The Bombay High Court has directed an inquiry into large-scale irregularities in the allotment of tenements under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project at Sion Koliwada. The court’s intervention came after serious allegations surfaced about hundreds of tenements being allotted to “missing” or ineligible persons in the Nirmal Nagar Cooperative Housing Society scheme.
A division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that the situation appeared “highly unconscionable and shocking,” while questioning whether the SRA still maintained statutory control over the schemes it administers. The bench has instructed the SRA to conduct a detailed probe, fix accountability of the developer, and report on the status of the allegedly illegal allotments.
The case concerns a redevelopment project launched more than a decade ago. On May 5, 2014, the Nirmal Nagar Cooperative Housing Society appointed a developer—Sejal Shakti Realtors LLP—to undertake the rehabilitation of slum-dwellers in Sion Koliwada. After years of delay, the project gained momentum in December 2024, when the list of 1,340 eligible beneficiaries was published. Out of these, 804 names were included in a computerised lottery for tenement allotments.
However, petitioner Manikam Palanivel Devendra, a 64-year-old coconut vendor from the locality, alleged that the process was deeply flawed. Represented by advocate Shakil Ahmed, Devendra said his name and that of his associate, Murugan Devendra, were wrongly excluded from the eligible list despite meeting all requirements. He claimed that the allotment list contained 410 names of individuals who were either deceased, had sold their tenements earlier, or had moved out of the area—rendering them ineligible under SRA norms.
In his petition filed on July 25, 2025, Devendra argued that the inclusion of such names amounted to systematic exclusion of genuine slum-dwellers and facilitated large-scale fraud. He added that the irregular process deprived lawful beneficiaries of their right to rehabilitation and allowed illegal commercialisation of slum tenements.
Supporting his claim, Devendra produced a December 2014 letter from the tehsildar addressed to the SRA and the developer, which had flagged “critical discrepancies” between the list of slum-dwellers identified during the 2004 survey and those who had actually consented to the scheme. The tehsildar had also noted that several listed beneficiaries had never personally signed any redevelopment agreement.
Murugan Devendra, who operates a small cyber café in the same locality, said that repeated appeals to the authorities to correct the beneficiary list were ignored. “The authorities allotted homes to people who are no longer eligible. Genuine residents like us were left out without any explanation,” he said.
Taking serious note of these submissions, the bench on September 17, 2025, ordered the SRA’s Chief Executive Officer to personally inspect the site and identify unauthorised occupants. The court further authorised the CEO to evict illegal occupants found in possession of tenements and submit a detailed report.
The bench observed that addressing the persistent illegal commercialisation and misuse of slum tenements required decisive corrective measures from the SRA. It emphasised that the authority must establish stronger oversight mechanisms and ensure accountability to curb recurring irregularities within the rehabilitation process.
Responding to the court’s observations, Executive Engineer D. B. Patil of the SRA refuted the allegations of widespread irregularities. He said that the authority had already conducted an inspection at the site and found no illegal occupants. Patil added that the SRA had taken possession of all tenement keys and would distribute them only after completing beneficiary verification. According to him, occupation had been granted to 804 individuals under the scheme, and in cases where any ineligible name is identified, possession will be transferred to the rightful slum-dweller.
As the inquiry proceeds, the outcome will likely set a precedent for future rehabilitation projects across the city, many of which face similar complaints from original residents over irregular allotments and opaque administrative processes.
.png)