The Bombay High Court has declined to entertain a plea by slum dwellers seeking in-situ rehabilitation on the developers’ land at Chinchpokli where their structures stood, instead of accepting permanent alternate accommodation offered by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation at Bhandup.
A Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Advait M. Sethna passed the judgment on August 25, 2026, in Writ Petition (L) No. 18278 of 2026.
The petitioners’ structures were entirely or majorly situated on C.S. No. 782 of Mazgaon Division, while the developers owned several plots on which a redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR, 2034 was being undertaken.
The BMC had issued an allotment letter on February 3, 2026, offering the petitioners permanent alternate accommodation in PAP tenements at Bhandup. The petitioners challenged this arrangement and relied upon an undertaking given by a developer in 2008 concerning rehabilitation of eligible hutment dwellers.
The Bench noted that an earlier civil suit seeking similar relief had been dismissed for non-prosecution and had not been restored. The Court described the present proceedings as “a second bite at the cherry” since overlapping reliefs were being pursued.
The Court also found that the 2015 Annexure-II, which had not been challenged, recorded the petitioners as eligible for rehabilitation by the Corporation. It further held that the Assistant Commissioner’s May 13, 2026 order was a reasoned order based on factual findings concerning the location of the structures.
On the claim of a fundamental right to in-situ rehabilitation, the Bench relied on an earlier Bombay High Court ruling and observed:
“Mere right of rehabilitation cannot be recognized to be equivalent to a right of ownership.”
The Court held that the petitioners were not being denied rehabilitation altogether, as the Corporation was willing to provide permanent alternate accommodation at Bhandup.
The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and held that disputed factual questions regarding the respective lands could not appropriately be determined in the writ proceedings. The petitioners were given liberty to raise their claims before the appropriate authority or court as permitted by law. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Mangesh Yashwant Parave & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra through Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 18278 of 2026
Judges: Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna
