DANDA KOLI MASEMARI VYAVASAYIK SAHAKARI SANTHA MARYADIT, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY v. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
Writ Jurisdiction Limits in Factual Disputes Over Land Demarcation and Traditional Customary Rights Within Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6675-DB
Decision Date: 16-03-2026
List of Laws
Constitution of India, Article 226; Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR); Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Maharashtra Land Revenue Act, 1966
- Facts: The petitioners, representing the Koli (fishing) community of Khar Danda, Mumbai, challenged the encroachment by a developer (Respondent No. 6) onto land bearing CTS No. D/1105. They asserted traditional and customary rights over the land, which has been historically reserved for fish drying and allied activities in various Development Plans. A Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) declaration in 2022 had included a portion of this land, including a boundary wall and an access road, within a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioners contended that the slum boundary was incorrectly demarcated, encroaching upon approximately 1500 sq. mtrs. of their reserved land and traditional pathway. A previously constituted Court-appointed Committee conducted a site visit and concluded that the disputed pathway was a footpath within the natural boundaries of the slum, used primarily by slum residents, and that the Koli community had sufficient alternate access.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the Committee's report dated 24.02.2026 and the SRA notification dated 17.05.2022, alongside seeking directions for proper boundary demarcation and removal of encroachments.
- Issue: Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can re-appreciate factual findings regarding land demarcation and traditional usage rights established by a specialized Committee's site visit and report.
- Holding: No, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The court held that disputes involving complex questions of fact and evidence regarding demarcation must be resolved before a competent Civil Court.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the dispute was primarily a factual one concerning the exact demarcation of boundaries and the nature of traditional rights. The Court-appointed Committee, comprising high-ranking State officials, had conducted an actual site visit and determined that the disputed "road" was actually a footpath inside the slum wall and not used for fish drying. The Court emphasized that it cannot re-appreciate these factual findings or adduce fresh evidence under Article 226. Furthermore, it noted that under DC Regulation 33(10) and 17(3)(D)(a)(4) of the DCPR 2034, even reserved lands can be developed for Slum Rehabilitation Schemes subject to providing specific Built-Up Area (BUA) to the local authority. Since the petitioners had alternate access to the main road and the Committee found no interference with current fish drying activities, no interference was warranted.
🔒 For Members Only