M.S. Karnik, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs.

                   “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.02.2026 at EXHIBIT- B on page 59-86 passed by the Court Appointed Committee;

                   (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the CEO, SRA and the notification dated 17.05.2022 which is annexed hereto at EXHIBIT- M on page 233-348 to the extent that the Developer has been permitted to encroach upon the land in excess of 2397.70 sq. mts. by taking over land including the wall, the road and the two structures, situated on the land reserved for fish drying yard and allied activities;

                   (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from carrying out any development work on the land covering the wall, road and the two structures as shown in map at EXHIBIT-O on page 279 herein;

                   (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to carry out appropriate boundary demarcation of the CTS No. D/1105 by excluding the area covered by the road, the wall and the two structures from the SRA;

                   (e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2 directing the removal of encroachment made by the Respondent No. 5 (Developer) on CTS No. D/1105 (Pt);

                   (f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No.5 to restore the original position as far as the wall, the road and the two structures are concerned;,

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners claim to be the original inhabitants of the Khar Danda Koliwada Khar (West), Mumbai 400052 and are members of the fishing community, primarily engaged in the traditional fishing activities. In this petition the petitioners are primarily concerned with CTS No. D/1105. These lands constitute their primary source of livelihood. The petitioners have been exercising their rights over the said parcel of land by virtue of customary and easementary rights. Their village, Danda Koliwada, is a traditional fishing village in the western side of Khar.

3. The petitioner No.1 is a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, established in the year 1980. It was formed with the objective of promoting the development of fisheries and the welfare of the fisher community. Petitioner No.2 is also a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2 have been actively involved in implementing various government schemes for the benefit of the fisherfolk, including subsidies for fishing nets and diesel for mechanized and high-speed fishing vessels. They have also been engaged in various social welfare activities like raising and addressing the welfare concerns of the fishing community of Khar Danda Koliwada.

4. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order and report dated 24/02/2026 prepared by this Court appointed Committee (‘Committee’, for short). According to learned counsel, the submissions of the petitioners have been completely ignored by the Committee in the fact finding report.

5. As indicated earlier, the Petitioners are concerned with Plot No. CTS D/1105 located at Khar Danda, which has been reserved for the Fish Drying Yard and allied activities under the various Development Plans from 1966 onwards. There is no dispute about the reservation of the said plot. Ms. Gayatri Singh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the Developer has not responded to the issue of demarcation of the slum boundaries, except for saying that the dispute regarding the demarcation cannot be decided in writ proceedings.

6. It is the petitioner’s case that the boundary of the slum has to be demarcated strictly in accordance with the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (‘DCPR’ for short) based on the reservation shown in the Development Plan. In the written submissions dated 12/01/2026 filed by the petitioners, along with the compilation of documents, the petitioners have pointed out that initially CTS No. 1105, which was earlier numbered as CTS No. 423, was shown as ‘Open Recreation Ground’ in the Tikka Sheet (Survey Sheet) and the said plot of land is owned by the State Government. The Petitioners have also relied upon the photographs from 1966 onwards which show that CTS No. 1105 was an open plot of land and was being used by the fisherfolk for several decades for fish drying and allied activities. Prior to 1966, the Petitioners have also relied upon a Circular dated 10/12/1963 issued by the Revenue & Forests Department granting nonagricultural land near the seashore for housing to fisherfolk and fish and net drying and allied activities. On 10/12/1965, the Revenue & Forests Department modified the words "near seashore" with the words "within or adjoining the fishing villages". The Petitioners have relied upon the subsequent Development Plans to show that the said plot was reserved for the fish drying and other allied activities. In the Development Plan of 1966, CTS D/1105 is shown as green open space. In 1981, the plot of CTS D/1105 was shown as reserved for the fish drying and allied activities. Subsequent to the reservation, since attempts were being made to encroach upon the said land, several representations were made on behalf of the petitioners to various authorities to prevent the encroachments. Consequent to the said representations being made on 04/02/1983, the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue & Forests Department issued a Circular under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966 (“MLRC”, for short) authorizing all the District Collectors to allot open Government land for certain public purposes. The said Circular also specifically recognized the necessity of earmarking open spaces within Colonies of fisherfolk for repairing boats and other allied fishing related uses. The issuance of this Circular was thus initiated to safeguard the occupational needs of the traditional fishing community by ensuring that the specific Government lands were preserved and reserved exclusively for fishing related activities thereby protecting their livelihood and customary usage of such land.

