The Bombay High Court has held that the Consent Terms between the Federation of Societies and Ruparel Buildcon remain a valid and binding agreement inter se between the signatories, even after the order recalled the court’s imprimatur granted to those terms. The Court clarified that any challenge to the legality, validity, or voluntariness of the Consent Terms must be adjudicated by a Civil Court or other appropriate forum, and since no signatory has challenged the same, the agreement continues to bind the Federation and Ruparel.
The Court held that slum dwellers or societies seeking removal of Ruparel as developer must take recourse under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, by approaching the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, or any other appropriate statutory forum, and not through writ proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that if the CEO, SRA, decides to remove Ruparel as developer, the CEO must invoke the proviso below Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, which dispenses with the 51% consent requirement for slum rehabilitation projects on government land, and hand over redevelopment to the State Government for appointment of an appropriate developer.
As a matter of policy, the Court directed that henceforth the State Government and public bodies shall take over redevelopment of slum schemes on their own lands, and these observations were directed to be brought to the notice of the Secretary, Urban Development Department, the Municipal Commissioner, MCGM, and all Municipal Corporations in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Pune, Nagpur, and Aurangabad.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that noted that redevelopment of slums on public/government lands is invariably inordinately delayed and embroiled in protracted litigation on account of commercial interests of developers and conflicts between rival groups of slum dwellers, while the State Government and public bodies, who are the owners of the land, remain mute spectators.
The Court observed that the consent terms dated 1 March 2021 constitute a comprehensive agreement between the parties who are signatories thereto, including the Federation and Ruparel, and that the order dated 14 September 2022 passed in the Review Petition only recalled the imprimatur of the Court granted to the consent terms, but did not declare the consent terms themselves to be illegal or invalid inter se between the parties.
The Court emphasized that any challenge to the validity of the consent terms would have to be adjudicated by a Civil Court or other appropriate forum, and that no signatory to the consent terms has challenged the same. The Court further observed that the SRA had acted upon the consent terms by issuing the LOI, IOA, revised LOI, and PTC allotment, and that Ruparel had changed its position by investing substantial amounts.
The Court also noted that slum dwellers are merely encroachers on government land with limited rights of rehabilitation, and cannot elevate their rights to that of owners to control the appointment of developers. The Court referred to the proviso below Clause 1.15 of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, which provides that the 51% consent requirement shall not apply to slum rehabilitation projects undertaken by the State Government or public authority.
Briefly, Ruparel Buildcon Private Limited challenged a communication dated 4 February 2026 issued by the Secretary of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), which effectively stayed the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued in Ruparel’s favour and directed reassessment of consents and financial capacity. The dispute concerns a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on a large chunk of State Government land of Village Chembur, Taluka Kurla, situated at Siddharth Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai.
The slum dwellers had formed about 33 cooperative societies, which together formed a Federation. In August 2006, the Federation appointed Adishakti Developers, which later entered into a joint arrangement with the Bhatt Group through Adishakti Grihnirman Pvt. Ltd. (AGPL). Inter se disputes between these developers reached the High Power Committee and eventually this Court. To resolve the deadlock, Consent Terms dated 1 March 2021 were filed before a Division Bench, under which Ruparel was appointed as the new developer upon paying Rs.11.75 crores towards electricity dues, Rs.3.85 crores to Adishakti, and Rs.18.74 crores to the Bhatt Group.
The SRA thereafter issued the LOI on 6 August 2021, the Intimation of Approval (IOA) on 13 August 2021, a revised LOI on 18 November 2025, and allotted Permanent Transit Camps (PTC) on 8 July 2025. However, certain slum societies filed review petition, and by an order dated 14 September 2022, the Division Bench recalled the order dated 1 March 2021 that had accepted the consent terms, on the ground that the consent terms were entered without proper General Body Resolutions of the constituent societies. The impugned communication dated 4 February 2026 followed, along with a notice dated 13 February 2026 for a Special General Body Meeting, which the SRA subsequently withdrew during the proceedings.
