Sandeep V. Marne, J.
1) Petitioners, who claim to be allottees/lessees of land for setting up commercial shops in Government Colony, Bandra (East), Mumbai, have filed these Petitions seeking their rehabilitation on account of demotion of their structures for transfer of the land by the State Government for construction of High Court building. Petitioners are demanding grant of alternate commercial premises of sizes equivalent to area in their respective occupation, within the project of redevelopment of the Government colony at Bandra. Though at the time of filing of the Petitions, cases of Petitioners were not being considered for allotment of any alternate premises, during pendency of the Petitions, they participated in the process for decision of their eligibility for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and they have been held eligible for rehabilitation. They would accordingly secure permanent alternate commercial premises on ownership basis of about 225 sq. ft. each. Having secured right of allotment of commercial premises of about 225 sq. ft each, Petitioners now contend that they be treated differently than slum dwellers and be granted alternate premises of sizes equivalent to the size of their demolished structures within the Bandra Government Colony. Petitioners have accordingly sought prayers for decision of their representations dated 19.05.2025 and 17.07.2025, for allotment of alternate commercial premises of equivalent sizes and for framing of a policy for grant of alternative commercial premises in the commercial shops earmarked pursuant to the policy dated 08.02.2023.
2) Petitioners claim to be lessees in respect of open spaces at Government Colony, Bandra, Mumbai. According to Petitioners as many as 157 allotments were made for setting up shops within Government Colony, Bandra by the State Government, by execution of lease agreements with the allottees. In their Petitions, Petitioners have pleaded details of allotments made in their respective cases. The details in respect of allotments made in respect of structures involved in each Petition are as under:
2.1) Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.27211 of 2025 (Smt. Kalawati Bhimrao Thorat) relies on Agreement dated 28 January 1976 by which open space admeasuring 375 square feet in Government Servants Colony, Bandra was allotted in the name of Shri L.S. Yadav for running the business of tea, coffee and panpatti in the existing shed of sugarcane juice stall. Petitioner-Kalawati Thorat is the daughter of Shri L.S. Yadav and after death of her father, she applied for transfer of lease in her name by letter dated 4 May 1983. According to Petitioner, the tenure of lease expired in the year 1983, after which she is in continuous correspondence for renewal of lease. The Desk Officer in the Revenue and Forest Department informed her that the tenure of the lease had expired and that in the event of decision for renewal of lease, the proposal for transfer of lease in her name would be considered. She is also relying on letter dated 20 May 1988, which is the internal correspondence between the officials of Public Works Department regarding inspection of her structure. It is claimed that the lease rent is paid upto the year 2021, after which the Government has stopped acceptance of the rent.
2.2) The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.31157 of 2025 (Narmada Sampatrao Deshmukh) claims that lease in respect of plot admeasuring 38 ft. x 10 ft. near old bus stop, Government Servants Colony, Bandra was allotted in the name of Shri M.G. Bhave by Public Works and Housing Department and by letter dated 16 October 1979, the Lease was permitted to be transferred in the name of Shri Sampatrao Deshmukh, Petitioner’s husband. She relies on Agreement dated 5 February 1980 executed in the name of Shri Sampatrao Deshmukh, by which land admeasuring 10 feet x 15 feet was allotted in the name of her husband- Sampatrao Deshmukh for running of Farsan Mart. It is claimed that the Petitioner and her husband have obtained necessary permissions for running business of Restaurant in the name and style as ‘Hotel Shivshankar’ from the leased land. On 3 January 2019, Petitioner’s husband passed away and thereafter she alongwith her children were running the restaurant at the site.
2.3) The Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.27235 of 2025 (Pushpa Harikant Bhatt) claims that by letter dated 23 January 1976, open land admeasuring 50 ft x 20 ft near clinical laboratory in Government Employees Colony, Bandra was granted to Shri A.B. Parkar for running of Restaurant-cum-Provision Store for a period of five years. She relies on Lease Agreement dated 28 January 1976 executed in the name of Shri A.B. Parkar. It is claimed that Petitioner- Pushpa Bhatt used to assist the original lessee Shri A.B. Parkar since the year 1975. She relies on power of attorney allegedly executed by Shri Parkar. She claims to have constructed structure on the said land at her own expenses. After death of Shri Parkar, Petitioner-Pushpa Bhatt made application dated 3 January 2009 for transfer of the lease in her name.