7. It is further case of the petitioners that in 1986, since the encroachment started taking place on parts of the reserved plots, the Assistant Director of Fisheries addressed a letter to Deputy Collector, Mumbai Sub-urban District (MSD), pointing out that the said land has been reserved for the fish drying and allied activities and that necessary action should be taken to remove several unauthorized encroachments. Again, a letter dated 08/01/1988 was issued to the representatives of the fishing community by the Revenue & Forests Department stating that the Additional Collector (MSD) had been instructed to take immediate steps to allot the subject lands for fishing and allied activities. This was again reiterated by letter dated 17/03/1988 issued by the Assistant Director, Fisheries. All these letters and documents regarding the encroachments on the reserved portion of the land were placed before the Committee and are included in the list of documents filed by the petitioners. This was pointed out to indicate that no attempts were made by the petitioners to prevent the encroachments.

8. Subsequently, Development Plan of 1991 showed the CTS D/1105 as being reserved for fishing complex, fish and net drying yard, ice factory, diesel pump and other activities. This reservation was confirmed by the Minister for Fisheries by a letter dated 27/06/2000 informing the petitioners that the subject land had been reserved for fisheries and allied activities and that a proposal for housing on those lands could not be acceded to.

9. In 2018, a substantial modification to Schedule (B) of the Development Plan of 2034 was proposed under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP’, for short). The said modification proposed to alter the reservation of part of the land bearing CTS No. D/1101/A, D/1102 and D/1105 from ‘fish and net drying yard’ to ‘housing’. This modification, however, remained merely a proposal and the respondents were fully aware that the entire plot of CTS No. D/1105 continued to be reserved for fish drying and allied activities. Reliance is placed on the Development Plan remarks issued by the BMC. Since substantial modification was sought by altering the reservation from ‘fish and net drying yard’ to ‘housing’, the petitioners challenged the said substantial modification by filing Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2019. At the time of filing the said Petition, neither the Developer nor the Slum Society had moved any application nor was there any declaration under the Slum Act identifying the subject land as slum and hence the said land could not have been declared as SR area under the Slum Act. The proposed substantial modification covered the same portion of the plot which is now presently covered under the SR area.

10. It is the petitioners case that the Developer submitted a proposal sometime in August 2022, during the time when the said portion was affected by the reservation. The respondent-Developer and the Society were therefore fully aware that the proposal for "housing" had not attained any finality and was merely proposed in 2018 to replace the portion of land reserved for ‘fish and net drying activities’ with housing. This proposal was finally rejected in the year 2022.

11. The petition challenging the substantial modification came up for hearing on several dates and ultimately on 18/03/2025 the Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 submitted a notification dated 12/09/2022 which had rejected the proposal of converting the reserved portion of land from ‘fish and net drying activities’ to ‘housing’ and consequently, the lands retained their original reservation of fish drying and allied activities as per the revised plan of 2034.

12. By order dated 18/03/2025, this Court noted that prayer clause (a) to the petition, which had challenged the proposed substantial modification, had been worked out in view of the notification dated 12/09/2022. Meanwhile, the Developer and the Society on behalf of the slum dwellers sought impleadment in the said petition by filing separate Review Petitions bearing Review Petition No. (L) 11201 of 2025 and Review Petition (L) No. 13092 of 2025 respectively. By order dated 18/09/2025, the Review Petitions filed by the Developer and the Society were allowed and the order dated 18/03/2025 was recalled and the Petition was restored to file. Subsequently, the petitioners were allowed to amend the petition by order dated 19/11/2025, by impleading the Developer and the slum society as respondent nos. 6 and 7 respectively.

13. Meanwhile, during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2019, the SRA, Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 17/05/2022, declaring part of CTS No.D/1105 and CTS No.D/1079A covering an area of 3449.26 sq. mtrs. as SR area. This declaration, according to the petitioners, is contrary to the MRTP Act, the DCPR and the final Development Plan. Even prior to the declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Act, no survey was carried out to demarcate the boundary of the slum area and the area which was reserved for fish and net drying and allied activities which included the road and the wall. Though reference is made in the said order that a demarcation has been carried out, details of the same were not furnished to the petitioners nor was the boundary demarcation of the slum area done in the presence of the petitioners.

