Mumbai, October 24, 2026: The Bombay High Court has dismissed two petitions challenging the legality of the Bhendi Bazaar cluster redevelopment scheme, holding that the project serves a public purpose despite being implemented by a private trust.
A bench of Justices MS Karnik and Shreeram Shirsat rejected the pleas filed by former residents of the Lucky building, which was demolished as part of the redevelopment undertaken by the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust (SBUT). The petitioners were among the minority of landowners opposed to the scheme spread across 66,264.72 square metres.
Landowners Challenge Acquisition
The petitioners had challenged the acquisition of their land in 2019 and a 2020 notice seeking possession of their property. They argued that the land was neither designated nor reserved for a public purpose in the development plan and, therefore, could not be acquired under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act for a project being executed by a private entity.
They also contended that the MRTP Act did not envisage cluster redevelopment schemes and that the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR) could not create substantive rights in favour of SBUT.
Rejecting these arguments, the court said the petitioners’ case was “wholly misdirected” and based on “a misunderstanding of the concept of public purpose”.
Court Cites Wider Public Interest
The judges observed that the public character of an Urban Renewal Scheme (URS) was not lost merely because it was implemented with the assistance of a private promoter or developer.
The scheme benefits the public at large by improving living conditions in congested areas, the court said. Residents living in “almost subhuman conditions” are provided larger homes and better common facilities, including wider roads and proper drainage, it added.
Advocate General Milind Sathe, representing the state government, argued that redevelopment of congested residential and commercial areas under an Urban Renewal Scheme serves a public purpose when the prescribed conditions are met. The involvement of SBUT did not mean that the planning authority had given up its responsibilities, he submitted.
Court Rejects Objections To Acquisition
The petitioners had also argued that their building was not declared dilapidated or dangerous before acquisition. The state, however, said it was a more than 100-year-old category A cessed building and did not require a separate declaration of dilapidation.
Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for SBUT, said only around 7% of landowners had not consented to the scheme. He also pointed out that the petitioners knew about the project since 2011 but approached the court in 2021, after the compensation award was passed.
Also Watch:
“Private interest must give way to larger public interest and public good,” the court observed, adding that the petitioners’ property had not been taken away without compensation.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
