Jigar Dhirajlal Vaya & Anr. vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.

By the present Petition, the Petitioners seek directions to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to abide by the provisions of the Development Control Regulation and divide the slum plot and the rehabilitation plot in such a manner so as to ensure that there is a balance in FSI utilized in respect of both the plots so that, each plot consumes an on-site FSI of 3. The Petitioners have further prayed that, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority be directed to ensure that the open space around the building is such that there is an adequate turning space for the fire tender/vehicle. The Petitioners also seek directions to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to revoke all relaxations related to fire safety and ensure that the required marginal open space of 6 mtrs, in addition to the “Means of Access” around each building which exceeds the height of 24 mtrs is provided and so is the recreation ground.

It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are beneficiaries of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) being carried out on land admeasuring about 27,000 sq. mtrs situated at Rani Sati Marg, Malad, East, Mumbai. That, there are grave violations of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ( MRTP Act) and the Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai, 1991 ( DCR 1991). The gist of the violations as alleged by the Petitioners is mentioned in paragraph 1.3 of the Petition which reads as under:-

2.1) It is the case of the Petitioners that, in view of the aforesaid violations, the Petitioners sought that remedial steps be taken by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). That, under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the slum plot is divided into two parts i.e. first plot is the rehabilitation plot and the second plot is the sale plot. That, under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, the maximum permissible FSI is ‘3’. That, in the present scheme there is a major imbalance of FSI utilisation in respect of the rehabilitation plot and the sale plot due to which the rehabilitation plot has became extremely congested. That, there is a lack of requisite open space in respect of the rehabilitation plot due to which the same is vulnerable to a fire hazard. That, the mandatory fire requirements have been breached.

2.2) The Petitioners made a representation dated 24^th May 2016 to the SRA. That, the SRA has not taken any action in the matter. It is the case of the Petitioners that, 58% of the plot area i.e. approximately 15,660 square metres, ought to have been apportioned to the rehabilitation plot, and 42% of the plot area i.e. 11,340 square metres, ought to have been apportioned to the sale plot. However, contrary to the aforesaid apportionment, the rehabilitation plot has, in fact, been allotted an area of 10,960 square metres, constituting approximately 40% of the total plot area, whereas the sale plot has been allotted an area of 16,441 square metres, constituting approximately 60% of the total plot area. The Petitioners placed reliance upon the lease agreements at Exhibit ‘E’ and ‘F’ of the Petition. The Petitioners referred to the paragraph 3.17, 3.18.

2.3) It is the further contention of the Petitioners that, on 15^th September 2008, Ms. Chandrasena Vishwas Patil, wife of Collector of Mumbai District, who at the relevant time had granted the lease, was appointed as a Director in one of the company of Project Proponent. That, after the induction of Ms. Chandrasena Vishwas Patil as a Director in a company known as Shah and Jain Constructions Private Limited, the project land was allotted to the developer. It is further contended that, the turning radius in respect of the rehabilitation buildings, as provided for the fire vehicles is inadequate and that, the minimum 6 metre wide open space as required to be kept open by the developers for fire safety has not been provided. That, the open spaces as required under DCR for a building having a height more than 24 metres has not been provided. That, the means of access is only of 10 metres wide at some places even though the 12 metres means of access is required under the DCR.

2.4) That, an objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, was raised by the Respondent developer. In reply, the Petitioners filed an additional affidavit dated 5^th August 2026, wherein it is stated that, the father of Petitioner No.1 namely late Dhirajlal Khimjibhai Yaya, was a member of the Khot Dongari Co-operative Housing Society limited. That, upon the demise of his father, the Petitioner No.1, become entitled to the room/ tenement. That, the process of transfer of the room/tenement to the name of the Petitioner No.1 is in progress.

2.5) As regards, the locus standi of Petitioner No.2 it is submitted that, the Petitioner No.2 is the son of Hitendra Gyan Singh Yadav, who is the lawful tenant/occupant of the unit in the said scheme. Further in the said Additional Affidavit, the Petitioner has submitted that, the gap between the sale building and the rehabilitation building is only 3.30 metres and 3.10 metres respectively.

Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent developer submitted that:

3.1) A preliminary objection was raised in respect of the locus of the Petitioner’s to fill the present petition. It was submitted that, Petitioners are not the beneficaries under the subject scheme and therefore could not have filed the Petition. The Petitioners have no locus to challenge the scheme or seek reliefs in respect of the implementation of the SRA scheme.

3.2) The Petitioner’s have an alternative and efficacious remedy available to them in filing proceedings under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

3.3) In respect of the present scheme, Annexure-II was issued on 5^th July 2005 and the Letter of Intent was first issued on 29^th November 2005. That, the present petition has been filed on 24^th May 2018 and, therefore, suffers from delay and laches on the part of the Petitioners, for which there is no explanation. That, the present petition is filed without considering the factual position as also the law.

3.4) As regards the contention that, the area of the rehabilitation plot is lesser than the sale plot, it was submitted that there is no particular provision in law which mandates that the area of the rehabilitation plot and the sale plot should be in any particular proportion or ratio. That, the area of the plots is decided by the authorities depending on the site condition and the facts and circumstances of each case. That, the same is sanctioned by the SRA, the lease deeds in respect thereof are already executed and acted upon.

3.5) A reference was made to the Order dated 22^nd June 2016 passed by this Court in the case of Manish Ramniklal Sawla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., in PIL No. 24 of 2015, wherein it has been observed that the determination of the area of rehabilitation component and sale component in the slum rehabilitation scheme is dependent on the basic requirements of the particular scheme and that the area of the sale component land can be larger than the rehabilitation component of land.

3.6) As regards the allegations in respect of Ms. Chandrasena Vishwas Patil being a director of one of the companies of the developer, it was submitted that the Letter of Intent was issued on 29^th November 2005 and revalidated on 24^th October 2007. That, the allocation of the area to the said Khot Dongri Cooperative Housing Society and Respondent No. 3 is done by the SRA. That, the Collector is only assigned with the duty of executing the lease deed as an authorised signatory of the Government of Maharashtra. That, the allegations are totally untenable and baseless and made for reasons best known to the Petitioner.

3.7) As regards the fire safety compliances, it was submitted that all requirements in respect of fire safety have been complied with. It was submitted that, as the buildings were fire compliant, Fire NOC’s are issued. That, the Fire NOC dated 17^th March 2012 is issued to Rehabilitation Building No. 2, Fire NOC dated 6^th May 2014 is issued to Rehabilitation Building No. 3, Fire NOC dated 5^th October 2015 is issued in respect of Rehabilitation Building No. 4 and Fire NOC dated 15^th December 2014 is issued in respect of Rehabilitation Building No. 5.

3.8) As regards the space available to the fire vehicle to move around the building, the layout plan was referred and it was submitted that there is enough space for the fire tender to manoeuvre and reach every part of the layout.

3.9) Open spaces have been left as per the requirement of DCR of 1991. That, the buildings are all approved by the competent authority in accordance with the law. That, the relaxation granted by the Commissioner/CEO, SRA are proper, in accordance with law. That, the fire NOC’s have not been challenged.

Learned Advocate for the Respondent referred to the Order dated 22^nd June 2016 of this Court in the case of Manish Ramniklal Sawla Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (Supra), to submit that, in scheme of rehabilitation under Section 33(10), schemes are implemented under the prevailing Development Control Regulations. That, in most projects under Regulation 33(10), the actual land area utilised or consumed for the rehabilitation plot is much less than the land area actually utilised or consumed for the said plot.

We have perused the entire record.

Considering the prayer of the Petitioners, it would be necessary to first consider whether the Petitioners have locus to file the present petition. On the perusal of the Additional Affidavit dated 5^th August 2026 filed by the Petitioners, it is clear that the late father of Petitioner No.1, Mr. Dhirajlal Khimajibhai Vaya, was the member of the Khot Dongari Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. In Clause 1(H) of the Additional Affidavit, Petitioner No. 1 has specifically stated that the process of recognizing and transferring the Petitioner's entitlement in the rehabilitation tenament under the slum rehabilitation scheme is underway. As far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, in Clause 2 (D) of the Affidavit it is stated that, Petitioner No. 2 is the son & legal heir of Hitendra Gyansing Yadav. Hitendra Gyansing Yadav was the lawful tenant/occupant of the tenament in the said scheme. No materials have been placed on record to demonstrate that the tenancy/occupancy has been devolved on the Petitioner No. 2. Considering the said affidavit, we are of the view that, the Petitioners locus to file the present petition is doubtful.

