Disposed¶13

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer

Bombay HC14 Oct 2025WP/2472/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

SRA project jurisdiction; CEO Slum Rehabilitation Authority affidavit; legality of construction; Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAA); clubbing of schemes; Regulation 33(10) DCPR; Slum Rehabilitation Authority; BMC; State of Maharashtra (AGP); Bombay High Court OOCJ Writ Petition No. 2472 of 2025; order dated 14 October 2025; adjourned to 17 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim, without-prejudice liberty granted to the petitioners to enter into Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements for the adequate area legally entitled to them, with formalities to be completed on or before the adjourned date; affidavits directed from the CEO, SRA and the developer; matter adjourned to 17 November 2025. ¶13

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the project in question is an SRA project so that the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, can exercise jurisdiction. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The Court directed that the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority explain on affidavit how the project in question is an SRA project so that the CEO, SRA can exercise jurisdiction.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

As an interim measure, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioners were permitted to enter into Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements in respect of the adequate area legally entitled to them, with all necessary formalities to be completed on or before the adjourned date of hearing.

¶13

Key takeaways

Conditionally, if after hearing learned Counsel the Court comes to a conclusion that the SRA is not at all concerned, further orders would be required to be passed including on the legality of the construction.obiter¶13
The matter was stood over to 17 November 2025.ratio¶17
On being informed by counsel for the developer that the schemes have been clubbed attracting Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR, the Court required both the SRA and the developer to explain the detail thereof on affidavit and directed the developer to file a reply affidavit.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ., Writ Petition No. 2472 of 2025, order dated 14 October 2025: The Court required the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority to explain on affidavit how the project in question is an SRA project so that the CEO, SRA can exercise jurisdiction, failing which further orders including on the legality of the construction would follow. As an interim, without-prejudice measure, the petitioners were permitted to enter into Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements for the adequate area legally entitled to them, with formalities to be completed before the adjourned date. On counsel for the developer stating that the schemes had been clubbed so that Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR would apply, the Court required both the SRA and the developer to explain on affidavit and directed a reply affidavit from the developer. Matter stood over to 17 November 2025.

¶1

302WP2472-25.DOC

¶2

PRASHANTVILASRANE Digitally signedby PRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2025.10.1512:50:57+0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 2472 of 2025

¶6

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri & Anr. ...Petitioners VS Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhupesh, Nitya Parikh, Aditi Bhargava, Saurabh Jain i/b. Divya Shah Associates, for Petitioners. Ms. Priyanka N. Bhadrashete, for Respondent No.1-SRA. Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, for BMC.

¶8

Ms. Poonam Mittal, AGP for the State.

¶9

______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 14 October 2025

¶10

P.C.

¶11

In the present petition the Court needs to be informed as to how the project

¶12

in question is the SRA project so that Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, can exercise jurisdiction. This would be required to be explained on affidavit, which be filed by CEO, SRA.

¶13

In the event, after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a conclusion that the SRA is not at all concerned, further orders would be required to be passed including on the legality of the construction. In the meantime, it is open to the petitioners to enter into the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements in regard to the adequate area which would be legally entitled to the petitioners, and all necessary formalities in this regard be completed on or before the adjourned date of hearing, which shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and what has been observed by us hereinabove.

Page 1 of 2

P. V. Rane

302WP2472-25.DOC

Stand over to 17 November 2025. HOB.

¶18

At this stage we are informed by learned Counsel for the developer that there is a clubbing of the schemes and therefore, the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR would be applicable. If this be so, not only the SRA but also the developer is required to explain the detail thereof on affidavit. Let a reply affidavit be filed by the developer.

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

P. V. Rane

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netrekrishan Deraj Puri v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bharat Ekta Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Sanjeev Suvarna vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Downtown Lifespaces LLP. vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Dinesh Phadke vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation Thr Municipal Commissioner and Anr.

Nitin Jagannath Tarmale and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Chetan Methrana Shinde vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary Tribal Development and Anr.