Shamrao Narayan Nevase Decd Thru Lhrs vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Housing and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shamrao Narayan Nevase Decd Thru Lhrs vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Housing and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of keeping all contentions open; CEO, SRA directed to decide the pending representations in accordance with law; petitioners permitted to appeal to the AGRC against the grant of LOI within 2 weeks without a limitation objection; AGRC to hear the appeal and any stay application expeditiously on merits.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Chief Executive Officer, SRA ought to consider and decide the petitioners' representations dated 15/09/2021, 09/03/2023, 04/09/2024 and 18/12/2024 alleging illegalities in the clubbing of two Schemes, before granting approval to the SRA Scheme proposal on Survey No. 8, Hissa No. 2, CTS No. 834, Kanjur Village. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent no.2 - the Chief Executive Officer, SRA - is directed to look into the petitioners' representations and take decision/action on them in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

The grievance that the clubbing of the Schemes resulted in improper grant of the LOI can be examined by the AGRC under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; the Court considered it appropriate that an appeal be filed before the AGRC against the grant of LOI, and if such an appeal is preferred within a period of 2 weeks, the respondents shall not raise an objection of limitation.

Key takeaways

The AGRC is to consider the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.ratio¶4
In view of the petitioners' contention that there is a threat of demolition, the Court requested the AGRC to hear any interim/stay application on its own merits expeditiously.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the clubbing of two SRA Schemes and the consequential grant of LOI for implementation of an SRA Scheme on Survey No. 8, Hissa No. 2, CTS No. 834, Kanjur Village (admeasuring 1100 sq. yards). The Court directed respondent no.2 - Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority - to look into and decide the petitioners' representations dated 15/09/2021, 09/03/2023, 04/09/2024 and 18/12/2024 in accordance with law. Held that the grievance of improper grant of the LOI is examinable by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; an appeal before the AGRC filed within 2 weeks was not to be met with an objection of limitation; the AGRC to hear the appeal and any interim/stay application (in view of alleged threat of demolition) on its own merits expeditiously. All contentions kept open.

Ingale

15-WP-4522-25.odt

Digitally signed URMILAPRAMOD by URMILAPRAMODINGALEDate: INGALE 2026.04.2318:44:00 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4552 OF 2025 WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10421 OF 2025

Shamrao Narayan Nevase since deceased through legal heirs 1.1. Smt. Vijaya Shamrao Nevase and ors. … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.… Respondents

Mr. Nitin Gaware-Patil Mr. Divyesh K. Jain, for the petitioners. Mr. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the respondent no.1.

Mr. Prakhar Tandon a/w Yashi Bhatt i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for respondent no.2-SRA.

Mr. Shashikant Surana i/b Mr. Madhur Surana, for respondent no.3.

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 23^rd APRIL, 2026

P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The challenge in

this petition is to the clubbing of 2 Schemes in respect of which learned counsel for the petitioners urged several illegalities. It is

submitted that though several representations have been made to

the respondent no.2- Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation

Authority (‘SRA’, for short) to decide objections/representations

1

Ingale 15-WP-4522-25.odt

dated 15/09/2021, 09/03/2023, 04/09/2024 and 18/12/2024 submitted by the petitioners before granting any approval to the proposal for implementation of SRA Scheme on the subject property i.e. Survey No. 8, Hissa No. 2, CTS No. 834 situated at Kanjur Village admeasuring 1100 sq. yards, respondent no.2 has failed to consider these proposals.

We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. So far as

the aforementioned representations are concerned, since it is the grievance of the petitioners that there are several illegalities in the clubbing of the Schemes, respondent no.2- SRA, Chief Executive Officer is directed to look into the representations and take decision/action on the same in accordance with law.

As regards the grievance of the petitioners that the clubbing of the Schemes has resulted in the improper grant of the LOI, the said aspect can always be examined by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (‘AGRC’, for short) under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Having regard to the facts narrated by the petitioners and contentions raised, in our considered view, it

2

Ingale 15-WP-4522-25.odt

would be appropriate if an appeal before the AGRC is filed against the grant of LOI. If such an appeal is preferred before the AGRC within a period of 2 weeks from today, the respondents shall not

raise an objection of limitation.

The AGRC to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law expeditiously. If an application for stay is preferred since the petitioners contend that there is threat of demolition, we request the AGRC to hear interim application on its own merits expeditiously.

Keeping all contentions open, the writ petition is disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

3