Bombay High Court Quashes BMC’s Sanctioned Road Line That Cut Through Ongoing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; Says SRA Failed To Consider Existing Development

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed, “It is thus evident that the impugned RL has been sanctioned with gross non-application of mind by the SRA to the factum of Petitioner undertaking development on the plot where RL passes through and that the building permissions are granted by SRA itself…Since the impugned decision is based on ignorance of relevant factors, we would be justified in exercising the power of judicial review in setting aside the impugned RL.”

The Court added, “…if the proposed public street renders any sanctioned building unbuildable, it cannot be that the Municipal Corporation would unilaterally proceed to sanction the street without providing opportunity of hearing to the affected party.”

Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner had acquired a parcel of land in Mumbai, where a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme had been sanctioned and implemented with SRA’s approval. Several buildings had either been completed or were under construction as part of the rehabilitation project.

In December 2023, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted a fresh SRA proposal on adjoining land and requested sanction for a new public road that would pass through the Petitioner’s plot. Based on a “no objection” from SRA, the Municipal Corporation sanctioned the new road line under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act), without giving the Petitioner any notice or hearing.

After the Petitioner raised objections, the SRA acknowledged its error and requested BMC to reconsider the proposal after giving all parties a hearing. However, no corrective steps were taken. The sanctioned road line continued to affect the Petitioner’s land, prompting it to approach the High Court.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the SRA had failed to consider that the Petitioner was already undertaking slum rehabilitation development on the same plot through valid permissions granted by the SRA itself. Despite this, the SRA issued a no objection for a new road line that bisected the plot and affected sanctioned structures.

The Court found that this amounted to a failure of due application of mind. It observed, “It is thus evident that the impugned RL has been sanctioned with gross non-application of mind by the SRA to the factum of Petitioner undertaking development on the plot where RL passes through and that the building permissions are granted by SRA itself.”

Noting that the Petitioner’s civil rights had been affected, the Court observed, “The real ‘sanction’ in this case, upon due application of mind, was by SRA and what is done by MCGM is to merely exercise statutory powers under Section 291 of the Act (which cannot be exercised by SRA) in sanctioning the RL. Otherwise, SRA, being a planning authority, had to take longish route under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 for sanction of the new road. Thus sanctioning of the impugned RL has affected civil rights of the Petitioner and therefore opportunity of hearing was necessary, though not specifically provided for in Section 291 of the MMC Act.”

The Court rejected the argument that Section 291 of the MMC Act did not require a hearing before road lines were sanctioned, stating that where existing buildings were affected, the affected parties must be heard. It observed, “We do not agree with the contention that when the proposed public street transgresses in any building, requiring its demolition, the owner/occupier thereof need not be heard…Though the MMC Act does not explicitly provide for a hearing before sanctioning a road line, the principles of natural justice are attracted where the proposed RL affects the existing development.”

The Court observed that the MCGM’s decision to sanction the road line was vitiated. “We are therefore of the view that Petitioner was required to be heard if new RL was to be sanctioned, which cuts across Petitioner’s plot and particularly when it affects two sanctioned buildings in the layout,” it added.

It held, “The impugned decisions dated 1 October 2024 and 3 October 2024 are being set aside only on counts of non- application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the proposal for sanctioning of new public street needs to be reconsidered by MCGM after securing fresh comments from SRA. SRA needs to properly apply its mind to all the relevant factors after grant of opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.”

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition, and further directed that the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA give a hearing to both the Petitioner and the Respondents, and that MCGM take a revised decision by or before August 11, 2025.

Cause Title: Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Commissioner and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:9981-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocates Aspi Chinoy, Ashish Kamat; Advocates Bhushan Deshmukh, Shailendra Singh, Rahul Pandey, Ismail Shiakh

Respondents: Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe; Advocates Gaurav Mehta, Shamima Taly, Sehyr Taly, Mayur Khandeparkar, Aditya Miskita, Aziz Mohd., Oorja Dhond, Komal Punjabi, Ravleen Sabharwal, Prakhar Tandon, Aarushi Yadav, Mandar B. Waidande