The Bombay High Court has declined to interfere with a plea by slum dwellers seeking in-situ rehabilitation on the developers’ land at Chinchpokli, holding that the right to rehabilitation cannot be equated with a right to ownership or a right to insist on rehabilitation on the same land.
A Division Bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna was hearing a petition challenging an order dated May 13, 2026 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, ‘E’ Ward, which rejected the petitioners’ challenge to their allotment of permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) in Bhandup. The petitioners instead sought rehabilitation in the redevelopment scheme being undertaken on the developers’ land.
The dispute arose in relation to structures situated on Mazgaon Division, where a redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR, 2034 was being undertaken. Although the petitioners relied upon undertakings furnished by the developers in 2007 and 2008, the MCGM had subsequently identified them as eligible for rehabilitation by the Corporation.
The Court noted that an earlier civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking similar relief had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had not been restored. Holding that the present proceedings amounted to a “second bite at the cherry”, the Bench also found that the petitioners were seeking substantially overlapping reliefs through parallel proceedings.
The Court further relied on the Annexure-II dated September 4, 2015, which recorded the petitioners as eligible for rehabilitation by the Corporation and had not itself been challenged. The Court observed that the impugned order was a reasoned and speaking order which had considered the relevant factual disputes, including the finding that the petitioners’ hutments were majorly situated on land owned by the Corporation rather than the developers.
Rejecting the claim of a fundamental right to in-situ rehabilitation on the developers’ land, the Bench referred to an earlier coordinate Bench ruling holding that protection afforded to eligible slum dwellers does not confer a right to be rehabilitated on the same land, particularly where permanent alternate accommodation is being provided. The Court observed that mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership.
The Court also noted that the Corporation was ready and willing to provide permanent alternate accommodation in constructed buildings at Bhandup, while the petitioners insisted on being rehoused at the developers’ land at Chinchpokli.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without interference, with liberty to the petitioners to raise their claims or counter-claims before the appropriate authority or court in accordance with law.
