The Housing Department issued a Government Resolution on July 31, 2026, citing the Bombay High Court’s May 8, 2026 order in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1 of 2024. The government resolution states that the High Court had directed the constitution of an Expert Committee to undertake the Performance Audit of the 1971 Act.

Why the Performance Audit has been ordered

The government resolution refers to the Supreme Court matter of “Yash Developers versus Harihar Krupa Cooperative Housing Society” and notes that a large number of cases relating to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, reach the courts.

Against this backdrop, the Bombay High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to examine issues concerning the functioning of the Act. The High Court’s exercise involved considering submissions from various stakeholders, including developers, landowners, cooperative housing societies and legal professionals.

The government has now formally approved the formation of the Expert Committee to undertake the Performance Audit.

Who is on the Expert Committee?

The committee will be headed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department-1, will serve as a member. The committee also includes MLA Parag Alavani, former Lok Sabha member Rahul Shewale, senior officials from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Pune Municipal Corporation, the Director of Town Planning, architects and representatives from the architectural profession.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Brihanmumbai, has been appointed as the Member Secretary.

What will the committee examine?

The committee has been assigned three broad responsibilities.

First, it will conduct the Performance Audit of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

Second, it will examine the issues identified by the Bombay High Court in its May 8, 2026 order in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1 of 2024, along with recommendations submitted by various stakeholders and legal professionals in the appendix to the court’s order.

Third, the committee will make recommendations aimed at accelerating slum rehabilitation schemes so that slum residents can be provided with dignified living conditions and the objective of creating slum-free cities can be pursued.

Committee gets 10 months

The Expert Committee has been given 10 months to study the issues and submit its recommendations to the state government.

The government resolution describes the Performance Audit as a wide-ranging exercise and says it needs to be completed within the timeframe prescribed by the High Court.

SRA to create a supporting sub-committee

Given the wide scope of the exercise, the government has also directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to establish a sub-committee to assist the Expert Committee.

The sub-committee is expected to include representatives from SRA departments dealing with engineering, cooperative matters, finance, land acquisition, eligibility and ineligibility of hutment dwellers, town planning and other relevant areas.

This mechanism is intended to provide the Expert Committee with departmental expertise and assistance while it undertakes the audit.

Potential significance for Mumbai’s redevelopment sector

The Performance Audit could become significant for Mumbai’s slum rehabilitation and redevelopment sector because the committee has been specifically asked to examine the functioning of the 1971 Act, consider stakeholder and legal recommendations, and suggest measures to speed up rehabilitation.

However, the Government Resolution itself does not specify what amendments, policy changes or procedural reforms the committee will ultimately recommend. Those recommendations are to emerge after the committee completes its study and submits its report to the government.

The resolution has been issued by the Maharashtra Housing Department and is digitally signed by Under Secretary Sunil Unkarde. The government has also made the resolution available through the Maharashtra government website under computer code 202607311608003009.

Also Read: Relocate Slum Dwellers into Unsold Flats: Praja Foundation’s Citizens’ Manifesto Demands

The post Maharashtra Forms Expert Committee to Audit 1971 Slum Act, Gives 10 Months for Recommendations appeared first on Square Feat India.

The notices, issued on May 6, 2026, pertain to CTS No. F/62 (606.20 sq.mtr) and CTS No. F/650 (595.80 sq.mtr) in Village Bandra. The SRA has invited objections from landowners and interested parties within 30 days for acquisition of these lands under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971, to facilitate slum rehabilitation.

The applicant in both notices is Jivanam Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Background of the Projects

These plots form part of three clubbed SRA schemes — Pali Pereirawadi SRA CHS, Adarsh Nagar SRA CHS, and Gautam Kripa Dheeraj Grand SRA CHS — that had been handed over to companies associated with the HDIL group (Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd.).

In a landmark order passed on January 6, 2025, the Chief Executive Officer of SRA, Dr. Mahendra Kalyankar, had terminated the appointments of M/s R.K.W. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd. (HDIL), and Damask Infracon Pvt. Ltd. as developers of these schemes. The SRA cited prolonged delays, non-payment of transit rent to slum dwellers for several years, and the developers’ lack of financial capacity to complete the projects.

The authority then approved the takeover by Piramal Capital & Housing Finance along with Jivanam Developers Pvt. Ltd. under the government’s Amnesty Scheme.

HDIL’s Downfall

HDIL, once one of Mumbai’s largest real estate developers known for aggressive SRA projects, ran into severe financial and legal trouble following the collapse of its sister concern, DHFL (Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.). The Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched a major money laundering investigation against the Wadhawan brothers and their companies, alleging diversion of funds through various SRA projects in Mumbai. Multiple HDIL projects, including those in Bandra, were placed under status quo, severely halting progress and leaving thousands of slum dwellers in limbo for years.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) also initiated insolvency proceedings against the group, further complicating project execution.

