Unauthorised alterations of SRA flats cannot be regularised: HC

Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Akash Rebello acknowledged that the tenements were allotted for residential purposes only, and the residents were not allowed to make any alterations to the building

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently directed the tenants of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) building in the Bandra-Kurla Complex to remove unauthorised alterations and stop illegal usage of the common spaces within four weeks, issuing a warning that such violations could not be regularised.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

The petition was filed by the Fortune Square Society, challenging a notice issued by the SRA on August 18, 2025, which pointed out unauthorised alterations in the slum tenement at Motilal Nehru Nagar CHS, BKC.

The notice highlighted large-scale violations in the building, including illegal construction of the mezzanine floor without an approval from the competent authority. It also pointed out that the commercial tenements were converted into hotel rooms, restaurants and a banquet hall, while the common passage, refuge area and lift lobbies were also being encroached by tenants who used them as kitchens and party spaces.

Appearing for the petitioners, counsel Akash Rebello acknowledged that the tenements were allotted for residential purposes only, and the residents were not allowed to make any alterations to the building. However, he submitted, the petitioners were ready to comply with the notice and requested the court to grant some time to them to carry out the exercise.

Accepting the request, the division bench of Justices G S Kulkarni and Manjusha Deshpande ordered the petitioners to restore the premises to their original state within four weeks. In light of this, the court further directed the competent authorities not to take any adverse action in this specific time frame.

Additionally, the court emphasised that serious illegalities pertaining to the misuse of SRA tenements could not be regularised. “Considering the abuse of the slum tenements of the nature as noticed by the SRA by such illegalities of additions, alterations, amalgamations, there is no question of any regularisation of such illegalities,” (sic) it stated.

The court relied on the several observations made by the high court and the Supreme Court, stating that violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which were audaciously put up without any building planning approval could not be encouraged.

Citing another observation made by the Supreme Court in 2024, the bench noted, “The courts must adopt a strict approach while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of buildings erected without requisite permissions of the competent authority. The law ought not to come to the rescue of those who flout its rigours, as allowing the same might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to undermining the deterrent effect of laws, which is the cornerstone of a just and orderly society.”

Disposing of the petition, the high court said that if an undertaking was not given by the petitioners to the chief executive officer of MHADA and the SRA, it would automatically presume that the tenants were not interested in restoring the premises to their original condition, and the designated officers would then be free to take appropriate action as per the law.