IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.15053 OF 2025 Ghatipada Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. … Respondents Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud with Mr. Tushar Kochale, Dr. Ajay Jankar, Mr. Yash Jadhav, Ms. Shubeccha Kasrungand Ms. Pradnya Bhuite, for Petitioners.

Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Sr. Advocate Mr. Yusuf Iqbal, Mr. Abhishek Kothari, Mr. Samit Shukla, Ms. Delnavaz Patel, Ms.

Shriya Nalawade i/by Trilegal, for Respondent No.8.

Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal with Mr. Aarushi Yadav, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and 9.

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

DATE : 20 NOVEMBER 2025 P.C.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 27 October 2025 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (R9) in Appeal No.324 of 2024, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners – Appellants assailing the revised Letter of Intents (LOI) dated 30 November 2021, 1 December 2023, 24 May 2024 and order dated 23 July 2025 passed by the Deputy Collector (R7), directing the Petitioners to vacate their respective structures, forming part of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Ghatipada CHS (Petitioner No.1) situated on the plot of land bearing C.S.No.19/1 to 19/13, Mulund, Mumbai, (subject premises) under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, came to be dismissed.

3. The Petitioners claim, one Mr. Ramesh Agarwal had constructed the units and leased out those units to the slum dwellers, who decided to form the Petitioner No.1 Society. Atithi Builders had acquired the development rights in respect of the subject premises. A scheme for redevelopment was submitted by Atithi Builders. Respondent No.8 claimed to have acquired the ownership rights from Atithi Builders and is asserting a preferential right to develop the slum redevelopment project.

4. On the subject premises, there are three slums represented by three societies i.e. Omsai Hanuman CHS, Swastik CHS and Ghatipada CHS – Petitioner No.1. It was found that there are 692 slum dwellers in three societies. Out of them, 437 slum dwellers are eligible. The Deputy Collector (Special Cell/SRA) has reported that 395 (eligible and undecided) slum dwellers have executed individual agreements and given consent to the slum rehabilitation scheme.

5. The Petitioners have assailed the grant of LOIs and the order passed by the Deputy Collector (R7) directing the eviction of the Petitioner dated 23 July 2025 on the ground that none of the members of the Petitioner No.1 Society has given consent for the implementation of the SR scheme. The subject SR scheme has been approved on the basis of the aggregate consent of the members of the three societies, though the societies are distinct. Secondly, the eligibility of more than 40% of the slum dwellers whose names are included in the Annexure II, has yet not been determined. In substance, SR scheme is being foisted on the basis of the consent of the members of other two societies.

6. By the impugned order, AGRC repelled the aforesaid challenges observing that, there was consent of more than 51% of the occupants in the subject SR Scheme, the majority of the slum dwellers have vacated their structures and the scheme cannot be implemented unless the structures in the occupation of the Petitioners are also vacated.

7. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders and actions are in clear violation of the Circular No.153A issued by the SRA, which mandates that if the eligibility of more than 5% of the total hutment dwellers is undecided, no action be taken on the basis of Annexure II. In the case at hand, Annexure II indicates that out of 254 slum dwellers, the eligibility of only 146 occupants has been decided and the eligibility of 108 occupants is yet to be decided. Thus, when eligibility of more