In a scathing observation over the proposed private redevelopment of government land in one of Mumbai’s most valuable precincts, the Bombay High Court (HC) has questioned the legality of allowing 33 acres of state-owned land at Cuffe Parade, Colaba to be used for a slum rehabilitation project. Calling it a “usual modus operandi to siphon off valuable public lands,” the HC has directed the Maharashtra government to file an affidavit clarifying whether there exists any Cabinet decision authorising such an allotment.
In an order passed last week, the bench of justice GS Kulkarni and justice Aarti Sathe says, "We also direct the state government to place on record an affidavit as to whether there is any well considered cabinet decision for such land to be allotted for development of slums and/or any attempt on the part of the collector of Mumbai to obtain any such decision at the highest level of the government. If there is no such decision, we have the gravest of doubt whether any redevelopment of these slums can at all be permitted to happen, of such prime government land of 33 acres and more particularly considering the observations which are made by this Court in the aforesaid decisions as referred by us."
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, all such issues need to be examined, however, in our opinion, apart from a no-objection certificate (NOC) and the location of the land in question, the concern of the Union ministry of defence would also be quite significant and on which the ministry would be required to be heard considering the location of the land near the defence establishments," the HC says.
The division bench was hearing two writ petitions—Gulab Shankar Mishra vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors (W.P. No. 2926 of 2025) and Precaution Properties Pvt Ltd & Anr vs State of Maharashtra & Ors (WP (L) No 25376 of 2025)—pertaining to the redevelopment of a sprawling 33-acre government-owned tract in South Mumbai. The land, presently encroached upon by about 65,000 slum dwellers, is proposed to be redeveloped by Precaution Properties, the developer appointed by the residents.
The bench expressed shock that such an expanse of prime government property—abutting the sea and located in one of India’s costliest localities—could be transferred to a private entity under the pretext of slum rehabilitation.
“Such vast land of the ownership of the state government can just be made available for slum redevelopment, not only for rehabilitation of slum dwellers in skyscrapers but also large-scale private apartments to be constructed in one of the most prime localities in South Mumbai,” the judges say. “This is a usual modus operandi to siphon off valuable public lands.”
The Court said it was 'alarmed' that the slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) appeared 'too keen for reasons best known to it' to permit permanent alienation of government land from the public pool. It warned that such 'largesse being showered free of cost' on thousands of encroachers was detrimental to public interest and the city’s long-term planning needs.
Referring extensively to its own earlier rulings and those upheld by the Supreme Court, including Bishop John Rodriques vs State of Maharashtra (2024) and Saldanha Real Estate (P) Ltd vs Bishop John Rodriques (2025), the HC reiterated that slum dwellers cannot claim superior rights over government land, especially in prime localities such as Nariman Point, Cuffe Parade, Pedder Road, or Malabar Hill.
“The rights of slum dwellers on such prime government land cannot outweigh and/or be higher than public interest. Such prime land cannot be permanently taken away from the public pool of lands and thrown open for private development. Prima facie any other view would amount to a fraud on the Constitution,” the bench observed.
The Court noted that Mumbai’s island geography makes government land an irreplaceable resource for public infrastructure, gardens, and open spaces. It emphasised that transferring such land for private redevelopment was contrary to the 'public trust doctrine' and undermined constitutional principles of governance.
The judges directed the Maharashtra government to disclose whether any Cabinet-level decision authorised the use of such valuable public land for a private redevelopment project.
The Court has summoned the advocate general to appear in the matter and also called upon the Union ministry of defence to submit its views, noting that the land’s proximity to defence establishments makes its redevelopment sensitive from a national security perspective.
The bench relied on previous judgements that decried the misuse of slum rehabilitation policies to transfer public property into private hands. Citing the Bhiwandi Jilani Building, Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari, and Moinuddin Pashamiya Shaikh cases, the Court noted that successive governments have allowed slum redevelopment schemes to become conduits for encroachment regularisation and private profiteering.
The order recorded: “A vicious nexus involving high-profile personalities, bureaucrats, builders, and slum lords has created a situation where public property is first encroached without resistance, followed by a declaration of slum, gradually progressing to redevelopment ostensibly for slum dwellers but really to further the interests of the ‘haves’.”
While adjourning the matter to 15 October 2025, the HC directed the principal secretary of revenue and forest, principal secretary of urban development, chief executive officer (CEO) of the SRA, and the Union ministry of defence to file their affidavits within 10 days. The judges made it clear that if no Cabinet Court approval is found, the court would seriously question the legality of any redevelopment activity on such prime government land.
“If there is no such decision, we have the gravest of doubt whether any redevelopment of these slums can at all be permitted,” the bench cautioned.
