While noticing that 33 acres of Government Land situated at a prime location in South Mumbai were sought to be privately developed under the garb of rehabilitation of the slum scheme, the Bombay High Court has observed that the same is a usual modus operandi to siphon off valuable public lands. The High Court asked the Government to place on record an affidavit as to whether there is any well-considered Cabinet decision for such land to be allotted for the development of slums.

The two Petitions revolved around the development of about 33 acres of land belonging to the State Government, situated at South Mumbai’s Cuffe Parade / Colaba. This land, encroached by 65000 encroachers/slum dwellers, was proposed to be developed as a slum scheme. The land was sought to be developed by the developer appointed by the dwellers, namely, Precaution Properties Pvt. Ltd.

The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe asserted, “As noted above, the land in question in the present proceedings is 33 acres of prime Government land situated at Cuffe Parade/Colaba in South Mumbai, which was permitted to be encroached and now sought to be privately developed under the garb of rehabilitation of the slum scheme, i.e., rehabilitation of the slum dwellers and also construction of resale buildings. This is a usual modus operandi to siphon off valuable public lands. We need not delve as to what would be the cost of each unit in a area like Colaba/Cuffe Parade. The value of the land and any development thereon just needs to be imagined.”

“We also direct the State Government to place on record an affidavit as to whether there is any well considered Cabinet decision for such land to be allotted for development of slums and/or any attempt on the part of the Collector, Mumbai to obtain any such decision at the highest level of the Government”, it ordered.

Advocate Chirag Balsara represented the Petitioner while Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar represented the Respondent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “We are quite alarmed that such vast land of the ownership of the State Government can just be made available for slum redevelopment, i.e., not only rehabilitation of the slum dwellers in skyscrapers but also large scale private apartments to be constructed in one of the most prime localities in South Mumbai where land is scarce and requirement of the land for the Government can never come to an end. Mumbai city is a island city in which it is no more possible to find government lands to be utilized for public purpose. In such circumstances, in the prime localities of Mumbai and that too a place like Cuffe Parade/Colaba which are sea facing lands, they are invaluable for the government utility and/or for any vital public purpose, which may be innumerable.”

The Bench was of the view that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was too keen for reasons best known to it to permit such vast government land to be extinguished permanently from the pool of government lands which could be utilized for public utilities like gardens, open spaces, etc. “Such largesse being showered and that too free of cost on 65000 slum dwellers is detrimental to public interest and long term needs of the city”, it added.

Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in Bishop John Rodriques vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary & Ors. (2024). The Bench further stated, “This is a case where the rights of the slum dwellers on such prime government land cannot outweigh and/or be higher than the public interest, for such vast land to be utilized only for public/Government purpose. Such prime land cannot be permanently taken away from the public pool of lands as also been thrown open for private development, would be the moot question, certainly arising for consideration. Prima facie any other view would amount to a fraud on the Constitution.”

Requesting the Advocate General to appear in the present proceedings, the Bench directed the State Government to place on record an affidavit as to whether there is any well-considered Cabinet decision for such land to be allotted for the development of slums and/or any attempt on the part of the Collector, Mumbai, to obtain any such decision at the highest level of the Government. “If there is no such decision, we have the gravest of doubt whether any redevelopment of these slums can at all be permitted to happen, of such prime government land of 33 acres and more particularly considering the observations which are made by this Court in the aforesaid decisions as referred by us”, the Bench held while adjourning the matter to October 15, 2025.

Cause Title: Gulab Shankar Mishra v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2926 OF 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Chirag Balsara, Kartikeya Desa, Sayli Shinde, Vaibhav More, Kartikeya and Associates

Respondent: Senior AdvocateVirag Tulzapurkar, Advocates Samit Shukla, Masira Shaikh, Savita Ganoo, Gargi Warunjikar, Shahajirao Shinde, Kuldip Pawar, Akanksha Bobhate, Amogh Singh, Pavan Patil, Tanmay Deshmukh, Aarushi Yadav, Ravleen Sabharwal, Aarushi Yadav, Ravleen Sabharwal

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice GS KulkarniJustice Aarti Sathe

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.