Naufil Sarang’s home has been demolished on April 29, one of the latest structures reduced to rubble by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Mumbai in a series of demolitions that have been ongoing since 2021. His house on plot number nine in Bharat Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai, was torn down hastily, even as the matter awaits judgment at the Supreme Court. When I reported on this colony months ago, amid unsanctioned demolitions and teeming builder interests, Sarang had promised to fight till the end. He has. But I can hear the exhaustion in his voice now, after months of disorienting battle with various housing authorities. Sarang belongs to a dwindling group of residents protesting what they call “builder raj“ in Bharat Nagar. This 44-acre area has drawn redevelopment interest since 1996, eventually landing in the hands of Adani-group-promoted Budhpur Buildcon, triggering rapid clearance drives that left inhabitants in disarray.Rent receipts issued by the MHADA to Sarang’s family. Photo: Fight For Wrong, News & Media. A builder rajThe situation reached fever pitch in September 2025, when Sarang’s media organisation, Fight For Wrong, joined activists and residents to protest the demolitions and mischaracterisation of occupants as “slum dwellers” – despite many holding valid Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) allotment letters dating to 1975. Now, as the case is heard in the Supreme Court, residents allege that authorities are disregarding court-ordered stays on demolitions to serve builder interests, while deploying “bogus photopasses” on a MHADA layout to present it as a censused slum.Sarang’s organisation, activists and residents have been protesting against the demolition notices since a decade, alleging they are unlawful under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. They further argue that they have been “misattributed” as tenants of a Basera SRA Society, instead of a MHADA-designated Basera Co-operative Housing Society, of which they claim to be registered members.“The Basera Society has filed a false and misleading Population Census 1981 notification in the Supreme Court, claiming Bharat Nagar’s MHADA layout was declared a census slum in 1981. It is settled law that DCR 33(5) applies to a MHADA Layout, in which Bharat Nagar is listed, at Sr. No. 93 in the Gazette Notification dated May 23, 2018,” Rafique Sayyed, president of the Khwaja Gharib Nawaz (KGN) Society said, speaking to The Wire. The society was formed by the 200 MHADA tenants from plot number seven to oppose the demolition.The 2018 Gazette notification marking the area as a MHADA layout. Photo: Fight For Wrong, News & Media. Faith in judicial proceedings, however, has been fractured beyond repair. Resident Tariq Khan points to two contradictory orders: “The single bench with Justice Pooniwalla engaged MHADA pitch holders under 33(10), the Adani SRA project. But the Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Saathe granted benefit of DCR 33(5).” Sarang explained that Justice Pooniwala heard the eviction petition and observed that petitioners are covered under slum dwellers provisions under the SRA scheme. Meanwhile, the division bench in the plot number 11 Paradise Society case, observed the same pitch holders are covered under 33(5). These contradictory orders raise serious questions about the favourability builders have garnered. Here, “pitch holders” are occupants who have been allotted land on the MHADA layout and have legal allotment papers. They are also referred to as legal tenants or allotees.The disparity has tangible implications. MHADA tenants under 33(5) receive 600 square feet in compensation; those pushed under the SRA scheme receive a mere 300. Sarang raises a further inconsistency. MHADA’s own affidavit states that plots 1-4, 11, 12A, and chawls one–52 will be redeveloped under 33(5). “Why are plots 7, 8, 9, 12 and chawls 53–64 excluded? These are the same MHADA pitch holders, with the same allotment letters, same rent receipts, same CTS 7643 layout. Why is the SRA scheme imposed on some MHADA allottees while others get 33(5) [protection]? Why is MHADA being partial with its own tenants?” said Sarang. A MHADA room/tenement transfer application form. Photo: Fight For Wrong, News & Media. Name transfer letter issued by MHADA to the Sarang family. Photo: Fight For Wrong, News & Media. The cost of clearanceMany plot-holders have surrendered, some worn down by a decade of proceedings, others trading the possibility of fair compensation for the guarantee of any. “These are poor people,” Sarang says. “They are scared, and rightfully so. The situation has worsened. You cannot protest during demolitions – the police arrive with SRA officials and builder representatives, take you to the station and impose Section 144.”Roughly 25 houses and 40 residents remain. Political interest in what happens to them, many allege, evaporated after the elections, particularly from opposition figures who had overtly condemned builder alignment with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Shiv Sena (UBT) MLA Varun Sardesai has not followed through on initial promises, Congress Lok Sabha MP Varsha Gaikwad, residents claim, has focused entirely on Dharavi while ignoring Bharat Nagar, despite earlier assurances.Contracts offered by builders have also drawn scrutiny. Many allegedly contain blank pages with no details on future property allocation, lacking specifics on location or financial terms, and containing only nominal figures wildly at odds with what the cleared land will eventually command. Meanwhile, as courts determine whether the redevelopment proceeds under 33(5) or 33(10), allottees are being made to sign unregistered SRA agreements of questionable legal standing.The author has reached out to the Public Relations Officer at the SRA for comments regarding the ongoing demolitions and redevelopment activities. This report will be updated if a response is received.The city and its collateralsThe pattern extends beyond Bharat Nagar. In Garib Nagar, Western Railway demolished 100 structures over five days following an April 29 Bombay High Court order, despite a March interim stay, protecting certain structures belonging to Project Affected Persons. BJP leader Krit Somaiya celebrated the demolitions with communally charged language, framing them as reproaches to opposition parties he accused of subscribing to “Land Jihad” and “Vote Jihad.”Also read: In Mumbai’s Bharat Nagar, Residents Allege ‘Builder Raj’ by Adani-Backed Redevelopment ProjectAs Mumbai develops Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) into a mirage of glass towers and commercial prosperity, the identity of its “collaterals” grows clearer. “I think Tushar Mehta, who is the Solicitor General, is misguiding the Supreme Court by claiming alternatives are being offered by Adani, we have seen none,” Sarang tells me. “They just want the land. They barely see us as people.”🚨Supreme Court addresses Bharat Nagar redevelopment in BKC Bandra East,but Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s stance raises concerns! Representing SRA, Tushar Mehta pushed for Adani’s Budhpur Buildcon to enforce Regulation 33/10, urging MHADA tenants of BKC Bharat Nagar, a 2018… pic.twitter.com/7m713nLMUE— Fightforwrong 🇮🇳 (@fight4wrong) August 4, 2025Not everything is bleak. The petitioners have secured activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan for representation, reportedly to the builders’ displeasure. Residents suspect their hearings are consequently being scheduled on dates that make it near-impossible to be heard, compounding delay. Bhushan also argued the hollowness of demolition stays in light of the continuous violations despite court’s orders. Most residents are certain their homes will be demolished regardless of whether they surrender. This has become a test of something larger: whether the city’s courts and institutions will hold or whether the city will continue to spit out whoever it does not consider important enough to make space for. Saptaparna Samajdar is a freelance journalist based in Mumbai.