In a recent ruling in the matter of Shanti Dharma Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Others. V/S State of Maharashtra and Others. And Saroj Shyamrao Choube and Others. Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others by the Bombay High Court, a significant legal dispute concerning slum rehabilitation, encroachments, and the rights of municipal tenants and slum dwellers has been resolved. The case, involving two writ petitions—Writ Petition No. 696 of 2024 (filed by Saroj Shyamrao Choube and others) and Writ Petition No. 676 of 2024 (filed by the Shanti Dharma CHSL)—addresses complex issues related to slum redevelopment, access roads, and the legal entitlement of petitioners to alternative accommodation.

The heart of the dispute lies in a 40-foot-wide access road in Mumbai, which is obstructed by the illegal structures of the petitioners. The structures were initially built on municipal land, and although these occupiers, including the 13 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 696, were offered rehabilitation under the Meenatai Thakare Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRA), they declined the offered accommodations. This refusal to vacate the road has led to significant issues for nearby housing societies, particularly the Shanti Dharma CHSL, which claims that the obstruction hampers both routine access and emergency vehicle passage to their premises.

The petitioners, on the other hand, argue that their refusal to accept the offered housing was justified, as the relocation offered to them under the SRA scheme was in much smaller units compared to their original premises. They claim to be entitled to larger accommodations that would better match the size of their initial dwellings, especially considering their status as municipal tenants.

Central to the petitioners' case is their claim to municipal tenancy, which they argue entitles them to rehousing in accordance with the scheme provisions. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), however, contests this assertion, arguing that the petitioners were never municipal tenants, as evidenced by their own affidavits and documents. The MCGM’s position is that the petitioners, who were originally private tenants, only became eligible for rehabilitation under the SRA after the land was acquired for redevelopment purposes.

The MCGM's argument is based on the fact that the petitioners' structures were on land acquired under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act and that they should have vacated the area once the slum redevelopment process was initiated. The MCGM also provided evidence that alternative accommodation was offered to the petitioners as part of the Meenatai Thakare SRA scheme, but they declined the offer.

Dr. Chandrachud, representing the petitioners, framed the issue as a matter of balancing equity in administrative action. He argued that the petitioners, having been long-time occupants, should not be compelled to accept accommodation significantly smaller than their original premises. He also pointed out that the continued obstruction of the access road by the petitioners' structures was unacceptable, particularly in light of the public safety concerns raised by emergency vehicle access.

On the other hand, the Shanti Dharma CHSL, which lies in the path of the disputed road, insisted that the petitioners' structures were causing significant hindrances, not only for routine access but also for emergency services. They filed their petition seeking the removal of the encroachments and the resolution of their grievances regarding the obstruction.

In its ruling, the Bombay High Court recognized that the petitioners could not be allowed to continue obstructing the access road, given the significant public interest and safety concerns. At the same time, the court acknowledged that the petitioners' claims to rehabilitation in the Meenatai Thakare SRA scheme were valid, but their refusal to accept the housing offered had complicated matters.

The court’s key directive was for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to take immediate action regarding the recovery of the allegedly illicitly allotted tenements in the Meenatai Thakare CHSL. The court emphasized that once those tenements were freed from illicit occupation, the 13 petitioners should be given an option to occupy them, following a "right of first refusal." In the meantime, the petitioners were to be offered temporary accommodation in Project Affected Person (PAP) tenements, with the understanding that these tenements would remain their permanent accommodation if no other options became available.

The court gave the SRA and the MCGM a clear mandate to facilitate the relocation of the petitioners, setting deadlines for the removal of their illegal structures by May 6, 2024. The court also directed that the petitioners be given a meaningful choice regarding their accommodation, allowing them to inspect available PAP tenements and decide whether they wish to accept them or wait for the rehabilitation flats in the Meenatai Thakare CHSL to become available.

Importantly, the court directed that the petitioners' advocates be kept informed of the progress in the SRA's actions regarding the illicit allotments, ensuring that the petitioners are aware of any developments that may impact their eligibility for rehousing.

This case serves as a pivotal example of how the courts balance the rights of slum dwellers with the imperative of ensuring public access and safety in urban areas. The Bombay High Court’s intervention reflects a nuanced approach to slum rehabilitation, aiming to protect the rights of individuals while also addressing broader urban planning and safety concerns. The ruling underscores the importance of resolving disputes in a fair and transparent manner, especially when it comes to matters as complex as slum redevelopment, municipal tenancy, and urban infrastructure.

In the end, the 13 petitioners will have to make a crucial decision about their future: either accept temporary accommodation in PAP tenements or wait for the rehabilitation flats they were originally promised—once they become available. Meanwhile, the MCGM and SRA will be tasked with addressing the issues of illegal allotments and ensuring that the access road is cleared to prevent further obstruction.