Bombay High Court Laments Repeated Delays In Execution Of Slum Rehabilitation Projects, Directs Expeditious Implementation Of Scheme

The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over repeated delays in the implementation of slum rehabilitation schemes and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to ensure that projects are implemented expeditiously in accordance with the object of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.

The Court observed that any interference or obstruction in the statutory process defeats the very purpose of the scheme, which is meant to provide secure housing to slum dwellers.

A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor was hearing two connected writ petitions concerning a slum rehabilitation project in Vile Parle. The petitioners alleged that despite approvals being granted, the project had been stalled due to objections raised by a rival developer and interference from political representatives. They sought directions from the authorities for the issuance of commencement certificates, execution of eviction orders, and prevention of third-party obstruction.

The Court noted that slum rehabilitation is a welfare measure intended to benefit slum dwellers, and its primary objective is to ensure that slum dwellers are protected from eviction without rehabilitation and are provided with decent, secure, and hygienic housing/living conditions.

The Court expressed dismay at the conduct of the authorities involved. It observed:

“We must most regrettably note that in case after case the Respondent Authorities, and in particular Respondent No. 2, seemingly forget and/or overlook the very object for which the Slums Act was enacted and continue to act in the interest of developers, and hence slum rehabilitation projects are often delayed solely due to competing interests of rival developers.”

The Court observed that the Petitioner's initial proposal regarding the redevelopment of the Original Plot had been accepted by the Respondent Authorities and the Petitioner had been granted a valid and subsisting LOI and IOA. The grant of the said LOI and IOA was upheld by the Order of the High Court and confirmed by the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The Court emphasised that Respondent No. 2, being a statutory authority, is required to discharge such duty to ensure that the said slum rehabilitation scheme was expeditiously proceeded with and the object of the Slums Act was best achieved, which it failed to do. It said that the conduct of Respondent no. 2 does not demonstrate faithful discharge of its statutory duties but shows an attempt to stymie the said slum scheme.

“It would indeed reflect a most sorry state of affairs when any statutory authority abdicates its statutory duties on account of any extraneous or extrajudicial intervention and conducts itself in a manner which is contrary to the very Statute under which such Statutory Authority is required to discharge its duties, which is clearly what Respondent No. 2 appears to have done in the present case,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to finalise Annexure-II within six weeks, issue the commencement certificate for the rehabilitation component, and implement eviction orders to ensure smooth progress of the project.

Case Title: Sateri Builders & Developers LLP v. Minister of State, Home (Rural) Housing School Education Co-operative Mining Department & Ors. [Bombay High Court, WPL (L) Nos. 18923/2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order