1. Petitioner challenges eviction order under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 121
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FIRDOSH PHIROZE POONIWALLA
ARVIND PRAVINKUMAR MEHTA – Appellant
Versus
THE APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE – Respondent
WP/2892/2025
Important Points
Proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Act have a limited scope focusing on eviction to ensure project progress. Disputes regarding the location or nature of alternate accommodation cannot be used to resist eviction or stall the rehabilitation process.
Subject
Civil Law - Slum Rehabilitation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Sections 33 and 38 - Power of eviction - Scope of proceedings - Limited jurisdiction to consider whether a person has failed to vacate the structure and if such failure affects the progress of the scheme/project - Authority not empowered to test the validity of the scheme, Letter of Intent, or decide entitlement issues (Paras 11, 14).
(B) Allotment of Permanent Alternate Accommodation - Dispute regarding location or nature of accommodation - Cannot be a ground to resist eviction under Sections 33/38 of the Act - Petitioner cannot stall a rehabilitation project or obstruct delivery of possession based on a preference for road-facing premises; any grievance regarding the allocation of the alternate accommodation can be agitated through separate legal remedies after vacating the temporary structure (Paras 15, 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an eligible commercial occupant in a slum rehabilitation project, refused to vacate a temporary transit structure, claiming an entitlement to a commercial unit facing a specific road based on a prior agreement. The refusal to vacate prevented the issuance of a Fire Department NOC and the subsequent granting of an Occupation Certificate for the rehabilitation building, thereby obstructing the rehabilitation of other eligible slum dwellers.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the temporary structure occupied by the petitioner was obstructing the entrance of the rehabilitation building, preventing the project's completion. It held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted and cannot make the allocation of a specific road-facing unit a condition precedent for vacating the structure.
Issues: Whether a party can resist eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act on the ground that they are entitled to a specific location of commercial premises in the rehabilitation building.
Ratio Decidendi: The scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act is limited to determining if a person has failed to vacate and if such failure obstructs the project's progress. Such authorities lack the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the scheme or specific allotment disputes. A party cannot stall a public project or obstruct eviction based on grievances concerning the nature or location of alternate accommodation; such issues must be pursued independently after the structure is vacated.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
(B) Allotment of Permanent Alternate Accommodation - Dispute regarding location or nature of accommodation - Cannot be a ground to resist eviction under Sections 33/38 of the Act - Petitioner cannot stall a rehabilitation project or obstruct delivery of possession based on a preference for road-facing premises; any grievance regarding the allocation of the alternate accommodation can be agitated through separate legal remedies after vacating the temporary structure (Paras 15, 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an eligible commercial occupant in a slum rehabilitation project, refused to vacate a temporary transit structure, claiming an entitlement to a commercial unit facing a specific road based on a prior agreement. The refusal to vacate prevented the issuance of a Fire Department NOC and the subsequent granting of an Occupation Certificate for the rehabilitation building, thereby obstructing the rehabilitation of other eligible slum dwellers.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the temporary structure occupied by the petitioner was obstructing the entrance of the rehabilitation building, preventing the project's completion. It held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted and cannot make the allocation of a specific road-facing unit a condition precedent for vacating the structure.
Issues: Whether a party can resist eviction under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act on the ground that they are entitled to a specific location of commercial premises in the rehabilitation building.
Ratio Decidendi: The scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act is limited to determining if a person has failed to vacate and if such failure obstructs the project's progress. Such authorities lack the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the scheme or specific allotment disputes. A party cannot stall a public project or obstruct eviction based on grievances concerning the nature or location of alternate accommodation; such issues must be pursued independently after the structure is vacated.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Kanade, Janay Jain, Ashwin S. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Aparna D. Vhatkar, Ravleen Sabharwal, Aarushi Yadav, Prakhar Tandon, Shshikant Surana, Madhur Surana
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Kanade, Janay Jain, Ashwin S. Tripathi
For the Respondents: Aparna D. Vhatkar, Ravleen Sabharwal, Aarushi Yadav, Prakhar Tandon, Shshikant Surana, Madhur Surana
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims right to road-facing shop per agreement; developer argues eviction necessary to complete project and obtain OC. (Para 4 , 6 )
3. Proceedings under Sections 33/38 have limited scope, confined to eviction for obstructing scheme, not for deciding entitlement. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. A slum dweller cannot resist eviction under Sections 33/38 based on a grievance about the location of alternative accommodation. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Writ Petition dismissed; Petitioner must vacate structure but may pursue remedy for accommodation location separately. (Para 23 )