14. At the hearing before the SRA, objections had been raised by the petitioners. The SRA was fully aware of the said writ petition, since a copy of the petition had been received by them much prior to the hearing before the SRA.

15. Despite the existence of statutory reservation, the SRA arbitrarily decided to declare the said land as SR area by overlooking the reservation and by not even recording the same. Even though requests were made to furnish details of the survey and the boundary demarcation, the same were not furnished to the petitioners, rendering the hearing a mere formality. The SRA was duty bound to exercise due diligence and act in accordance with the sanctioned planning documents.

16. At the hearing before the SRA, it was submitted by the slum society that the area proposed to be declared as slum rehabilitation area covered 135 structures, and it was further wrongly submitted by the slum society that the subject land was not reserved for fish and net drying and allied activities. The hearing was conducted on the assumption that the portion of land on which the SR area was proposed was not reserved for fish and net drying activities. Subsequently, without considering the objections of the petitioners and without furnishing details of the satellite map and the survey purportedly conducted by the SRA, a total area of 3449.26 sq.mtrs. was declared as SR area. This included 26.41 square meters of land on CTS No. D/1079A.

17. It is the petitioners’ case that it was only at the hearing of the Writ Petition No.2701 of 2019, that the petitioners were furnished with a copy of a slum plan, which wrongly showed the slum boundary as including the wall and the road. It was for the first time that the petitioners came to know that the SR area covered not only the two structures of the fisherfolk towards the North of the map but it also covered the road and the wall which fell within the reserved plot for the fisherfolk. Two of the structures of the fisherfolk had wrongly been included as slum structures, even though these structures were being used for fish drying and storing other equipment. These structures were illegally demolished on 23/09/2025. Prior to this, attempts were made to demolish a part of the wall on 08/06/2025 and subsequently the concrete road. The boundary map prepared by the Developer and SRA wrongly includes, the two structures, the wall and the road. As a result, there was a substantial increase in the slum area from 2397.70 sq. mtrs. to 3449.26 sq. mtrs.

18. The petitioners were therefore constrained to file Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2025 challenging the CEO, SRA order dated 17/05/2022. Since the Developer continued with demolishing the structures of the petitioners including the concrete access road and the wall, the petitioners filed Interim Application (L) No. 40997 of 2025 inter alia seeking reliefs to restrain the respondents from obtaining any development permissions on the said reserved fish and net drying plot bearing CTS No. D/1105. Both the Writ Petitions along with Interim Application were clubbed together and a common order dated 17/12/2025 came to be passed directing the respondents to maintain status quo and restraining them from taking coercive action in respect of the disputed plot. The petitioners allege that the Developer continued the demolition of a part of the wall, concrete access road used by the fisherfolk and the two structures. It was also submitted that the Developer was illegally encroaching upon a portion of the reserved land of the petitioners which included the wall, the road and the two structures totally admeasuring about 1500 sq. mtrs.

19. After hearing all the parties, this Court by order dated 17/12/2025 disposed of the Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 2701 of 2019. The said order reads thus:

                   “1. This is a case where on one hand the Petitioners are asserting traditional rights in respect of user of CTS No.1105. The land adjoining to the land used by the Petitioner is developed as slum by Respondent no.7 by appointing Respondent no.6 as a developer. Admittedly both the lands appear to be government lands. The State Government did not protect its lands and therefore by encroaching upon them slum was formed, and which is a protected slum, is now being developed in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act') read with Development Control Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations. The developer appointed by Respondent no.7 Hanuman Nagar CHS Ltd is Jasani Realty Private Limited. The dispute in the present proceedings is. inter alia, of interference with the rights of the Petitioners in part of the land CTS No.1105, being traditionally used by the Petitioner, for drying fish and fishing nets, being encroached and/or being utilized under the slum scheme. A plan to that effect as to what is the nature of the said encroachment, according to the Petitioner, is annexed at page 62 of the Interim Application. Such area of the said land used by the Petitioners for drying fish as also the fishing nets, as encroached by the slum scheme, is stated to be about 1,500 sq.meters, which according to the Petitioner is a substantial land. Thus, the dispute is purely of demarcation and as to whether the traditional rights of the Petitioners, as contended by the Petitioners, are in any manner affected by the slum redevelopment in question. The case of the Petitioners is also that an exercise of the demarcation of the said land in accordance with law has not taken place and if any such exercise is undertaken, the same is without notice to the Petitioners, and cannot be recognized in law. The Petitioner case is disputed on behalf of Respondent nos 6 and 7 on the basis of reply affidavit as also on the basis of a recent certificate being issued by the District Inspector of Land Records annexed as Exhibit B, Page 391 to the affidavit filed by Respondent no.6, as also on the basis of slum plan.

