Court rules that majority of petitioners’ structures situated on municipal land, not developer’s land, making alternate site rehabilitation lawful; doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation not applicable without material evidence
In a significant judgment dated August 25, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a writ petition filed by slum dwellers seeking in-situ rehabilitation on land owned by private developers in Chinchpokli, Mumbai. The petitioners, eligible slum dwellers, had challenged the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation’s decision to allot them permanent alternate accommodation in Bhandup, instead of rehabilitation on the developer’s land as per undertakings dated 2007 and 2008.
The court meticulously examined the factual matrix and relevant legal provisions, including the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, and the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Bombay, 2034. It was revealed that the petitioners’ majority structures were situated on land owned by the Municipal Corporation rather than the private developers. The municipal authority, therefore, had lawfully allotted alternate accommodation to the petitioners at Bhandup under its rehabilitation scheme.
The petitioners had relied heavily on the undertakings given by the developers in 2007 and 2008, which allegedly assured in-situ rehabilitation for eligible hutment dwellers. However, the court found that the undertakings applied only to those slum dwellers situated on the developer’s land and not to those residing on municipal land. Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioners had failed to establish any material promise or representation by the respondents that would invoke the doctrines of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation in their favour.
The bench also pointed out that the petitioners’ earlier civil suit seeking similar relief had been dismissed for non-prosecution and was not restored, indicating an attempt to seek multiple remedies for the same cause of action. The court declined to entertain the writ petition as a second bite at the cherry.
Importantly, the judgment references prior decisions, including Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (2021 SCC Online Bom 13719), which clarifies that the right to rehabilitation does not translate into a right of ownership or an absolute right to in-situ rehabilitation.
The court further observed that the road adjoining both the municipal and developer land was taken over for road widening, diminishing the feasibility of in-situ rehabilitation. It emphasized that claims for in-situ rehabilitation are not justified within the constitutional framework and should not be unconscionable.
The Municipal Corporation was found ready to execute Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements for the petitioners in Bhandup, where construction was already complete and suitable for habitation.
The judgment serves as a significant precedent, underscoring that alternate accommodation provided by municipal authorities is lawful and appropriate when petitioners’ dwellings are situated predominantly on municipal land. It also clarifies the limited applicability of undertakings made by private developers in slum rehabilitation schemes.
The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to pursue claims before appropriate authorities or courts as per law.
Bottom Line:
Slum Rehabilitation - Petitioners, being eligible slum dwellers, cannot insist on in-situ rehabilitation on the developer's land as per the undertaking when the majority of their structures are situated on land owned by the municipal corporation. Rehabilitation at an alternate site provided by the municipal corporation is deemed lawful and appropriate.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Bombay, 2034 (Regulation 33(7))
Mangesh Yashwant Parave v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2966949