6. What is the scope of proceedings under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act?
The scope is narrow: the authority only decides whether a person has failed to vacate and is obstructing the scheme. (Para 11 , 13 , 14 )
7. Can a person resist eviction under the Slum Act by claiming entitlement to specific alternative accommodation?
No. Such grievances about accommodation location cannot be used to obstruct the project or oppose eviction. (Para 14 , 16 , 18 )
8. What remedy is available to a person aggrieved by the location of allotted alternative accommodation?
He may seek legal remedy regarding the accommodation, but must first vacate the existing structure and not stall the project. (Para 17 , 18 , 22 )
JUDGEMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking following final reliefs:
(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (Exhibit-C);
(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ / Order / Direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to quash, set aside the Impugned order dated 31.12.2024/ 01.01.2025, passed by the Respondent No.2 (Exhibit-A) and the Petitioner Petition may be allowed in the interest of justice;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain respondent No.3 from permitting any change/modification in the approved plan dated 19.05.2023 to the extent of shifting of permanent alternate accommodation of the petitioner from Shop No.3 of the subsisting approved plan to any other shop or portion of the rehabilitation building."
3. Mr.Kanade, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, made submissions in support of the Petition.
4. Mr.Kanade submitted as follows:
a. As per Clause 5 of the Agreement dated 27th January 2016 entered into between the erstwhile developer, the Respondent No.5 Society and the Petitioner, it was agreed that the Petitioner would be provided permanent alternate accommodation of commercial premises facing Khotkuwa Road.
b. Respondent No.4 was appointed as a Developer on 3rd February 2023.
c. In May 2023, Respondent No.4 got approved plans which showed that the commercial premises in the Rehabilitation Building were facing the Khotkuwa Road.
d. The Petitioner did not vacate his temporary structure as he was not being provided permanent alternate accommodation facing Khotkuwa Road as per the Agreement dated 27th January 2016 and the plans approved in May 2023.
e. Respondent No.4 submitted proposals dated 24th July 2024 and 7th October 2024 for taking action against the Petitioner under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maharashtra Slum Act").
f. Respondent No.2 issued a Notice dated 12th November 2024 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the temporary structure occupied by him.
g. Before Respondent No.2, the Petitioner argued that the Rehabilitation building was 99% complete and that the Petitioner was ready to vacate his existing slum within 3 days. However, as per the approved layout dated 19th May 2023, Respondent No.4 should allocate to the Petitioner commercial premises in the Rehabilitation building. However, Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were delaying the allotment of commercial premises shown in the approved layout i.e. commercial premises facing the Khotkuwa Road.
h. Before Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4 submitted that the Petitioner was not cooperating in the Rehabilitation Scheme. Despite being informed by way of letters to vacate his temporary structure, the Petitioner had remained un-cooperative. Due to the temporary structure of the Petitioner and some other persons, the CFO NOC was pending. Respondent No.4 further submitted that the commercial premises in the Rehabilitation building would be allocated to the Petitioner within five months of receiving the Occupation Certificate.
i. By an Order dated 1st January 2025, Respondent No.2 held that the Petitioner and certain other persons were not cooperating in vacating their temporary structures and were causing obstruction to the Scheme. The Rehabilitation building was ready but certain structures located at its entrance (which included the structure of the Petitioner) were preventing the issuance of the Fire Department NOC and the OC. In these circumstances, immediate eviction of these structures [which included the structure of the Petitioner] was essential. Respondent No.2 als