Ray of Hope for Residents

With the latest land acquisition notices, the new developers are now taking concrete legal steps to clear hurdles and move the projects into the construction phase. Slum dwellers, many of whom vacated their homes over a decade ago and have been receiving irregular or no transit rent, are hopeful that the change in guard will finally deliver them new homes.

The SRA has made it clear that the new joint developers will have to reimburse HDIL for verified expenses incurred on the projects as per Section 13(3) of the Slum Act.

This development marks an important chapter in the revival of stalled SRA projects across Mumbai, where private developers’ failure has increasingly led to financial institutions and new developers stepping in under government intervention.

Also Read: Home Buyers Of HDIL Projects Wary, Post PMC Bank Scam

The post HDIL-linked Bandra Slum Redevelopment Projects Gain Fresh Momentum as SRA Initiates Land Acquisition appeared first on Square Feat India.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by a commercial slum occupant from Malad, the court held that disagreements regarding whether a rehabilitation shop should be road-facing or internally located cannot be used to block demolition and eviction proceedings, especially when such resistance delays completion of an entire Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project.

Eviction Powers Under Slum Act Have Limited Scope: Court

Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, while deciding Writ Petition No. 2892 of 2025, observed that proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act are summary in nature and intended solely to ensure that slum rehabilitation projects are not obstructed.

The court clarified that, at the eviction stage, authorities are only required to examine whether:

• the occupant has been asked to vacate,
• the occupant has refused to comply, and
• such refusal is obstructing the progress of the rehabilitation project.

Questions relating to the exact location, frontage, or commercial advantage of the permanent alternate premises, the court said, fall outside the scope of eviction proceedings and must be agitated separately.

Case Background: Road-Facing Shop Dispute

The petitioner, Arvind Pravinkumar Mehta, was a commercial slum occupant whose structure stood in the way of obtaining the Fire NOC and Occupation Certificate for an almost-completed SRA rehabilitation building at Malad.

Mehta claimed that under a 2016 agreement with the developer, he was entitled to a road-facing commercial shop on Khotkuwa Road. When the SRA authorities directed eviction of his temporary structure, he refused to vacate, insisting that eviction could not proceed unless his exact rehabilitation shop location was finalised.

Authorities Acted to Protect Larger Public Interest

The Competent Authority of the SRA, by an order dated 1 January 2025, directed eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, noting that:

• the rehabilitation building was substantially complete,
• rent compensation had already been deposited,
• the petitioner’s structure was blocking fire access and project approvals, and
• hundreds of eligible slum dwellers were awaiting possession.

The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) upheld this order on 6 May 2025, observing that individual disputes cannot be allowed to derail an entire public housing project.

‘Vacate First, Litigate Later’ Principle Reaffirmed

Upholding the eviction, the High Court relied on several earlier judgments, including Andrade Motors, Anil Kesrimal Jain, and recent rulings reiterating that rehabilitation entitlement disputes cannot override statutory eviction powers.

The court emphasised that while the petitioner remains free to pursue remedies for enforcement of contractual promises regarding shop location, such disputes cannot be raised as a defence against eviction under the Slum Act.

Petition Dismissed, Limited Protection Granted

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction order, while granting the petitioner three weeks’ time to vacate peacefully. It clarified that the petitioner may pursue appropriate legal proceedings regarding allotment or agreement enforcement, but only after vacating the obstructing structure.

Impact of the Ruling

Legal experts say the ruling strengthens the hands of SRA authorities and developers by reaffirming that individual allotment grievances cannot be used to hold large-scale rehabilitation projects hostage. The judgment is expected to have significant implications for stalled SRA projects across Mumbai, where disputes over rehab flat or shop locations often delay completion and handover.

Also Read: Government Launches Slum Cluster Scheme: 50+ Acre Projects Under SRA, No Slum Dweller Consent Required

The post Bombay High Court: Slum Occupants Cannot Stall Eviction Over Disputes on Rehab Shop Location appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order came in a writ petition filed by Vijay Namdev Gujar and others, slum dwellers rehabilitated under DCPR 2034 Regulation 33(10), who have not received transit rent for nearly four years.

HC Pulls Up Developers; Says “Legitimate Transit Rent Must Be Paid Immediately”

The petitioners said that while transit rent was paid until 2021, the developer stopped payments thereafter. The developer appeared in court and agreed to pay all legitimate dues. The High Court, however, pressed for strict accountability.

The bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe directed:

• The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) must hold a personal hearing within two weeks and determine the exact arrears and the applicable interest.
• Once decided, the developer must immediately disburse the transit rent, either directly or by depositing it with SRA within one week.