3) This is how the Petitioners claim leasehold rights in respect of the land and structures in their occupation. It appears that some of the premises allotted in Government Colony, Bandra (East) were transferred under administrative control of Revenue and Forest Department through Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, whereas some premises remained under the administrative control of Public Works Department (PWD). By Government Resolution dated 3 June 1983, the administrative control in respect of all the premises was brought under General Administrative Department (GAD). Petitioners rely upon letter dated 1 August 2017 issued by the GAD to Executive Engineer, PWD conveying that the proposal for renewal of leases in respect of the commercial unit occupiers was under consideration of the State Government and till final decision was taken, eviction action should not be initiated only on the ground of expiry of tenure of lease.
4) It appears that there were 17 commercial unit occupiers on Plot No.10, Bandra (East) on which it was proposed to construct a new building for office of Collector, Mumbai Suburban District. The unit occupiers formed a cooperative society and it was decided to allot some portion of land out of Plot No.10 to that society for accommodation of the shopkeepers. Petitioners have relied upon Collector’s letter dated 16 September 2024 in support of their contention that it is proposed to transfer ownership rights in favour of said 17 commercial unit occupiers on payment of certain charges.
5) The Government of Maharashtra proposed to redevelop the entire Government Colony at Bandra having plot area of about 90 acres comprising of 370 Government quarters buildings having 4,782 flats. The State Government has proposed to demolish the existing staff quarter buildings and to construct new buildings for provision of residential quarters to the State Government staff. Petitioners have relied upon project report dated 8 February 2023 on ‘Redevelopment of Bandra Government Housing Colony Project’ in support of their contention that they can be rehabilitated in the proposed commercial development in the land. Out of the said land, the State Government has allotted land admeasuring 30.16 acres for proposed building of the High Court. By Government Resolution dated 4 September 2024 issued by the PWD, a committee was constituted for taking action in respect of unauthorised structures in land admeasuring 30.16 acres earmarked for construction of High Court building. Petitioners and other structure occupiers received notices dated 13 November 2024 from Slum Rehabilitation Authority calling upon them to remove their respective structures.
6) Petitioners made representations dated 13 February 2025 requesting for their rehabilitation on the same plot of land. On 4 March 2025, notices were issued to the Petitioners and other structure occupiers stating that it was decided to handover possession of Phase- III land to the High Court in March-2025 and that PWD had received possession of 254 Project Affected Persons (PAP) tenements. It was further stated that the structure occupiers affected by third phase would be allotted PAP tenements on 7 March 2025. Petitioners and other structure occupiers were called upon to remain present for lottery process for allotment of premises on 7 March 2025. Petitioners and other structure occupiers sent legal notice dated 8 April 2025 once again requesting for the rehabilitation on the land on which their structures were situated. On 4 April 2025, the SRA issued notices to the Petitioners and other structure occupiers calling upon them to handover possession of their structures by 7 April 2025. Some of the structure occupiers approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) Nos. 11459 of 2025, 11579 of 2025 and 8277 of 2025, which were disposed of by this Court directing conduct of survey of structures of Petitioners therein by taking measurements and by maintaining record of such survey. A statement was made on behalf of the Petitioners therein that once the conduct of survey was complete, the Petitioners therein would vacate the subject structures.
7) It appears that the structures in occupation of the Petitioners were also surveyed and measurements thereof have been recorded. After conduct of survey, the structures were vacated by the Petitioners on 6 May 2025 and thereafter their structures have been demolished. Petitioners made representations dated 19 May 2025 and 17 July 2025 before the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO, SRA) for consideration of their eligibility. On 1 August 2025, the Competent Authority-SRA issued revised Annexure-II by which certain difficulties were expressed for determining the eligibility in respect of the subject structures.
8) Petitioners have accordingly filed the present Petitions for securing permanent alternate commercial premises of equivalent sizes within the Project of redevelopment of Government Colony at Bandra. For facility of reference, the substantive reliefs raised in Writ Petition (L) No.27211 of 2025 are extracted below:-
a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.7 to forthwith decide the Petitioner’s representations dated 19.05.2025 and 17.07.2025 in accordance with law.
