The Bombay High Court has held that slum dwellers cannot insist on in-situ rehabilitation on the land of a developer when permanent alternate accommodation is being offered to them. The Court observed that mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership.

A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by slum dwellers challenging the allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in Bhandup and seeking in-situ rehabilitation in the redevelopment scheme on the land belonging to Developers.

The Petitioners contended that the Developers were bound by their undertaking dated 12th March 2008 to rehabilitate eligible occupants to in-situ rehabilitation. It was contended that failure of the Respondents to rehouse the Petitioners by offering them in-situ rehabilitation on the Developer's Land without following due process was tantamount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Municipal Corporation submitted that the Petitioners could not insist on in-situ rehabilitation on the Developers' land.

The Court noted that the impugned order was a speaking order containing elaborate factual findings and that the Petitioners' contentions regarding the undertaking had been dealt with. Hence, it refuted the contention that the impugned Order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

The Court further noted that the Corporation was ready and willing to offer permanent alternate accommodation to the Petitioners on its land and buildings at Bhandup, while the Petitioners insisted on being rehoused in-situ at Chinchpokli. Referring to its earlier decision in Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari & Ors. vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors., the Court observed:

“… the fact of being protected slum dwellers, cannot elevate their protection to such an extent that such slum dwellers have to be rehabilitated either on the same land, if any remaining, after the project work is completed or they may be provided a permanent alternate accommodation, within the vicinity.”

The Court held that mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership, especially when the Petitioners are being given the benefit of rehabilitation.

The Court accordingly declined to entertain the writ petition. However, in the interest of justice, it granted the Petitioners liberty to raise their claims and counter-claims before the Appropriate Authority/Court, as the law would permit, and disposed of the petition without costs.

Case Title: Mangesh Yashwant Parave v. The State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai [Writ Petition (L) No.18278 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order