The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has terminated M/s Bhatia Land Developers Pvt Ltd as developer of the Malvani Rahivasi Co-operative Housing Society scheme in Malad (West), even though the society told the authority it wanted to continue with the same builder.

The order was passed on 4 August 2026 by CEO/SRA Dr Mahendra Kalyankar under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The scheme covers land bearing CTS No. 2844 (pt) of Village Malvani, owned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, measuring about 5,300 sq m. The society represents 103 slum dwellers.

SRA’s finding is blunt: after more than 17 years, the project has not moved beyond the first paper stage. Society support, the authority said, cannot wipe out that record.

How the scheme started

Slum dwellers on the plot formed Malvani Rahivasi CHS and appointed Bhatia Land Developers as developer and Jitendra B. Patel as architect. SRA accepted the proposal on 24 December 2008. Annexure-II and Annexure-III were forwarded on 14 January 2009.

That was the last real milestone.

No Letter of Intent was issued. No Intimation of Approval followed. No Commencement Certificate was granted. Construction never began.

Why the scheme sat idle

The land belongs to MCGM. Both the developer and the society said further work could not start because the No Objection Certificate from the Assistant Commissioner (Estate Department), MCGM, was pending.

SRA later put the scheme in a list of 517 “dormant” proposals published through a public notice dated 20 April 2022. This scheme was at serial number 387.

The Bombay High Court quashed that public notice on 10 January 2023 in Writ Petition (L) No. 14017 of 2022 (Nipun Thakkar v. CEO/SRA). The Court made one important clarification: quashing the notice did not stop SRA from taking action against non-performing developers where the facts justified it.

SRA then started these suo motu proceedings after an Engineering Department note dated 5 March 2024.

What the society told SRA

Hearings were held on 6 May 2025, 9 June 2025, 16 December 2025, 8 January 2026 and 14 July 2026.

On behalf of the society, representatives said:

• The delay was mainly due to MCGM ownership and NOC issues, not the developer’s inaction.
• The ownership issue has now been resolved and MCGM is ready to issue a fresh Annexure-II.
• Members still have full confidence in Bhatia Land Developers.
• The society never asked for action under Section 13(2).
• The proceedings should be dropped so that 103 families can finally get rehab.

The developer repeated that the scheme was accepted in 2008 and that the MCGM Estate NOC was still awaited.

Why SRA rejected that defence

SRA accepted that the society supports the developer and that the MCGM NOC was a genuine hurdle. It still held that this was not enough.

The authority’s reasoning, in substance:

• A developer’s job does not end with appointment. He must keep chasing permissions with proof.
• Over 17 years, the developer did not place on record letters, reminders, representations or other papers showing continuous follow-up with MCGM.
• Pending NOC cannot, by itself, explain a complete freeze when there is no paper trail of effort.
• Society consent cannot waive the developer’s statutory duty or stop SRA from using Section 13(2).
• The Slum Act exists to rehabilitate eligible slum dwellers quickly. A scheme cannot stay at the starting line indefinitely only because the society still likes the same builder.
• High Court had already said SRA’s powers remain intact even after the 2022 dormant-list notice was quashed.

SRA framed two issues and answered both “Yes”:

1. Was there non-performance by the developer?
2. Is the delay attributable to the developer?

It then terminated Bhatia Land Developers as developer of the subject scheme.

What this means on the ground

For 103 slum families, the old developer-society arrangement is over. SRA has not appointed a new developer in this order. The society will have to go through a fresh process if it wants another developer — or if it still wants Bhatia, it will have to do so only if SRA later permits it after due process.

The architect is named as a respondent, but the operative direction only terminates the developer.

The larger message from the order is clear: in a 17-year-old SRA scheme with no LOI, no IOA and no construction, society loyalty does not automatically save the developer.

Also Read: SRA Dream Turns Nightmare: Kurla Homebuyers Lose Flats Despite Paying Crores

The post Society Backed Same Builder After 17-Year Delay. SRA Still Terminated Him appeared first on Square Feat India.