                   2. Be that as it may, we do not intend to delve on the factual dispute on the boundary of the respective lands, more particularly as both the lands are belonging to the State Government, in respect of which on one hand the Petitioner asserts traditional rights and on the other hand the land is being redeveloped a a slum.

                   3. In these circumstances, the issue needs to be resolved by the owner of the land i.e. the State Government and in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Officer

                   4. We accordingly direct the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department along with the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, to resolve such issue by granting an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and also after considering it appropriate to have fresh demarcation of the Governmentland in accordance with law considering the traditional rights enjoyed by the Petitioners. This is imperative for the reason that it is the State Government's land and it would be the obligation of the State Government not only in relation to the slum scheme as it is owner of the land to resolve such issues considering the peculiar facts. It cannot be that the owner of the land State Government is oblivious to what is happening to its prime land. We accordingly direct that the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department as also the Chief Executive Officer of SRA shall convene a meeting within ten days from today with notice to all the parties, as also undertake a site visit and issue such appropriate orders in accordance with law, which would consider rights of both the parties.

                   5. Let the entire proceedings of this petition be made available to the Committee of the Additional Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, the Collector (MSD) and the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. The Committee would be free to seek appropriate records and proceedings from the parties.

                   6. Thus, on one hand it is the rights of the encroachers who have proposed a slum scheme on Government land and on the other hand that of the Petitioners who are asserting traditional rights. The impasse as ordered needs to be resolved by the State Government in accordance with law. Till appropriate demarcation is made and an appropriate order is passed, no coercive action shall be taken in respect of the land in the Petitioner's use. Status-quo in regards to the subject land CTS No.1105 be maintained till the Committee of Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Chief Executive Officer, SRA takes appropriate decision. It is clarified that the status quo order is in respect of subject patch of land only and not in relation to any other land.

                   7. Let an appropriate decision be taken on or before 10th January 2026. In the event any decision adverse to the Petitioner is taken, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of ten days from the date of communication of such order.

                   8. We accordingly dispose of these writ petition in terms of the aforesaid orders, however, for reporting compliance, we make it returnable on 10th January 2026.

                   9. Interim Application and Writ Petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

                   10. In the event need so arises, liberty to the Petitioners to revive the petitions.”

20. Thus the main grievance of the petitioners is that there was encroachment covering an area of about 1500 sq. mtrs and that no demarcation of the boundary of the slum area had been carried out. The Committee constituted by this Court heard the matter on 06/02/2026.

21. Learned Senior Advocate submits that direction issued by this Court specifically pertains to the encroachment as shown in the map produced by the petitioners. It is submitted that the Committee has failed to consider the issue of encroachment and has further exceeded its jurisdiction by considering issues not pertaining to the subject matter of the Petition. The Committee has wrongly included in its consideration, the area admeasuring 519.30 sq. mtrs. which pertains to a different area claimed by another Developer and has nothing to do with the area covered in the map relied upon by the petitioners. By doing so, the Committee has granted development permission to a Developer whose proposed development scheme did not form a part of the order dated 17/12/2025 nor were any submissions made in this regard before the Committee. The petitioners were also not informed that the plot admeasuring 519.30 sq. mtrs. would also be considered by the Committee. It is submitted that at the hearing, the petitioners found it difficult to refer to the documents since the 3-member Committee did not have the written submissions and documents submitted by the petitioners before them. Yet the Committee has reproduced at great length the submissions of the Developer while cursorily referring only to submissions made by the petitioners in their additional submissions dated 06/02/2026. The Committee has also exceeded its jurisdiction by considering an issue not covered in the order dated 17/12/2025, nor has any report on the site visit been submitted, though photographs of the visit have been annexed to the report. The Committee has permitted the Developer to develop the land covering the wall, access road and the two structures, contrary to the provisions of the DCPR. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Committee completely ignored the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners regarding their customary rights which were shown to have been established not only during the colonial rule, but were carried forward into the post-independence era which was when the said customary rights came to be recognized through various circulars, orders/notifications by the Government.

22. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the open land in CTS No. D/1105 has continuously been shown as land reserved for fish drying and allied activities, which included Fishing Complex, Fish and Net Drying Yard, Ice Factory, Diesel Pump and other activities. This reservation can be seen in the Development Plans of 1991 and 2034. Though this is admitted by the Committee at Sr. No. 3 of its conclusion, it proceeded to hand over the excess land to the Developer, contrary to the provisions of DCPR. Further, though the Committee has also correctly recorded that the Property Card of the said plot indicates that it is Government owned property, it nevertheless decided to hand over the excess land, admeasuring about 3449.26 sq. mtrs., to the Developer without giving any finding regarding the encroachment by the Developer as shown in map at page 62 of the Interim Application. Though the Committee has annexed photographs showing their visit to the site, no findings have been given regarding the encroachments by the Developer on the road and the wall, nor was any investigation carried out. The committee was required to measure the road and the wall which would have clearly shown that excess land had been encroached upon by the Developer. Learned Senior Advocate submits that from the slum plan prepared by the Developer and the SRA, it can be seen that buildings will be constructed on the land made vacant upon demolition of the wall and the access road. This area, being nonbuildable, is clearly covered under Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of DCPR, 2034 and the developer is therefore in breach thereof.

23. It is further submitted that the Committee has failed to consider the submissions made by the petitioners to the effect that a Lease Agreement dated 31/07/1992 was signed between MHADA and the Society of slum dwellers. The Agreement shows that the slum project was limited to an area admeasuring 2397.70 sq. mtrs. MHADA gave its NOC for 2397.70 sq. mtrs. situated on CTS No. D/1105(Pt). Though this is an admitted fact, there is no explanation as to how this area was increased from 2397.70 sq. mtrs. to 3449.26 sq. mtrs. It is the submission of learned Senior Advocate that though the petitioners had specifically averred that they were not opposed to the SRA Scheme, so long as such a scheme does not encroach upon additional land which is used by the fisherfolk for their livelihood; as also does not violate the provisions of the DCPR. It is further submitted that though it is an admitted position that the wall forms a part of the reserved plot of fish and net drying area, the Developer went ahead and illegally demolished the wall and soon thereafter started carrying out piling work on the said plot. The Committee has failed to consider the encroachment made by the Developer by demolishing the wall. The map at page 62 of the interim application as well as other supporting documents clearly show that the wall falls on the side of the reserved plot and could not be included in the slum area. The Committee ought to have measured the area from the boundary of the slum to the wall, which would have shown that the excess area is about 1077.97 sq. mts. The slum boundary prepared by the Developer and the SRA is illegal and needs to be redrawn excluding the wall and the road. The satellite images at Sr. No. 27 of list of documents shows in red the actual boundary of the slum and the yellow boundary to the west of the red line is the illegal extension covering the road and the wall while the image at Sr. No. 28 shows in brown color, the road.

24. It it then submitted by learned Senior Advocate that with regard to the road, the Committee has accepted the submissions of the Developer and has failed to consider the submissions and documents of the petitioners, which were as under :

                   (i) There were admittedly no slums on both sides of the road as can be seen from the satellite map at Sr.No. 26, 27 and 28 of the compilation of documents;

                   (ii) The documents and satellite maps clearly show that slums existed only on one side of the road and not on the other side of the road and therefore it cannot be said to be an internal road;

                   (iii) That the existing road was a vehicular road used to access the fish drying area and was not an internal pathway used by slum dwellers alone as claimed by the Developer. The petitioners have relied on a photograph at Sr.No.35 annexed to the list of documents showing a tempo plying through the road. It was claimed by the petitioners that the road was wide enough for 4- wheelers and large vehicles to pass through;

                   (iv) That the Committee has erred in not considering the traditional and customary rights of the fisherfolk. Though the Committee has admitted that there is a pathway on the space adjacent to the wall, it wrongly holds that "it appears necessary for the slum residents and seems attached to the slum land". This finding is contrary to the evidence produced before the Committee by the petitioners and is based on hearsay. However, in the same breath, it has been stated that there is a "possibility" of a pathway for motor vehicles thereby admitting the case of the Petitioners that they have been using the road for plying their vehicles.

                   (v) That without prejudice to the submission of the petitioners that the road must be maintained as it originally stood, the Developer cannot construct residential buildings contrary to Regulations 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of DCPR, 2034.