b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to, upon determination of the Petitioner's eligibility, allot to the Petitioner, permanent alternate commercial premises of the area as per the measurement carried out jointly by the SRA and PWD, and the Government-approved Valuers report dated.08.05.2025;
c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate orders thereby calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the plans sanctioned for the project at Bandra Government Housing Project and further be pleased to direct the Respondents to frame a policy thereby giving alternative commercial premises to the Petitioner's protected structure, in the commercial shops earmarked pursuant to the policy dated 08.02.2023;
9) When Petitions were listed on 12 September 2025, this Court made a prima facie observation that the eligibility of Petitioners was not determined. Respondent No. 7/SRA submitted that the Petitioners had not submitted documents of eligibility. Petitioners expressed willingness to submit documents of their eligibility, once again. During pendency of the present Petitions, it appears that the Petitioners submitted documents in support of their claims for eligibility and the Competent Authority-SRA proceeded to redetermine their eligibility. Accordingly supplementary Annexure-II dated 19 November 2025 have been issued. Under the revised Annexure-II dated 19 November 2025, all the three Petitioners are held eligible for rehabilitation under the slum rehabilitation scheme. Despite being found eligible, Petitioners now claim that they must be provided alternate commercial premises of same sizes and within the project area of redevelopment of Government Colony. Petitioners have accordingly filed additional affidavits dated 4 December 2025 inter alia stating that substantial portion of commercial premises is being made available during the process of redevelopment of Government Colony and that some part of the same needs to be utilized for rehabilitation of erstwhile shopkeepers. The Petitioners have accordingly prayed for allotment of same carpet area which they were occupying prior to demolition of their respective structures.
10) Thus, all the three Petitioners are now held eligible for rehabilitation under slum rehabilitation scheme. They would accordingly be allotted alternate commercial premises of 225 sq.ft. each. However, Petitioners are still prosecuting the present Petitions under a hope that they can secure commercial carpet area of 1440.17sq.ft (Smt. Kalawati Thorat), 2759.70 sq.ft. (Smt. Pushpa Bhatt) and 1740.11 sq.ft. (Smt. Narmada Deshmukh). Thus, the short issue that remains to be decided is whether the Petitioners have made out any case for allotment of alternate commercial premises of equivalent area within the Government Colony at Bandra.
11) We have heard Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners who would submit that the Petitioners cannot be treated as slum dwellers for the purpose of rehabilitation under a slum scheme. That Petitioners are lessees in respect of the land and the structures. That they are not unauthorised occupants or encroachers and cannot be treated at par with other slum dwellers. That allotment of land to the Petitioners was inside Government Colony and not in the encroached portion of land, which is declared as slum. That therefore the land on which structures of the Petitioners were situated could not have been treated as slum for the purpose of implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme. He would submit that since the Petitioners are lawful occupiers of the land and structures, they are entitled to be rehabilitated by allowing them same commercial area as was in their occupation prior to demolition of their respective structures. He would submit that the Petitioners are required to be treated on par with 17 lessees/structure occupiers, who are rehabilitated while constructing the new building for Collector Office. That land admeasuring 1083.49 sq.mtrs in Plot No. 10 was earmarked for rehabilitation where 17 structure occupiers have been rehabilitated. Now the Revenue Department has transferred leasehold rights of those 17 shops into ownership rights subject to payment of charges. That their leases were also extended till the year 2030. Mr. Sawant would further submit that the State Government be therefore directed to formulate a policy for rehabilitation of authorised shop occupiers in Bandra. He would invite our attention to the project report, under which substantial portion of land is taken up for commercial development. He would submit that all the shop allottees in Government Colony, including Petitioners, can easily be accommodated in such commercial development.
12) Mr. Sawant would submit that Petitioners cannot be given discriminatory treatment by treating them as slum dwellers by allotting alternate commercial premises of only 225 sq.ft. He would quote several other examples, where commercial structure occupiers in Government Colony, Bandra are allotted residential accommodations at far off places. That Petitioners need to be accommodated within the Project area at Bandra.
13) Mr. Sawant further submit that the Petitioners have willingly vacated the structures in their occupation for the purpose of extending cooperation for construction of High Court building. However, after demolition of their structures, Respondents are illegally treating them as if they are slum dwellers by allotting alternate accommodation of only 225 sq.ft. He would submit that the structures occupied by the Petitioners have been measured, which indicate that Petitioner -Smt. Kalawati Thorat was occupying carpet area of 1440.17 sq.ft.(BUA 1720 sq.ft.), Petitioner-Smt. Pushpa Bhatt was occupying carpet area of 2759.70 sq.ft. (BUA of 3311.64 sq.ft) and Petitioner- Smt. Narmada Deshmukh was occupying carpet area of 1740.11 sq.ft. (BUA 2088.13 sq.ft.). He would submit that the Petitioners are entitled to be granted permanent alternate commercial accommodations equivalent to the area of structures in their occupation. Mr. Sawant would accordingly pray for allowing the Petitions by allotting alternate commercial premises to the Petitioners of equivalent area within the Government Colony, Bandra.
