Bombay High Court confines demarcation dispute to civil forum; refuses writ reappraisal of committee report

A bench of Justices M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak on 16 March 2026 heard a writ petition by two fishermen’s societies challenging a Court‑appointed Committee report dated 24 February 2026 and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority’s declaration of part of CTS No. D/1105 as a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) area. The petitioners contended that the developer and SRA had encroached upon land reserved for fish and net drying yards, including a stone wall, a concrete access road and two non‑residential sheds used by the fishing community.

The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Committee’s fact‑finding exercise, holding that the findings of the Committee formed after an on‑site inspection could not be re‑appreciated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court recorded that redevelopment of lands reserved for fish and net drying could proceed under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) read with Regulation 33(10), subject to the statutory conditions such as the provision of built‑up area to the Municipal Corporation. The Court emphasised that the present dispute was essentially one of boundary demarcation and factual determination rather than a legal question appropriate for writ review; it therefore held that the matter must be resolved before the competent civil forum. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having regard to the detailed fact finding exercise carried out by the Committee on the basis of an actual site visit and upon considering the materials, it is not possible for this Court in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to re-appreciate the findings recorded by the Committee ... Hence, we are of the opinion that the dispute which the petitioners have raised can only be resolved before the competent Civil Court and it is not possible for us to examine such dispute in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." The Court also recorded that the petitioners did not oppose the SRA scheme save for the disputed portion adjacent to the slum boundary and continued the interim status‑quo for three weeks to protect parties pending any further civil proceedings.

Background

The petitioners—Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha and Danda Koli Samaj—claimed customary and easementary rights over a portion of CTS No. D/1105 at Khar Danda, shown in successive Development Plans as reserved for fish and net drying yards and allied activities. They alleged that the Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti CHS slum redevelopment scheme and the developer Jasani Realty Pvt. Ltd. had extended the SR area from 2,397.70 sq. m. to 3,449.26 sq. m., incorporating the wall, road and two sheds and thereby encroaching on roughly 1,500 sq. m. used by the fisherfolk. The petitioners relied on historical records, government circulars and Development Plan reservations and challenged the SRA notification dated 17 May 2022 and the Court‑appointed Committee’s report dated 24 February 2026. Earlier, by order dated 17 December 2025 the High Court recorded that "the dispute is purely of demarcation" and directed the State, Collector and CEO‑SRA to convene a meeting, undertake a site visit and refer the matter to a Committee; the order further directed that "Status‑quo in regards to the subject land CTS No.1105 be maintained till the Committee ... takes appropriate decision." The three‑member Committee visited the site, recorded that the stone fence wall separated the slum from the fish‑drying land, described the disputed strip as a narrow footpath primarily used by slum residents and found no evidence of vehicular movement; it recommended that the SRA scheme could proceed while suggesting reliefs such as provision of facilities for the Koli community on remaining open land and prioritised development of a proposed DC road. The High Court accepted the Committee’s factual findings and refused to re‑open the issue in writ proceedings, observing that the question of boundary and traditional rights required detailed evidence and was amenable to adjudication in an appropriate civil forum. The writ petition was dismissed and the interlocutory stay was continued for three weeks.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (L) NO.8104 OF 2026
Case Title: Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit & Anr. v. Urban Development Department & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Shraddha Halapnavar
For the Respondent(s): Smt. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader; Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Ms. Aarushi Yadav (Through V.C.), Mr. Aatish Tayade and Ms. Rutuja Shedge (for SRA); Ms. Vaishali Ugale (for BMC); Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr. Santosh Pathak (for respondent No.6); Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Nimish Lotlikar (for respondent No.7).

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 91