The Mumbai Port Authority demolished around 100 houses in Darukhana in May 2026 following an eviction process that residents alleged was marked by procedural irregularities.
MbPA says that the demolition was carried out pursuant to an Estate Officer's order issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The authority argued that the Act permits it to evict unauthorised occupants from port land. Residents, however, argued that irrespective of the land's ownership, rehabilitation obligations recognised by judicial precedent should apply before eviction.
In April 2026, the conflict intensified when the Mumbai Port Authority (MbPA) issued eviction notices to around 100 households, reportedly giving them only seven days to vacate their homes. Residents said they had lived there since the 1990s or earlier, that the settlement had grown around labour linked to the port, and that they were never given any meaningful rehabilitation plan.
On 28 April 2026, over 400 residents blocked the first demolition attempt, forcing the authorities to halt the operation temporarily. The residents said they were seeking a stay and planned to pursue legal relief. At the same time, MbPA maintained that the structures were illegal occupations on port land and outside the ambit of Maharashtra's slum rehabilitation protection because the land belongs to the central government.
In May 2026, the matter escalated when MbPA returned with a stronger demolition drive backed by a heavy police presence. During the eviction drive, residents alleged that police compelled them to sign notices without explaining their contents or legal implications, refused to provide copies of the notices, and used intimidation and threats of false criminal cases to obtain signatures.
One resident, Durai Raj, said, “We trusted the politicians who promised to stop the demolitions, so we didn’t clear out our homes.”
By June 2026, the conflict had widened into a larger movement, with displaced residents marching and demanding housing, temporary relief, and a ‘house for a house’ rehabilitation policy. A memorandum called for a meeting between residents, elected representatives, MbPA, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, and the state government to formulate a rehabilitation policy. They also sought a transparent survey, publication of beneficiary lists, withdrawal of cases against protestors, and a judicial inquiry into the alleged conduct of the MbPA and police during the eviction drive. The core contention remained that MbPA is clearing decades-old established homes without rehabilitation, while the authority insisted it is merely removing unauthorised encroachments from its land and has no obligation to rehabilitate such occupants.
Residents argued that the settlement grew over decades through labour migration and port-linked housing, and that any eviction without rehabilitation is unjust, citing constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21 guaranteeing equality, freedom, and the right to life with dignity. The issue also drew political attention, with support from leaders across parties, including the BJP, Shiv Sena, and Shiv Sena (UBT), as well as NGOs working with affected communities. As of July 2026, displaced residents continue to seek rehabilitation, withdrawal of criminal cases, and accountability for the eviction process.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand for rehabilitation
Complaint against procedural violations
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
Detention
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
14
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Released from detention
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
No
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
BHARATIYA NYAY SANHITA
Section 189 [Unlawful assembly]; Section 221[Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions];Section 126 [Wrongful restraint];Section 285 [Danger or obstruction in public way]
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Residential area, Commercial
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Other, Case Laws
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
No
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Forced evictions/dispossession of land
Non-rehabilitation of displaced people
Lack of legal protection over land rights
Legal Status:
Out of Court
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
No
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Case Number
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Arrest/detention/imprisonment
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Yes
Reported Details of the Violation:
When the Mumbai Port Authority arrived for the demolition, the locals resisted and blocked their path, leading to the eviction being called off on that day. The same night, the police started filing cases and issuing notices to hundreds of people whom they suspected of being a part of the blockade. Eventually, an FIR against 14 individuals was registered, charging them with obstruction, abetment in discharge of duty by a public official, among other charges.
Date of Violation
April 27, 2026
Location of Violation
New Tank Road, Daarukhana, Rey Road East
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Mumbai Port Authority, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
No
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Ghar Hakk Sangarsh Samiti
What was the action taken by the police?
Detention
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
14
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Released from detention
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
No
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
BHARATIYA NYAY SANHITA
Section 189 [Unlawful assembly]; Section 221[Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions];Section 126 [Wrongful restraint];Section 285 [Danger or obstruction in public way]
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Shubham is a housing rights activist based in Mumbai. He has a post graduate from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai in urban policy and governance.
