Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a charitable trust and owner of the subject property, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging two orders of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC): one allowing intervention of private respondents and another setting aside the in-principle acceptance of its slum rehabilitation proposal. The petitioner had submitted a proposal under Circular 144A for redevelopment of the slum area. The Executive Engineer, SRA, accepted the proposal in-principle on 27 July 2021. Respondents 5 and 6, a proposed cooperative society of slum dwellers, filed an application under Section 35 of the Slum Act, 1971 before AGRC, which resulted in the impugned order setting aside the acceptance on grounds of non-compliance with Circular 144 and false affidavits. The petitioner contended that Circular 144A did not require consent or General Body Resolution, the AGRC exceeded jurisdiction by deciding title issues, the objections were premature, and the application was barred by limitation. Respondents countered that the proposal was incomplete as major portion was non-slum at the time, and family disputes jeopardised implementation. The available judgment text does not include the court's reasoning or final decision; the matter was heard and judgment was pronounced on 8 June 2026, but the full text is not provided.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Applicability of Circular 144 vs Circular 144A - Consent Requirement - Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Sections 3C(1), 35 - Petitioner submitted proposal under Circular 144A which does not require consent of society or General Body Resolution; AGRC set aside acceptance for non-compliance with Circular 144. The court's decision on this issue is not available in the provided text (Paras 3.9, 3.12, 5).
B) Jurisdiction of AGRC - Scope under Section 35 of Slum Act, 1971 - AGRC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into title disputes and issues beyond acceptance of proposal (Para 5).
C) Landowner's Preferential Right - Slum Redevelopment - Slum Act, 1971 - Petitioner being landowner claimed preferential right to develop; AGRC ignored this aspect (Para 5).
D) In-principle Acceptance - Nature of Order - Objections such as incomplete proposal were premature as final sanction was not yet granted (Para 5).
E) Limitation - Application before AGRC - Petitioner contended application was grossly barred by limitation (Para 5).
Note: The full judgment text is not provided; the court's reasoning and final decision are not available.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) erred in setting aside the in-principle acceptance of the petitioner's slum rehabilitation proposal on grounds of non-compliance with Circular 144 and false statements, and whether the AGRC exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the application and adjudicating title disputes.
Law Points
- Under Circular 144A
- consent of society and General Body Resolution are not mandatory for landowner's proposal
- AGRC has limited jurisdiction under Section 35 of Slum Act and cannot decide title disputes
- landowner has preferential right to develop slum area under Slum Act
- in-principle acceptance cannot be equated with final sanction
- objections premature.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 14
Writ Petition No. 11550 of 2025
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Vishal Kanade, Jimish Shah, Nitesh Menon, Nirvi Shah for Petitioner; Ms. Aarushi Yadav i/b Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent Nos. 1-4; Mr. Cherag Balsara with Devansh Shah, Santosh Pathak, Nimish Lotlikar, Deepesh Kadam i/b Law Origin for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7; Mr. Abhishek Sawant with Ameet Mehta, Jill Rathod, Hardik Gaglani i/b Solicis Lex for Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
N. D. Bhuta Charities, through its Trustees including Kamlesh J. Bhuta
1. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Government of Maharashtra; 2. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA; 3. The Dy. Chief Executive Officer, SRA; 4. The Executive Engineer, SRA; 5. Yashwant SRA CHS (Prop); 6. Vijay Jadhav; 7. Jaishree Mehta; 8. Shaila H. Gandhi; 9. Bhavna N. Bhuta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) setting aside acceptance of slum rehabilitation proposal.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks quashing of AGRC orders dated 7 February 2025 and 27 May 2025, and restoration of in-principle acceptance of its proposal for slum rehabilitation scheme.
Filing Reason
AGRC set aside the Executive Engineer SRA's acceptance of petitioner's proposal on grounds of non-compliance with Circular 144 and false assertions; petitioner contends AGRC exceeded jurisdiction and misapplied circular.
Previous Decisions
Executive Engineer SRA accepted petitioner's proposal in-principle on 27 July 2021. AGRC set aside that acceptance on 27 May 2025 after allowing intervention on 7 February 2025. Earlier, applications under section 14(1) by respondent 5 and 6 were rejected in 2012 and 2017.
Issues
Whether the AGRC erred in holding that consent and General Body Resolution were mandatory under Circular 144 when the proposal was under Circular 144A?
Whether the AGRC exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating title disputes?
Whether the objections regarding incomplete proposal were premature since only in-principle acceptance was granted?
Whether the application before AGRC was barred by limitation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: Proposal was under Circular 144A; no consent/GBR required. AGRC transgressed jurisdictional limits on title. Landowner has preferential right. Objections premature. Application barred by limitation.
Respondent 5 & 6: Proposal incomplete as major portion was non-slum area at time of acceptance; trust disputes jeopardise scheme; petitioner created bogus society; delay in implementation; petitioner was called upon to submit proposal but did not respond.
Judgment Excerpts
the Petitioner had submitted the said proposal without obtaining the consent and General Body Resolution of the society in accordance with Circular No. 144 and that in the affidavit in support of the application false assertions as regards the pendency of the proceedings were made.
the AGRC (R1) has transgressed the jurisdictional limits in venturing into the issue of title over the subject property.
the Petitioner, being the landowner, has a preferential right to develop the subject property and that the title of the Petitioner to the subject property was clear.
an in-principle approval cannot be equated with final sanction.
the application was grossly barred by limitation and was actuated by a design to usurp the Petitioner’s land.
Procedural History
Petitioner's proposal accepted in-principle by Executive Engineer SRA on 27 July 2021. Respondents 5 and 6 filed application under Section 35 of Slum Act, 1971 before AGRC. On 7 February 2025, AGRC allowed intervention application of respondents 7-9. On 27 May 2025, AGRC set aside the acceptance order. Petitioner filed writ petition on unspecified date. Matter heard on 12 January 2026 and judgment pronounced on 8 June 2026. (Full judgment text not provided, judgment incomplete.)
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950:
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: 4(1), 14(1), 3C(1), 13(2), 35
- Constitution of India: 227