Section 33B: Transit Rent Dues Recoverable as Arrears of Land Revenue

The Court highlighted the new Section 33B, which makes it mandatory for SRA to enforce recovery of unpaid transit rent. Crucially, the section includes a first-of-its-kind personal liability clause:

• If the developer company/LLP does not have enough assets,
  the unpaid transit rent can be recovered from the personal property of its directors or partners.

This is the strongest legal mechanism introduced so far to protect slum dwellers from delays and non-payment.

Court Directs SRA: Transit Rent Complaints Must Be Resolved in 15 Days

Expressing sharp displeasure at the growing number of complaints reaching the Court instead of being resolved by SRA, the bench noted:

• Delay in transit rent payments violates the Right to Shelter under Article 21.
• SRA officers cannot allow complaints to remain pending.
• Any transit rent complaint must be decided within 15 days, failing which it will be treated as a breach of fundamental rights.
• SRA CEO must issue a circular directing all competent officers to follow these timelines.

The Court cautioned that if SRA officers continue to show laxity, the Court will take strict action.

Developers Cannot Divert Transit Rent Funds, Says Court

The Court strongly criticised the practice where some developers take up projects but divert funds meant for transit rent towards other uses.

The judges noted:

Developers cannot undertake the scheme, not pay transit rent, and utilise the money elsewhere, depriving slum dwellers of their legitimate dues.

Why This Order Matters for Slum Dwellers Across Mumbai

This judgment is significant for tens of thousands of slum dwellers living in transit accommodation. Key takeaways:

• Transit rent must be paid on time, without exception.
• Developers cannot escape liability by hiding behind corporate structures.
• Personal assets of directors/partners are now at risk if dues remain unpaid.
• SRA is obligated to act swiftly and cannot delay complaints.
• Protects the constitutional right to shelter, ensuring slum households are not financially abandoned.

Also Read: 35% Green Space Now Mandatory in Mumbai’s SRA Projects

The post Transit Rent Default Can Cost Builders Their Personal Assets, Bombay HC Signals in Strong Order appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a scathing order, the Bombay High Court has pulled up the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the State Government for acquiring private land in Mumbai’s Goregaon East — and offering a mere ₹12 lakh in compensation.

The case, involving NESCO Limited, exposed how private landowners are often stripped of their rights under the garb of “slum rehabilitation,” while developers and middlemen benefit.

What the Case Was About

NESCO Limited, owner of two adjoining plots — 721.1 sq. m and 791.7 sq. m (total nearly 1,500 sq. m of land) in Ram Nagar, Goregaon (East) — moved the High Court after its land was forcibly acquired under Section 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

The SRA claimed that since the land had been declared a “slum rehabilitation area,” the State could acquire it for redevelopment.
However, NESCO argued that as a private owner, it had a preferential right to redevelop its own land — a right the SRA ignored.

What the Court Found

After detailed hearings, the Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe agreed with NESCO and made several important findings:

• The land was undisputedly private; hence the owner’s rights under Article 300A of the Constitution must be respected.
• The SRA failed to issue a proper notice-cum-invitation under Section 13 of the Slum Act before starting acquisition.
• The compensation of ₹12 lakh for nearly 1,500 sq. m in Goregaon — one of Mumbai’s prime commercial zones — was “meagre and shocking.”
• The Court noted that the SRA acted mechanically, without verifying whether acquisition was truly necessary when the owner was ready to redevelop.

Court’s Strong Words for SRA and Government

The judges came down hard on the SRA, describing its actions as “draconian,” “arbitrary,” and driven by “unscrupulous elements.”

Quoting from earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Bench said:

“Until the landowner’s preferential right to develop is extinguished, the State cannot acquire private land. Any such process without notice is illegal.”

The Court warned officials not to exercise Section 14 powers “at the behest of private developers or groups misusing the law,” adding that such behaviour erodes the rule of law and harms genuine slum rehabilitation.

Society Changes Its Stand

In an interesting twist, even the slum society involved (Shivshardha Co-operative Housing Society – Proposed) later filed an affidavit supporting NESCO, admitting that the earlier developer had “misled” them into pushing for acquisition.
The society has now agreed to back NESCO for a joint redevelopment plan.

A Pattern of Abuse the Court Wants Stopped

This is not an isolated case. The judgment referred to several past rulings — including Indian Cork Mills, Bishop John Rodrigues, Tarabai Nagar Co-op Hsg. Society, and Saldanha Real Estate — all highlighting a similar problem:
Private landowners lose their property for negligible compensation while developers walk away with huge profits.

The Court urged the government to record clear reasons in writing before approving any acquisition under the Slum Act and to ensure “fairness and transparency” at every step.

What It Means for Landowners and Buyers

• Landowners: If your private land falls under a slum rehabilitation area, you have a legal right to redevelop it yourself before the government can step in.
• Developers: Deals bypassing landowners’ rights may be struck down by courts.
• Buyers and investors: Always verify that redevelopment proposals have followed the due process.

