Akash Jain, Associate Partner & Alisha Dsouza, Associate
Overview:
The Bombay High Court, vide its judgment dated 23 December 2025 in Om Shri Sai Sra Co- operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3140 of 2019 and connected matters), disposed of a group of over 60 writ petitions by directing the newly constituted Special Cells under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to promptly and effectively address grievances of slum dwellers relating to certain specific issues. The Court emphasized amicable resolution in the first instance, highlighting that harmonious settlement without adversarial litigation is in the best interest of slum dwellers. Please click here to read the full Order.
Brief Background and Facts:
The proceedings dealt with two primary grievances raised by slum dwellers, i.e.; non-payment of transit rent by developers during the redevelopment process and failure to handover possession of permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) in completed schemes. During hearings on 17 December 2025, the Court observed that these issues touch upon the Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the SRA was directed to evolve an effective mechanism to address these complaints expeditiously.
Contentions of the Parties:
- The Petitioners (Slum Dwellers/Societies): Argued that they were being deprived of their legitimate entitlements and forced into litigation due to the apathy and inaction of SRA officers.
- The Respondent (Slum Rehabilitation Authority): The SRA showed a proactive approach, admitting that such grievances can be effectively addressed at the departmental level.
Court’s Findings:
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe made the following key observations:
- Constitution of Special Cells: The Court approved the SRA’s issuance of Circular Nos. 230, 231, 232, and 233, which established “Special Cells” for the adjudication and recovery of transit rent and to combat unauthorized occupation of tenements.
- Time-Bound Resolution: Complaints filed before these cells must ordinarily be decided within 15 days, with a maximum extension of another 15 days for recorded reasons.
- Financial Safeguards: To prevent rent defaults, the Court directed SRA to freeze a portion of the developer’s free-sale component, specifically the lower floors, as security until the rehabilitation building is completed and all transit rent issues are resolved.·
- Nature of the Mechanism: The Court clarified that these cells are not independent adjudicatory bodies but forums for amicable dispute resolution and suggested the use of mediation techniques by the Cells to resolve issues,
Judgment:
The Court disposed of the writ petitions by allowing the parties to approach the newly constituted Special Cells by 15 January 2026. It held that aggrieved parties may subsequently approach statutory forums if aggrieved by the SRA orders. The Court also directed the SRA CEO to appoint a general committee with nominees from MHADA, the Municipal Corporation, and two SRA officials to resolve Annexure-II eligibility disputes and other issues not handled by existing special cells, to be constituted by a circular. For non-Annexure-II disputes, a smaller cell of two SRA appointees was deemed sufficient.
MHCO Comment:
This judgment underscores the Bombay High Court’s proactive approach to protecting slum dwellers’ rights under SRA schemes by leveraging administrative mechanisms for faster, non- litigious redressal. For eligible slum dwellers, it provides a streamlined path to enforce transit rent and possession claims through SRA’s Special Cells, reducing dependence on protracted court battles. For developers, it signals stricter oversight, including potential freezing of sale components, to ensure compliance with rehabilitation obligations. Overall, the ruling reinforces the welfare intent of the Slums Act while addressing systemic delays and defaults.
The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice; please contact us for any assistance.
Originally Published by MHCO Law