JUDGMENT : 1. The issues which arise for consideration in the present proceedings are inter alia in regard to non-payment of transit rent to the Petitioners by the concerned developers, who are undertaking “slum redevelopment projects.” Such issues as also appreciated on behalf of the SRA by Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate, as instructed by Chief Executive Officer, who is present in Court, in our opinion, ought not come to the Court. An appropriate and urgent attention to these issues at the departmental level needs to be devoted. We are informed by Dr. Saraf, that the concerned officer, who normally looks into these grievances is the Assistant Registrar of Societies – SRA. However, from the large number of proceedings reaching this Court on such issues, it appears that an effective mechanism is not in place and/or there is something which is drastically amiss. Considering the issues deliberated before the Court today, Dr. Saraf, would fairly submit that the Chief Executive Officer can evolve a more effective mechanism by setting up “Special Cells” of designated Officers which needs to more than one Special Cell, which can look into these issues in the spirit of the orders passed by us in Writ Petition (L) No. 32632/2025 Vijay N. Gujar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others as directed in paragraph Nos 8, 9 and 10, which reads thus: “8. At this stage, we are pointed out that there is a recent amendment by incorporating Section 33B to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 vide Mah. 42 of 2025 with effect from 29 August, 2025, which in fact would take care of the concerns which we have expressed. However, under the said provision, actions needs to be taken and the provisions ought not to remain in the statute book. Section 33B of the Act reads thus. “33B. (1) The eligible slum dwellers of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or Slum Redevelopment Project, may apply to the Chief Executive Officer or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, for recovery of rent in lieu of transit accommodation due from the developer of such Scheme or Project, in such manner and accompanied by such fees, as may be determined by the authority. (2) Where the Chief Executive Officer or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the developer of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or Slum Redevelopment Project has defaulted in paying rent in lieu of transit accommodation to the eligible slum dwellers as agreed, the Chief Executive Officer or the Competent Authority may, after making such enquiry in respect of any amount due, on his own motion or on receipt of the application from the eligible slum dwellers, issue an order for the recovery of such amount within such stipulated time as may be specified in the order. (3) The amount specified in every such order for recovery issued by the Chief Executive Officer or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, if not paid by the developer within the time specified in the order, it shall be recoverable as an arrears of land revenue in accordance with the law for the time being in force: Provided that, if the person against whom the order for recovery is issued, is a company or a limited liability partnership having no sufficient property to satisfy the amount due under recovery order, then such amount shall be recovered from the personal property of the directors or partners of such company or firm, as the case may be.” 9. Thus, there is now a clear mandate of law, which needs to be meticulously observed. It is in the wisdom of the Chief Executive Officer, appropriate action in that regard now be taken. 10. Before parting, we may observe that the nature of the grievances of the slum dwellers as raised in the petition on default in payment of transit rent are reaching not only the Court but also the grievance redressal forums. Although proactive steps in this regard are taken by the SRA to secure advance deposits of transit rent, however, it appears to us that the said directives cannot remain to be paper directives and the policy in that regard need to be effectively implemented. Although proactive steps in this regard are taken by the SRA to secure advance deposits of transit rent, however, it appears to us that the said directives cannot remain to be paper directives and the policy in that regard need to be effectively implemented. Such grievances which are legitimate/genuine, ought not to come to the High Court merely because of the apathy and inaction on the part of the Competent Officers of SRA who are not deciding such representations which are in fact touching the rights of the slum dwellers under Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., Right to Shelter, which would be otherwise be available by ensuing timely payment of transit rent. Such rights cannot be defeated by such inaction of these officers. We, accordingly direct that no sooner such complaint is received, the same ought to be decided in accordance with law within a period of 15 days, failing which it would be required to be considered to be a breach of the fundamental rights of the slum dwellers at the hands of the slum authorities and the concerned officer accountable. Let a circular in that regard be issued by the CEO and forwarded to all the Competent Officers who are supposed to entertain such complaints and decide the same. This more for the reason that the developers cannot take a position that they would undertake the scheme, not pay the transit and utilize the money towards the transit rent for other purpose thereby depriving the slum dwellers of their legitimate amounts. This is neither the scheme under the Development Control & Promotion Regulations nor could be recognized under any prudent norms and rationale recognized under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 or the rules which are framed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Hence, we sound a note of caution to the Chief Executive Officer of SRA that if any of these matters remain undecided, the Court would be required to take a strict view of such issues and pass appropriate orders including to hold the Competent Officers who are showing laxity in dealing with such complaints including in many cases overlooking the orders passed by the Competent forums/Court.” (emphasis supplied) 2. Dr. Saraf would also submit that in some cases time limit of 15 days for the issue to be decided would not be sufficient. Dr. Saraf would also submit that in some cases time limit of 15 days for the issue to be decided would not be sufficient. In our opinion, in a given case, for reasons to be recorded the time limit can be extended by further 15 days. However, this ought not to result in any further delay in the disposal of such applications, as we have already observed that such issues touch upon the basic rights of the slum dwellers namely the right to shelter which is a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Insofar as the writ petitions as listed today are concerned, we permit the learned Advocate for the SRA to prepare a tabular statement, considering the plea as urged on behalf of the SRA, that it is likely that in some cases, the outstanding transit rent has already been deposited by the developers with the SRA, and what would be required to be undertaken is the disbursement. In respect of some cases the parties would be required to be heard and appropriate orders passed by the Special Cells. Let such categorization be placed on record on the adjourned date of hearing, so that further appropriate orders on these Petitions can be passed. 