In Mumbai’s property boom, redevelopment is promoted as progress, but misusing slum rehabilitation laws in the wrong contexts can cost homeowners not only their homes but also their rights.
In Chakala, Andheri East, actor Kishore Kadam, well-known in Marathi cinema as Saumitra, has accused developers of misusing sections of Mumbai’s Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) to push a project on his cooperative housing society. Kadam alleges that DCPR Sections 33(11) and 33(12B), meant for slum rehabilitation and infrastructure-affected projects, have been wrongly applied to his society’s redevelopment plan.
The Hawa Mahal co-operative society, a single 30-year-old building with 24 flats on a 925 sqm plot, falls squarely under normal cooperative redevelopment rules. Yet, the builder’s draft agreement reportedly invoked the slum rehabilitation provisions – clauses that could enable higher floor space index (FSI) and bypass certain scrutiny. Kadam and the society’s legal advisor say this tactic not only flouts intent but could expose residents to future legal and financial risks.
Kadam’s concerns gained traction after he posted an open complaint on social media. The post caught the attention of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who instructed both the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the state co-operation department to investigate. Officials from both bodies have since contacted Kadam for details.
Such direct intervention is rare in housing disputes, but it underscores how public pressure, combined with clear documentation, can prompt authorities to act.
Social Fallout Inside the Society: While the legal aspects play out, the human cost is immediate. Kadam says that after questioning the redevelopment terms, he and his family were excluded from the society’s new WhatsApp group and branded part of a “minority of fools” by fellow residents pushing for the project.
Ostracism, he points out, is a powerful way to shut people down. For residents who stand against questionable redevelopment terms, the fear of social isolation can be as heavy as the legal battle itself. Trust within the community fractures, and conversations turn into confrontations.
Why DCPR 33(11) And 33(12B) Matter: Under Mumbai’s DCPR, Section 33(11) grants benefits for redeveloping slums, while Section 33(12B) applies to buildings affected by public infrastructure projects. In both cases, extra FSI is a key incentive. However, these clauses carry obligations, rehousing eligible slum dwellers or accommodating infrastructure needs, that cooperative societies with no such context should not be bound by.
Invoking them where they don’t apply can:
- Allow developers to build more than the standard entitlement.
- Skew profit margins in the builder’s favor.
- Create legal vulnerabilities for residents if approvals are later challenged.
What Homeowners Should Watch For: Housing law experts say the Hawa Mahal dispute highlights warning signs every homeowner should heed:
- Check the Clauses – Know whether your property qualifies for slum rehabilitation benefits. If not, provisions like 33(11) and 33(12B) have no place in your agreement.
- Scrutinize FSI Calculations – Extra space offers are tempting, but ask how the numbers are derived and whether they depend on special legal provisions.
- Insist on Transparency – Keep records of all meetings, minutes, and communications. Document any exclusion from society groups or decisions.
- Get Legal Advice Early – A housing law specialist can spot problematic clauses before you commit.
- Go Public if Needed – If internal discussions fail, consider bringing in the media or local representatives to ensure accountability.
- Build Alliances – Collective resistance is harder to dismiss than a single dissenting voice.
This case is not an isolated misstep; it reflects a systemic temptation to bend housing laws for financial gain. While redevelopment remains vital for a city with an aging housing stock, experts warn that legal safeguards can become dangerous loopholes if residents are uninformed or pressured into silence.
For Kadam, the fight goes beyond his own flat; it’s about making sure policies meant for vulnerable communities aren’t twisted into profit-making tools. He emphasized that redevelopment should rebuild structures while also protecting the people who live in them.