14) Ms. Chavan, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 8 would oppose the Petitions submitting that Petitioners do not have any semblance of right in respect of structures in their occupation. That initially much smaller area of lands were allotted to the Petitioners/their predecessors in title and that the Petitioners have indulged in gross expansion of the said areas. That initial allotment was only for fixed tenure and the alleged leasehold rights in respect of the land and structures have expired long time ago. That Petitioners do not have any right to have the leases extended, which have expired long time ago. That the Petitioners are therefore unauthorised occupants on Government land and have rightly been evicted by demolition of their structures. She would submit that there is no policy for rehabilitation of lessees unauthorisedly continuing on Government land after expiry of tenure of lease. That though Petitioners have no right of rehabilitation, they are still being accommodated by grant of alternate commercial structures since their eligibility under the slum scheme is established. That since Petitioners have participated in determining their eligibility as slum dwellers, they cannot not turn around and claim status as Government lessees. She would accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
15) Ms. Bhadrashete the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7-SRA would submit that the land bearing CTS No.629(pt) was declared slum and that the slum dwellers have formed Gautam Samta (SRA Co-operative Housing Society (prop)) and Gautam Seva Rahivasi Co-operative Housing Society (prop). That after conduct of survey, provisional Annexure-II was published on 23 September 2015. That structures of Petitioners were located on periphery of slum land and hence Petitioners submitted eligibility claims, which were initially rejected. That after submission of documents of eligibility, all the three Petitioners are now held eligible in respect of their respective structures and accordingly they would be allotted alternate commercial structures as per the policy. That Petitioners have willingly participated in the slum scheme by submitting documents in support of their eligibility claims and therefore they cannot now turn around and contend that they cannot be treated as slum dwellers. She would accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
16) Written submissions are also tendered on behalf of Petitioner and Respondent No.7.
17) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our consideration.
18) The short issue that arises for consideration in the present Petitions is whether Petitioners are entitled to be allotted alternate commercial structures of area equivalent to the one which they possessed prior to demolition of their structures? As observed above, Petitioners are already held eligible by inclusion of their names in Annexure-II and would accordingly be rehabilitated under the slum rehabilitation scheme by allotment of alternate commercial premises. It is however Petitioners’ grouse that they would receive alternate commercial premises of only 225 sq.ft., which are much smaller than the areas in their respective occupation at the time of demolition of their structures. Petitioners therefore insist that they cannot be treated on par with the slum dwellers, since they are lawful lessees in respect of the land and the structure.
19) From narration of facts, it is clear that Petitioners/original allottees were initially allotted lands in the Government Colony Bandra (East), Mumbai for setting up small shops/kiosks possibly for catering to the needs of government servants occupying staff quarters in the Colony. In respect of Petitioner-Smt. Kalawati Bhimrao Thorat, the Lease Agreement was executed on 28 January 1976 in respect of the land admearuing 375 sq.ft. for setting up business of Tea, Coffee and Betel Nut Store (Panpatti) in the existing shed of sugarcane juice stall. In respect of Petitioner-Smt. Pushpa Bhatt, letter of allotment was issued on 23 January 1976 for land admeasuring 1000 sq.ft. for running Restaurant-cum-Provision Store. In respect of Petitioner-Smt. Narmada Deshmukh she was allotted land admeasuring 15x 10 sq.ft. by letter dated 16 October 1979 followed by Lease Agreement dated 5 February 1980 for setting up business of Farsan Mart. There is no dispute to the position that the tenure of allotment/lease in respect of three structures is long since over. Petitioners/original allottees however continued occupying the allotted lands in absence of renewal of lease /allotment. It appears that they expanded their structures and encroached upon neighbouring land. This is clear from the following:
| Petitioner | Land originallyallotted | Size of the structure claimed to be occupied at thetime of demolition |
| Kalavati Thorat | 375 sq.ft. | 1440.17 sq.ft. (carpet area)/1728.20 sq.ft. (BUA) |
| Pushpa Bhatt | 1000 sq.ft. | 2759.70 sq.ft. (carpet area) /3311.64 sq.ft. (BUA) |
| Narmada Deshmukh | 150 sq.ft | 1740.11 sq.ft.(carpet area)/2088.13 sq.ft. (BUA) |
20) Thus, two difficulties stand in the way of Petitioners for claiming status as lessees of land and structures in their occupation viz. (i) tenure of lease/allotment coming to an end and (ii) encroachment of neighbouring land and expanding of structures. Apart from difficulty in claiming status as allottees/lessees of government land, Petitioners have not placed on record any policy decision taken by the State Government of allotment of equivalent commercial areas towards rehabilitation. Thus, in respect of the lessees continuing occupation of land after expiry of tenure of lease, no policy is framed by the State Government for their rehabilitation. This would be the third difficulty for the Petitioners in claiming the relief of rehabilitation.