Nonetheless we have considered the matter on merits. As regards the main contention of the Petitioners that, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is required to abide by the provisions of the Development Control Regulations and divide the slum plot and rehabilitation plot in a manner so there is balance in the FSI of each of the two plots, we are of the opinion that the said contention has been raised only to be rejected. The said issue, in our considered view, is squarely covered by Order of this Court in the case of Manish Ramniklal Sawla Vs. State of Maharashtra (Supra). The grievance in the said Public Interest Litigation was about the manner in which the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations is to be implemented. It was contended in the Public Interest Litigation that in most projects under Regulation 33(10), the actual land area utilised and consumed for rehabilitation plot is much less than the actual land area actually utilised and consumed for the saleble plot. It was contended therein that, on some occasions, the difference in the actual land area utilised is more than 75% of the total available composite land area. The two substantive prayers in the said Public Interest Litigation read as under:-

We find it necessary to refer to paragraphs 5, 7, 8 and 11 of the Order, in Manish Ramniklal Sawla (Supra) which read as under:—

The observations made in the said Order dated 22^nd June 2016 are squarely applicable to the case in hand. The stand of the SRA in the said PIL was that, due to the other provisions of the DC Regulations read with Regulation 33(10), the actual land area utilised/consumed for rehabilitation component is less in comparison with the actual land area utilised and consumed for the saleable component. It has been explained and in fact a specific stand has been taken that, the land utilisation depends on many factors such as access of building, DP reservation, buildable/unbuildable height, open space requirements, etc. It is the case of the SRA that, since the ratio of rehab to sale component is around 40% rehab and 60% sale, therefore Clause 6.11 and 6.12 of Schedule 4 of the DC Regulations provide for front and marginal open space in regard to rehab building. Regulation 6.12 specifically provides that, notwithstanding the provisions in DCR 29, Table 10, where the location of the plot abuts DP Road having width of 18.3 meters and above, the front marginal open space shall not be insisted upon beyond 3 meters, provided it is not express highway or road wider than 52 meters.

In the present case, it is the contention of the Petitioners that, the distance between the sale building and rehab building is 3.30 meters and 3.10 meters. We have noted that Annexure-II was issued on 5^th July 2005 and Letter of Intent was at the first instance issued on 29^th November 2005 and revised from time to time in the years 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2014. The lease deeds for rehab and sale component have both been executed on 15^th May 2009. The Revised Letter of Intent has been issued on 12^th June 2009 and 20^th September 2010. On 13^th April 2012, SRA has issued the full Occupation Certificate to Rehab Building No. 2. We have noted that, the construction of rehabilitation building has commenced in the year 2009 and till date 4 rehabilitation buildings have been completed out of the total 7 rehabilitation buildings. As regards the balance rehabilitation buildings, one building which comprises of 21 floors, 19 floors have already been constructed. The construction in respect of balance 2 rehabilitation buildings is yet to commence. Further, out of the two sale buildings, one sale building is already completed. As regards the open space, the Court has been informed that, the space between the rehab building Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is 10 meters. We have also noted that, the Fire NOCs have been issued by the MCGM’s, Fire Department in respect of fire safety for Building Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 on 17^th March 2012, 6^th May 2014, 5^th October 2015 and 15^th December 2014.

Considering the aforesaid facts in the present case, the stage of construction in respect of the rehabilitation building and the sale component building, the observations of this Court in the Order dated 22^nd June 2016 passed in PIL No. 24 of 2015 (Supra) we are of the considered view that no reliefs can be granted to the Petitioners in the present petition.

It is also contended by the Petitioner that, the Petitioner, vide letter dated 24^th May 2016, has raised the grievences before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It is open for the Petitioner to pursue the said complaint in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.