2025:BHC-OS:22826-DB 8.WPL32632_2025.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32632 OF 2025 Vijay Namdev Gujar & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______

Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Abhinav Bhatkar i/b. Ms.

Swati Narvekar for the petitioners.

Ms. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for respondent no. 1.

Smt. P.H. Kantharia for respondent nos. 2 to 6-SRA.

Mr. Kshitish Shukla for respondent nos. 7 and 8.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 25 November 2025 P.C.

1. We have heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is in regard to non-payment of the transit rent for a period of almost four years. It is contended that upto 2021, the transit rent was being paid, however, thereafter the transit rent is not paid.

2. The development in question is of a slum under the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 for Greater Mumbai.

3. The learned counsel for the developers-respondent nos. 7 & 8 states that his client is ready and willing to pay the legitimate amounts of transit rent which are due and payable. The calculation in that regard is intended to be submitted to the Competent Authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Let the petitioners in that event also calculate the amount of arrears of transit rent and place it for consideration of the Competent Officer.

4. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the Competent Officer of the SRA intervenes in the issue in regard to the amount of transit rent, which is due and payable to the petitioners. Let a personal hearing in that regard be granted by the Competent Officer, which shall be within two weeks from today and an appropriate decision be taken on the rival contentions and clear orders be passed on the amount of transit rent being payable to the petitioners.

5. In view of the fair stand taken on behalf of the developers of their readiness and willingness to pay the amount due and payable as per the rules, in fact further adjudication of the petition is not called for. However, as the petitioners are slum dwellers, we cannot expect them to again approach this Court agitating the same cause of action in the event their grievance is not redressed appropriately. We are, hence, of the opinion that the present petition at this stage can be disposed of, with liberty to the petitioners to revive this petition in the event the grievance of the petitioners survives after the orders are passed by the Competent Authority determining the transit rent payable, do not provide appropriate relief to them as per law.

6. We also direct that the amount of transit rent which would be decided by the Competent Authority, shall be immediately disbursed to the petitioners by the developer as per the rules either by depositing the said amount with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority within one week of the passing of the order or as may be directed by the Competent Authority.

7. We also direct the Competent Authority that appropriate interest shall also be determined as per the Circular/policy of SRA which would become payable on the arrears of the transit rent.

8. At this stage, we are pointed out that there is a recent amendment by incorporating Section 33B to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 vide Mah. 42 of 2025 with effect from 29 August, 2025, which in fact would take care of the concerns which we have expressed. However, under the said provision, actions needs to be taken and the provisions ought not to remain in the statute book. Section 33B of the Act reads thus.

“33B. (1) The eligible slum dwellers of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or Slum Redevelopment Project, may apply to the Chief Executive Officer or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, for recovery of rent in lieu o