21) State Government has undertaken the public project of construction of High Court building on its own land. The structures occupied by the Petitioners came in the way of execution of the said public project. The State Government no longer recognizes Petitioners as lessees and has not renewed the tenure of leases and has accordingly directed them to remove themselves from the land for handing over the land for execution of public project. Petitioners’ structures have accordingly been demolished. In absence of any policy for rehabilitation of erstwhile lessees, tenure of whose leases has expired and is not renewed, Petitioners have prayed for a direction to the State Government to formulate such policy. The Petitions thus proceed on admission of absence of policy and Petitioners expect this Court to direct the State Government to formulate a policy for rehabilitation of ex-lessees, who were unauthorisedly holding over occupation of lands and structures by allotting them commercial structures of equivalent sizes in situ. Formulation of a policy for rehabilitation of unauthorised occupants is entirely in the realm of the State Government. Courts cannot show valor and enter into the realm of policy making by issuing a direction for in situ rehabilitation of ex-lessees on government land, whose leases have long since expired. Policy making, being in the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature, Courts are not expected to encroach upon that area. While urging this Court to exercise power of judicial review, Petitioners cannot not expect this Court to legislate.
22) The sheet anchor of Petitioners while seeking formulation of policy for their rehabilitation in situ is the past action of the Government in accommodating 17 shop occupiers of Plot No. 10 whose structures were demolished for construction of new building for Collector Office. Petitioners claim that the said 17 shop occupiers were rehabilitated in the same Plot by allotting land to the cooperative society formed by them. In our view however, Petitioners’ claim for parity is misplaced. Right to equality is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. Just because few other structure occupiers are rehabilitated in the past considering peculiar facts prevailing in that case, the same does not ipso facto create a right in favour of Petitioners to demand same treatment as a matter of right. It is well settled law that relaxation granted by the Government in a particular case considering peculiar circumstances cannot be a basis for demanding similar treatment in all cases. There can be no legitimate expectation in the matter of relaxation. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Courts exercise power of judicial review of administrative actions. The concept of judicial review of a policy decision cannot be confused with issuance of mandamus for formulation of policy. In this regard following observations of the Apex Court in its judgment in Rachna v. Union of India((2021)5 SCC 638), are apt:
40. The thrust of submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that discretion has been exercised by the respondent as a matter of policy in the earlier selections and the present petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the Government must exercise its discretion to overcome the unprecedented situation which the petitioners have faced while appearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair consideration and effective participation in the selection process has been denied to them which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
41. The submission, in our view, is without substance for the reason that the policy decisions which had been taken by the executive on earlier occasions of which a reference has been made always depend on the facts and circumstances at the given point of time and have to be tested independently in the circumstances in which it has been exercised by the competent authority or the 1st respondent as in the instant case.
45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the courts to legislate. The courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for the reason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the participant in the Civil Services Examination, no assistance can be claimed by the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.
(emphasis and underlining added)
23) In Union of India v. Ilmo Devi((2021) 20 SCC 290), the Apex Court has held that framing of a scheme is not the function of Courts and is the sole prerogative of the Government. It is held thus:
13. The observations made in para 9 are on surmises and conjectures. Even the observations made that they have worked continuously and for the whole day are also without any basis and for which there is no supporting evidence. In any case, the fact remains that the respondents served as part- time employees and were contingent paid staff. As observed above, there are no sanctioned posts in the Post Office in which the respondents were working, therefore, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order [Union of India v. Ilmo Devi, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 5144] are not permissible in the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a mandamus to direct the Department to sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularisation policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.
