Synopsis

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s request in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the Bombay High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to conduct a “performance audit” of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act). The Supreme Court had noted that despite being a beneficial legislation intended to provide dignified housing, the Act generated excessive litigation and its implementation was deeply flawed. The High Court heard extensive submissions from the State government, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), developers, landowners, slum dwellers, NGOs, and amici curiae. After analysing the historical background, statutory framework, judicial precedents, and ground realities, the court identified systemic failures in identification of slums, selection of developers, apportionment of land, transit accommodation, functioning of statutory authorities (especially the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee), and effective remedies. The court directed the State Government to constitute an Expert Committee for a comprehensive performance audit of the Slum Act, with specific terms of reference and composition. The judgment also recorded detailed suggestions (appended as a table) for legislative and administrative reforms.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Advait M. Sethna (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 8th May, 2026

Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1 of 2024 (2026:BHC-GOA:1022-DB – though Goa citation appears; the judgment is from Bombay High Court, but uploaded with Goa citation? Actually the PDF shows Bombay High Court at Goa? Wait, the header says "2026:BHC-GOA:1022-DB" but the case is from Bombay High Court, possibly a Goa Bench? No: The first page says "IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA" – so it's the Goa Bench. Coram: Suman Shyam and Amit S. Jamsandekar JJ. But the judgment text shows G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna JJ? There's inconsistency. Let me re-check: The PDF file name is "The Goa Foundation ..." but this is a different file? The user uploaded a file named "High Court On Its Own Motion vs State Of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader.pdf". The content begins with "IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION" and then "SUO MOTU IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2024". The coram is G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna JJ. The judgment date is 8th May, 2026. I will use that.

Core Law: Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21, 226; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay ordinary original civil jurisdiction

Suo motu in writ petition no. 1 of 2024 (and connected matters)

High court on its own motion (petitioner) vs. State of maharashtra through government pleader (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice g. s. kulkarni and hon’ble mr. justice advait m. sethna

Reserved on: not specified; pronounced on: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

Maharashtra slum areas (improvement, clearance and redevelopment) act, 1971 – sections 3a to 3w (slum rehabilitation authority and scheme), sections 4, 3c (declaration of slum areas and slum rehabilitation areas), sections 13, 14 (development and acquisition), sections 33, 38 (eviction and demolition), sections 34a, 34b (apex grievance redressal committee and grievance redressal committee), sections 35 (appeals), sections 3x, 3y, 3z (protected occupiers, photo-pass, rehabilitation)

Maharashtra regional and town planning act, 1966 – section 2(19) (planning authority), section 37(1b) (modification of dcr)

Development control and promotion regulations (dcpr), 2034 – regulation 33(10) (slum rehabilitation scheme), regulations on tenement density, apportionment, amenities, parking

Constitution of ind

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.