4. We are also of the considered opinion that, considering persistent defaults being made by the developers in payment of transit rent to the slum dwellers and the plight of the slum dwellers being required to run from pillar to post in receiving such payment including to resort to litigation, the SRA needs to issue an appropriate circular to prevent such situations, by freezing a part of the free-sale component, which can be permitted to be dealt only after the construction of the rehabilitation building is completed, and all issues relating to payment of transit rent are duly addressed. Such freezing of the premises needs to be of the immediate lower floors, depending on the size of the floor and the approximate transit rent the developer would be required to pay to the slum dwellers, during the period of completion of the rehabilitation building. In such context, we may further observe that action under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, being resorted to terminate the developer in every case, may not be feasible. In such context, we may further observe that action under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, being resorted to terminate the developer in every case, may not be feasible. It may generate litigation although in deserving cases such action necessarily would be required to be resorted. This also for the reason that the slum dwellers cannot be made to wait for payment of transit rent, as they are already displaced from their premises and are required to take the brunt caused by the defaults of non-payment of transit rent. Thus, even if recourse is taken to such provisions, any delay in the payment of transit rent is not an acceptable proposition and a sufficient safeguard / security needs to be devised at the very inception of the slum redevelopment project. 5. While parting we may observe that the endeavour of the SRA needs to be to bring about a situation that such disputes which are directly touching the livelihood of the slum dwellers are resolved at the departmental level by the SRA, and as far as possible no litigation is generated on such issues from the orders passed by the SRA and/or the view of the officers would be taken. This more importantly when the complaints of the nature of transit rent are some of the very basic issues, which need to be promptly and effectively dealt by the officials of the SRA and the grievances resolved. The CEO SRA has sufficient powers to evolve a robust mechanism and avoid litigation on such issues as observed hereinabove. 6. In our opinion, developers undertaking such projects must also remain alive to these basic rights of the slum dwellers and to their corresponding obligation, not to commit any default in the payment of transit rent or in any permissible enhancement entitled to the slum dwellers, as stipulated under the circulars issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The developers also need to be alive to the situation that the slum dwellers with their limited financial resources cannot be permitted to individually litigate as certainly in pursuing such applications/litigation is a serious prejudice, financial and otherwise, caused to the slum dwellers. However, no prejudice would be caused much less of any magnitude to the developer in defending such litigation. However, no prejudice would be caused much less of any magnitude to the developer in defending such litigation. We may sound a note of caution that in the event such cases reach before the Court for adjudication, in which the slum dwellers are found to be correct in their contention, that there is an illegal default on the part of the developer, the Court would be required to take a stern view of the matter including to compensate the slum dwellers by awarding penal costs. The reason being that for the developer, the project is a commercial venture, such a project cannot be permitted to be taken forward while arrears of transit rent remain unpaid or when the amounts are being utilised by the developer, not in payment of transit rent but for other purposes as observed by this Court in several orders passed in similar proceedings. Such approach on the part of the developer not only amounts to breach of contract/development agreement, but also breach of the rules and regulations, under which the developer would be required to undertake the Slum Rehabilitation Project. Hence, when in such cases, matters are brought to the Court, it would become necessary to impose compensatory costs being awarded in favour of the slum dwellers. We accordingly caution the developers who tend to be reckless on such aspects, who with impunity avoid their obligations towards the slum dwellers. We would also direct the SRA to deal sternly with such developers who are guilty of repeated defaults in the payment of transit rent, including, if the circumstances of the case so warrant, by attaching the free-sale component. Failing such action, there would be no deterrent, and such defaults on the part of these developers would be a routine affair, leading to further litigation. In our opinion, such litigation in the first place ought not to arise. 7. We also have another category of cases wherein issues on allotment of the slum tenements has reached this Court. These are cases where long back the projects are completed, however the persons who are eligible are yet to be put in possession of the permanent alternate tenements for number of reasons, for example either they are occupied by illegal occupants, inducted by the developers or the societies and/or the illegal occupants being inducted by third parties. These are cases where long back the projects are completed, however the persons who are eligible are yet to be put in possession of the permanent alternate tenements for number of reasons, for example either they are occupied by illegal occupants, inducted by the developers or the societies and/or the illegal occupants being inducted by third parties. In the scheme of things as it stands, it cannot be a situation that the eligible slum dweller is deprived of the possession of the tenements unless the slum dweller is himself guilty of having entered into any agreement and/or a manner not known to law has created third party rights inducting such occupants. 8. We may recall that in such cases under the orders of the Court the SRA has taken action against the illegal occupants and has recovered possession. Such actions are required to be taken on a regular basis, as we are of the clear opinion that slum dwellers cannot be deprived, that too for several years, of their legitimately allotted premises merely because of illegal occupancy of their legitimately allotted premises. Dr.Saraf has appreciated such concerns. He would fairly submit that all issues in such category of matters also need not reach the Court, and would be required to be effectively examined and dealt at the level of the SRA. He would also submits that such grievances need to be addressed expeditiously. We would request Chief Executive Officer to form an appropriate “Special Cell”, even in regard to such cases which can effectively consider the grievances of the slum dwellers on such counts, who are deprived of their legitimate tenements. 9. Let the position in this regard be clarified on the adjourned date of hearing on an affidavit which be filed on the issues as discussed in this order. 10. We accordingly adjourn the proceedings to 23 rd December 2025 at 11 a.m., to be listed on a separate board as per today’s listing.