(emphasis added)
24) This Court thus cannot issue mandamus to the State Government directing it to frame a policy for allotment of commercial premises of equivalent sizes to ex-lessees within the land taken up for redevelopment of Government Colony at Bandra. Therefore, Petitioners’ prayer for formulation of policy cannot be granted.
25) There is yet another reason why the facts of the present case do not warrant issuance of any directions for formulation of such policy. It is not that Petitioners are not thrown out of their structures without rehabilitation. As observed above, they are being granted commercial structures on ownership basis as a part of implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme. By seeking direction for formulation of policy, Petitioners are only seeking better terms of rehabilitation. The initial allottees, through whom Petitioners claim, were permitted to set up small shops to cater to the needs of government servants and their families occupying the staff quarters. They not only continued to occupy the land and structures well after expiry of tenure of allotments, but unauthorisedly expanded the structures by encroaching upon neighbouring lands. Though such acts by the original allottees/Petitioners would ordinarily disentitle them from grant of any relief of rehabilitation, the policy of the State Government ensures that they are treated as slum dwellers and are provided with permanent alternate commercial spaces on ownership basis. They cannot insist that a special dispensation needs to be extended to them in the form of a policy for treating them as Government lessees for grant of commercial areas of the size which they were occupying by encroaching upon public land. The scheme for slum rehabilitation implemented by the State Government ensures that slum areas are cleared and improved by converting encroachments by hutment dwellers into ownership tenements. In the present cases also, Petitioners, who as of now have no leasehold rights, would secure ownership of alternate commercial premises of 225 sq. ft. each. Thus, application of the existing slum scheme ensures that Petitioners’ unauthorised occupation is regularized by granting them alternate premises on ownership basis. Therefore, apart from limits on jurisdiction of this Court to direct formulation of policy, we do not otherwise find this to be a fit case for extending any special dispensation by formulating any policy by the State Government.
26) As observed above, the structures of the Petitioners are treated as part of slum rehabilitation scheme by the SRA and their eligibility has been decided. Petitioners voluntarily participated in determination of their eligibility and submitted documents to prove existence of their structures as on cutoff date. After consideration of various documents submitted by them, the Competent Authority of SRA has declared all the three Petitioners eligible for rehabilitation as a part of slum scheme. Thus, there is a scheme for rehabilitation of the Petitioners by treating them as slum dwellers, whereas there is no scheme for rehabilitation of the Petitioners in their capacity as ex- lessees unauthorisedly remaining in occupation after expiry of tenure of allotments. In that view of the matter, Petitioners’ rehabilitation would necessarily be under the slum scheme in absence of any other policy permitting their rehabilitation in capacity as ex-allottees of Government land.
27) Petitioners’ grievance that they would be allotted only smaller structures admeasuring 225 sq.ft. on the strength of their eligibility determined by the Competent Authority is misplaced. Petitioners are not owners of land on which their structures were located. The State Government is the owner of that land. The tenure of allotments made in the names of original allotees has admittedly come to an end. Petitioners did not adopt any proceedings for renewal of tenure of allotments. They squatted on Government land unauthorisedly and went ahead by encroaching on neighbouring land by expanding their structures. They were apparently found to be occupying the land in excess of the one which was originally allotted. In absence of any policy formulated by the State Government for rehabilitation of persons unauthorisedly continuing on Government land after expiry of tenure of allotments, SRA has treated their structures as slum structures by extending them the benefit of rehabilitation. Thus, though not entitled in law, Petitioners have secured themselves some benefits of rehabilitation as a part of slum scheme. There is no vested right in them to claim allotment of commercial structures of equivalent sizes. The policy formulated by the State Government permits allotment of commercial tenements of 225 sq. ft. Therefore the grievance of allotment of lesser alternate area raised by the Petitioners is misplaced.
