petition disposed of without interference. Claim for in-situ rehabilitation on developers’ land rejected; BMC’s Bhandup PAP rehabilitation remained available; petitioners given liberty to pursue other remedies permitted by law.