This ruling re-establishes that the SRA cannot be used as a shortcut for grabbing valuable private land in Mumbai.

The Takeaway

The Bombay High Court’s ruling is a wake-up call — ₹12 lakh for nearly 1,500 sq. m in Goregaon shows how far reality has drifted from fairness.
It sends a clear message: the SRA exists to rehabilitate the poor, not to dispossess private citizens.

Also Read: Financial Institutions To Redevelop Stuck SRA projects

The post ₹12 Lakh for Nearly 1,500 Sq. Mt Land in Goregaon: Bombay High Court Slams SRA’s ‘Draconian’ Land Grab appeared first on Square Feat India.

Landowners Win Against SRA’s “Illegal” Land Acquisition

In a landmark judgment that could reshape how the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) handles redevelopment projects, the Bombay High Court has quashed the acquisition of a Bhandup property, ruling that the landowners’ preferential right to redevelop cannot be bypassed.

A division bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe delivered the verdict on October 14, 2025, in Writ Petition Nos. 942 of 2024 and 1923 of 2019, holding that the SRA and State Government failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

The Court declared the acquisition of the property — Survey No. 81 (part), CTS No. 270 (part), located at Bhandup Village Road, opposite Bhatia Hospital — illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law.

Background: The Battle Over Bhandup Land

The dispute centered around 1,201 square yards of land at Bhandup, claimed by two parties — the heirs of late Malti Narayan Kakade, and the Tulsiram Devidayal Charity Trust.

Both parties, though in disagreement over ownership, united in challenging the SRA’s 2015 notification that acquired their land for a slum rehabilitation project proposed by Samata Seva Vikas Co-op. Housing Society and Sankalp Developers.

The landowners alleged that:

• No notice under Section 13(1) of the Slum Act was issued before acquisition.
• They were not given an opportunity to redevelop their own land, which is a legal right under the Act.
• The SRA bypassed due process by directly invoking Section 14 (acquisition powers).

The SRA, on the other hand, argued that all legal procedures were followed and that the landowners had delayed challenging the acquisition.

Court’s Findings: “Notice Under Section 13 Is a Sine Qua Non”

The bench categorically held that failure to issue notice under Section 13 — inviting the landowner to undertake redevelopment — renders any acquisition invalid.

The judges emphasized that the owner’s preferential right must be recognized before the SRA can acquire land for slum redevelopment.

Quoting previous case law, the Court observed:

“The issuance of a notice under Section 13 is a sine qua non for acquisition under Section 14. Without such notice, the entire process collapses.”

The Court reiterated that Article 300A of the Constitution protects private property rights, and authorities cannot deprive citizens of their land without following due process.

Legal Precedents That Strengthened the Case

The bench drew heavily from a series of earlier rulings that have now solidified the rights of landowners in slum redevelopment:

• Indian Cork Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra (2017): Held that the landowner must first be given a chance to redevelop before SRA takes over.
• Bishop John Rodrigues vs State of Maharashtra (2022): Confirmed that acquisition without notice to the owner violates natural justice.
• Saldanha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Bishop John Rodrigues (Supreme Court, 2024): The apex court upheld Bombay High Court’s view, ruling that Section 13 notice is mandatory, even after the 2018 amendment to the Slum Act.

The Court noted that these rulings establish a clear legal framework:

• The SRA must first invite the landowner to redevelop slum land within 120 days.
• Only if the owner fails or refuses to act can the SRA move to acquire the land.
• Skipping this step amounts to a violation of law and property rights.

Court’s Final Order

The High Court’s order reads:

“The acquisition of land in question is quashed and set aside, being arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law laid down in previous judgments.”

The Court further directed that:

• The SRA may issue a fresh notice to the petitioners, recognizing their preferential right to redevelop.
• Only after following due process can redevelopment proceedings resume.

This effectively restores control of the land to its lawful owners, subject to their compliance with redevelopment norms.

Impact: Major Boost for Landowners Across Mumbai

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for private landowners across Mumbai, particularly those whose properties have been acquired by the SRA without proper notice.

It reinforces the principle that:
Landowners have the first right to redevelop their land.
SRA must strictly follow Section 13 before acquiring any private property.
Illegal acquisitions can be quashed, even years later.

For hundreds of landowners and trusts in Mumbai — especially in Bhandup, Ghatkopar, Bandra, and Worli, where SRA acquisitions are common — this ruling offers much-needed legal relief.

Also Read: Financial Institutions To Redevelop Stuck SRA projects

The post 🏗️ Bombay High Court Quashes SRA Land Acquisition in Mumbai, Upholds Landowner’s Preferential Right for Redevelopment appeared first on Square Feat India.