28) Also of relevance is the fact that the Petitioners have voluntarily participated in the slum scheme. They submitted documents for determination of their eligibility. They cannot now take a volte face and contend that the land occupied by them is not declared as slum or that they cannot be treated as slum dwellers for the purpose of rehabilitation. The doctrine of election would apply. Petitioners had two alternatives when their structures were treated as slum structures viz. to question such declaration and refuse to participate in determination of eligibility or to seek benefit of slum scheme by submitting documents of eligibility. They elected to go for latter option by participating in slum scheme by submitting documents of eligibility. After securing the benefit of eligibility, they are now taking a contrary stand that they cannot be treated as slum dwellers. The Petitioners cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. In their zeal of securing alternate accommodation as part of implementation of slum scheme, they permitted their structures to be surveyed and submitted documents of eligibility before the Competent Authority of SRA. They never challenged implementation of slum scheme on land on which their structures are located. If the subject land was erroneously declared as slum, Petitioners ought to have challenged slum declaration by adopting the appropriate proceedings, which they have failed to adopt. On the contrary, they voluntarily participated in slum scheme by submitting documents of their eligibility. After having secured eligibility under slum scheme, they cannot now be permitted to turn around and claim that they need to be treated differently than the other slum dwellers. What Petitioners are doing is taking chances. They have first secured right of allotment of permanent commercial tenements as a part of slum scheme by establishing their eligibility. Once their eligibility got established, they now want larger area by contending that they are authorised allottees of land and cannot be treated as slum dwellers/ encroachers.
29) A similar issue of entitlement of alternate premises of equivalent area in occupation of tribals by treating them differently than slum dwellers arose before this Court in Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.(Writ Petition No.18995 of 2024 decided on 4 April 2025.) The Petitioners therein claiming to be tribals, were opposing implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme on lands occupied by them. The Petitioners therein were aggrieved by their treatment as slum dwellers and demanded that they must be treated as allottees of land occupied by them. They claimed that they were allottees of land in their capacity as tribals and relied upon various orders passed by the State Government in the year 1949, by which plots of various sizes were allotted to 22 tribal persons. While the Petitioners therein continued to occupy the lands allegedly allotted to them, slum structures mushroomed in respect of balance portion of the land and notification was issued under Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the entire land was declared as slum. In Annexure-II prepared by the Competent Authority, the slum structures, including the structures occupied by Petitioners therein, were surveyed and Annexure-II was prepared, in which Petitioners therein were declared as eligible. Petitioners therein insisted that since they were lawful allottees of land in their capacity as tribals, could not be treated as encroachers by putting them on same pedestals as that of slum dwellers. This Court repelled the challenge raised by the Petitioners therein refusing to recognise any special status for them. This Court held in paragraphs 34, 43, 62 and 63 as under:-
34) The entire thrust of submissions on behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2024 is that they actually are the allottees/grantees of respective plots of land and that therefore the slum scheme cannot be implemented on the portion of lands allotted in their names. It is the case of those Petitioners that being members of tribal community, the State Government has allotted plots of land for construction of houses to the tribal-Petitioners during the years 1949-50 and entries to that effect have already been made to the revenue records. The sheet anchor of claims of those Petitioners is Village Specimen No.2 issued in the names of their ancestors on the basis of which, it is sought to be contended that there is direct evidence of allotment of plots of land. I have gone through the copies of Village Specimen No.2 filed by the Petitioners alongwith Writ Petition (St.) No.615/2025. For the purpose of illustration, the claim of the first Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal is considered. He has relied upon Village Specimen No.2 dated 4 September 1996 issued by Talathi, Village- Panch Pakhadi. The document is titled as
(Village Specimen No. 2, Extract of Register for Non-Agricultural Tax). The land therein is described as Gairan Survey No.502/A (Pt). It is Petitioner's claim that Plot No.12 admeasuring 195 sq. var was allotted for construction of house in the name of Laxman Bhendu Bhuyal, father of Petitioner No.1. Under the column-Manjuricha Hukum (order of approval), there is reference to Collector LND-SR-1231 dated 27 March 1950 and LND-2023 dated 30 March 1950. However, there is a separate column under the heading ‘Mudat’ (period) which shows that the period as 1 August 1979 to 31 July 1991.xxx
43) These documents may prove occupation of structures situated on the land bearing Survey No.502/A. The issue is whether all these documents can be considered for the purpose of acceptance of claim of Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 as owners of the land. Answer to the question appears, to my mind, to be in the negative. Those documents would only help those Petitioners for proving occupation of structures by them for a long time. However, inference of title cannot be drawn in absence of production of any valid allotment order issued by the Collector allotting any portion of the land in favour of any of the Petitioners. What must be borne in mind is that the land belongs to the Government as per the revenue entries. Therefore, the only manner in which government can dispose of the land is through making an order of allotment. Mere social background of Petitioners as tribals would not be a reason for raising a surmise that occupation of structures would automatically mean allotment of lands in their names.
xxx
62) In absence of any document evidencing allotment of land by names of Petitioners and in the light of the revenue authorities repeatedly certifying that no portion of land in Survey No. 502/A has been allotted to any of the Petitioners, this Court is unable to recognize any special status for them than that of mere occupiers of structures constructed on Government land. The SRA has decided to clear the slum by ensuring better living conditions for thousands of slum dwellers, who are awaiting allotment of rehab tenements to them on ownership basis. Petitioners, who are eligible, would also be provided with such rehab tenements.
xxx
Thus implementation of slum scheme would result in rehabilitation of tribals who would receive flats on ownership basis. On the other hand any further delay in implementation of the Scheme would put the whole scheme in serious jeopardy.
