The court was hearing a petition filed by Mangesh Parave and others challenging their relocation to Bhadnup after their 44 tenements in Chinchpokli East were included in a slum redevelopment project

Published on: Sep 1, 2026, 08:20:20 IST

Prefer HTon Google

Share via
Copy link

Mumbai: In a ruling that may impact several slum rehabilitation schemes across the city, the Bombay High Court last week dismissed an in-situ rehabilitation plea by slum dwellers affected by a redevelopment project, saying, “Mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognised to be equivalent to a right of ownership.”

A division bench of justices Suman Shyam and Advait Sethna also observed in their order of August 25 that with the “avalanche of disputes” under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 that come before the High Court, the court had earlier recorded that “such claims of in situ rehabilitation find no justification within our constitutional scheme and is unconscionable (sic)”.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Mangesh Parave and others challenging their relocation to Bhadnup after their 44 tenements in Chinchpokli East were included in a slum redevelopment project. The court was informed that 30 of the 44 tenements on 394.15 square metres of land were to be rehabilitated by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), 11 by the developer J Gala Enterprises, and three structures that functioned as the society office were to be demolished.

While the proposal for redevelopment of the slum dates back to 2007, the developer had, in 2008, stated that eligible slum dwellers on his land too would be accommodated in the scheme. The slum dwellers, the BMC and the developer had gone through a few rounds of litigation. The slum dwellers had also challenged before the BMC Assistant Commissioner allotment letters dated February 3 under which the BMC had allotted them permanent alternative accommodation (PAA) in Bhandup as Project Affected Persons (PAPs). They moved the high court after their plea was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner.

Before the court, the slum dwellers contended that there was a “binding obligation” on the developer to provide them in-situ rehabilitation. They claimed that they were not being treated at par with similarly placed people who were given in-situ rehabilitation in another case by the developer.

The developer’s counsel, however, told the court that the case cited by the slum dwellers too was under a legal dispute before the High Court.

The BMC told the court that buildings where the slum dwellers were to be rehabilitated had already been constructed in Bhandup on civic-owned land. It also stated that a road passing through both the BMC and the developer’s land was taken over by the BMC’s roads department for widening. Even on this count, the court said, the slum dwellers’ case for in-situ rehabilitation “cuts no ice”.

The judges said that the slum dwellers had tried to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel under the law of contracts, in which a person going back on a promise made previously leads to the loss of another. They, however, said that in the absence of any promise pointed out to the court by the slum dwellers for invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel or to invoke ‘legitimate expectation’ without an enforceable right, would not help their case in any manner.

Catch every big hit, every wicket with Crickit, a one stop destination for Live Scores, Match Stats, Infographics & much more. Explore now!



Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.

See Less