                   (vi) Contrary to the evidence on record, the Committee at Sr.No.7 has wrongly held that the road / pathway forms a part of the SR area and the said finding, therefore, need to be quashed and set aside.

                   (vii) That not only does the road and the wall fall within the plot reserved for fish drying and allied activities and consequently no construction can be carried out on the said land since it squarely falls within the Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of the DCPR, 2034.

                   (viii) That instead of again demarcating the boundaries, the Committee has merely recorded the fact that the two structures numbered as 160 and 161 are non-residential sheds. Despite this finding, it has wrongly affirmed that the land covered by the two structures has rightly been handed over to the Developer whereas the documents on record are contrary to the finding of the Committee. Admitting the claim of Petitioners, the committee has in a convoluted manner held that the fisherfolk could be compensated by rehabilitating them in the Rehabilitation Building. This finding recognizes that the two structures belong to the petitioners. Further no, details have been given with regard to the names of the two persons who claim to have been in possession of the said structures and who are presently being paid rent. The petitioners had specifically asked for details about the persons who were being paid rent. However, no such details were furnished.

                   (ix) The Committee has ignored the legal position with regard to fist and net drying area which are open lands being considered as non-buildable under the regulation of DCPR 2034. The fact that fish and net drying areas are non-buildable is accepted by the Planning Authority (BMC) in its scrutiny of development proposals. The letter dated 28/10/2025, which was issued by the BMC has declared fish and net drying areas as non-buildable. This letter has been annexed to the additional submissions filed by the petitioners. It was held that the reservation/designation EP 1.1. (Fish and Net Drying Yard) falls under Primary Activity which permits only open activities along with related ancillary uses, if any. No construction can take place on the reserved plot. The fish and net drying areas are recognized as non-buildable which has been expressly accepted by the Planning Authority as seen from the order dated 28/10/2025. By failing to consider the applicable Regulation of DCPR, 2034, which provides that 35% of nonbuildable reservation must be handed back for the use under the reservation, the committee itself is condoning a serious breach of Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) of the DCPR. The committee has also failed to consider the judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 in W.P. No 1152 of 2002, in the case of NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal.

                   (x) That though the petitioners had specifically submitted that under Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii); a Developer is required to surrender 35% of the land and/or 65% is to be used for the SR area since it is non-buildable open space reservation. It is submitted that Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(2)(ii) would be applicable and not Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) as claimed by the Architect on behalf of the Developer.

25. We have heard learned AGP for the State, Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Senior Advocate for respondent no.6-Developer and Mr. Amogh Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.7-Society at length. Reliance is placed on the documents in the writ petition and those annexed to the Interim Application (L) No.8730 of 2026 filed by the Developer in support of their submissions.

26. Having heard learned counsel, at the outset we must note that the petitioners have specifically averred that they were not opposed to the SRA Scheme, insofar as such a scheme does not encroach upon traditional land which is used by the fisherfolk for their livelihood; and does not violate the provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR). The question is whether fish and net drying area, which is covered by slum rehabilitation area, can be developed. DC Regulation 33(10) reads thus :-

                   “33 (10) Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers :

                   I Eligibility for redevelopment scheme:

                   (a) A person eligible for redevelopment scheme shall mean a protected occupier as defined in Chapter IB of Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 as amended time to time, hereinafter referred to as Slum Act and orders issued thereunder.

                   (b) Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual occupants of the hutment shall be held eligible, and the socalled structure-owner other than the actual occupant if any, even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for the structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the reconstructed tenement against that structure.”

27. Under DC Regulation 33(10), any area covered by a slum can be redeveloped, subject to and in the manner contemplated by the DC Regulations. DC Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) read with Item 62 of Table 5 is significant which reads thus :-

                   Regulation 17(3)(D)(a)(4) :

                   17(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations Development of Reserved land falling under the various provisions of Regulation No.33 shall be as under:

                   (D) Development of reservation in Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers under Regulation No. 33(10)

                   (a) Slums in Residential/Commercial Zone

                   (4) For other buildable reservations excluding Municipal School (RE 1.1)/ Primary and Secondary School (RE1.2) or a Higher Education (RE2.1) on lands under slum, BUA equal to 20% percent of the area under that reservation in that plot, shall be demanded free of cost by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for the Municipal Corporation or for any other appropriate Authority. The relevant part of the Table under DCR 17 is reproduced below :