63) Thus the real contest here is not about any of the Petitioners being rendered homeless on account of implementation of slum scheme. Subject to satisfaction of their eligibility, the Developer is bound to allot them rehab tenements in addition to payment of rent from the date of demolition of their structures. What Petitioners expect is actually a larger pie in implementation of the SRS. Their real objection is not to prevent redevelopment of the land, which is already infested with thousands of hutments, but what they are actually expecting is grant of additional benefit as compared to other normal slum dwellers. Petitioners are expecting that they should be granted a special treatment during the course of implementation of slum scheme by being treated differently than the other normal slum dwellers. However, no special treatment can be granted to them on account of failure to prove ownership of part of land bearing Survey No.502/A. If the Petitioners of Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 615 of 2025 were really the owners of any portion of land bearing Survey No.502/A why they permitted mushrooming of thousands of slums in the said land has not been explained in any manner. AGRC has also recorded finding that those Petitioners did not take any steps for removal of encroachment in the land in which they claim ownership. There prayer before AGRC was to carve out entire land admeasuring 3.39 Hectare in Survey No.502/A. However, how Petitioners tolerated mushrooming of 1848 slum structures on the said land and did not take any steps for removal of encroachment has not been explained. It appears that only one Petitioner-Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal made unsuccessful attempt of seeking recovery of possession of land and structure by filing civil suit, which came to be dismissed holding that he could not prove ownership of the land. Said decree has attained finality. Except him, no other Petitioner in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 has taken any step in removal of any slum structure. It is only after slum structures are taken up for rehabilitation, Petitioner now want award of different treatment for the purpose of grant of additional benefits through implementation of slum scheme, which is the real intention behind initiation of present litigation. This Court cannot put implementation of slum scheme of such massive magnitude to risk only because Petitioners want to fulfill their desire of getting larger pie than other slum dwellers from the Developer.
(emphasis added)
30) Thus, mere occupation of Government land by Petitioners in Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal (supra) is not considered as a factor enough for recognising any special status in their favour for grant of treatment different than the one given to other slum dwellers. In our view, similar principle would apply in the present case as well. Even if Petitioners/ original allottees are treated as lessees/allottees of the land in Government Colony at Bandra, the tenure of the allotment/lease has come to an end. Petitioners are admittedly possessing much larger land than the one which was originally allotted. Therefore, Petitioners can only be treated as unauthorised occupants of the lands in absence of extension of tenure of their allotments. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to grant any special status to the Petitioners than the one granted to other slum dwellers on the subject plot of land. Since the Petitioners are being rehabilitated by allotment of permanent alternate commercial structures under slum scheme, we do not find any reason to grant any additional benefit to them.
31) In our view therefore, Petitioners can only be rehabilitated in accordance with determination of their eligibility by the SRA and cannot claim equivalent commercial area in absence of any policy scheme formulated by the State Government. Petitioners therefore need to take appropriate steps for seeking allotment of permanent alternate commercial premises on the strength of their eligibility vide Annexure-II dated 19 November 2025. SRA has already showed willingness to allot the alternate tenements to the Petitioner. SRA shall accordingly expedite the process of granting the alternate commercial tenements to the Petitioners as per their eligibility.
32) Subject to the above observations, Writ Petitions are disposed of without granting any relief in favour of Petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
At this stage, Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners who had been in the occupation of the premises since decades and running the commercial establishments therein be allotted the alternate premises in the vicinity of Bandra. Mr. Sawant submits that, according to his instructions, the other similarly-circumstanced occupants have been accommodated in the vicinity of Bandra.
Ms. Chavan, the learned AGP, submits that she has no instructions as to whether alternate accommodation has been allotted to the occupants in the vicinity of Bandra, and, if so, under which scheme.
We are of the view that, if similarly-circumstanced occupants have been allotted alternate accommodation in Bandra area, the Authorities may consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of alternate accommodation in Bandra, if available, and as far as possible.