Bombay HC Quashes BMC’s Road Line Sanction Through Plot Under Ongoing Slum Rehab Scheme

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has set aside the BMC’s decision to sanction a 13.40-meter-wide road line (RL) through a plot already under an ongoing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), citing gross non-application of mind by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and violation of principles of natural justice.

The sanctioned road affected buildings that had been approved and partially constructed under the SRA scheme, yet the affected developer was not granted any opportunity of hearing.

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne said, “It is thus evident that the impugned RL has been sanctioned with gross non-application of mind by the SRA to the factum of Petitioner undertaking development on the plot where RL passes through and that the building permissions are granted by SRA itself.”

The Court emphasized that “if the proposed public street renders any sanctioned building unbuildable,” then the affected party must be heard.

The Petitioner, Raghavendra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd, had acquired land in Mumbai where an SRA-approved rehabilitation scheme was already underway. In December 2023, adjoining society Sahayog CHSL And Developer Harasiddh Corporation submitted a new SRA proposal that included a public road cutting through the Petitioner’s land.

Based on a “no objection” from SRA, the BMC sanctioned the RL under Section 291 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, without informing or hearing the Petitioner.

After objections were raised, the SRA admitted its oversight and asked the BMC to reconsider the RL. However, no action followed, prompting the Petitioner to move the High Court.

The Court noted that even if the provisions of law does not mandate a hearing, the principles of natural justice require it when existing civil rights are at stake.

“We do not agree with the contention that when the proposed public street transgresses in any building… the owner/occupier thereof need not be heard,” the bench observed.

The Court held that BMC’s decision was “vitiated” and that the Petitioner “was required to be heard if new RL was to be sanctioned, particularly when it affects two sanctioned buildings.”

It accordingly set aside the impugned decisions dated October 1 and 3, 2024, directing that the SRA and BMC reconsider the proposal after giving all concerned parties a hearing. A fresh decision must be taken by or before August 11, 2025.