Bombay High Court
Mumtaz H Khoja vs The Chief Executive Officer, Sra And ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-OS:19530-DB
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.18 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2023
Mumtaz H. Khoja ]
adult, Indian inhabitant, ]
residing at A-314, 3 floor, ]
Rizvi Nagar CHSL, S.V. Road, ]
Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054. ] ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. The Chief Executive Officer, ]
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ]
Bandra, Mumbai 400051. ]
2. M/s. Pioneer India Developers ]
Pvt. Ltd., ]
having office at Shastri Nagar, ]
Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054. ] ... Respondents.
______________________________________
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Adv. Saurabh Utangale, Adv. Vedant Joshi
i/by Adv. Rohan Sawant for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal i/by R.S. Justicia Law Chambers for
Respondent No.1-SRA.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Adv. Mayur Singh, Adv. Santosh
Pathak, Adv. Deepesh Kadam for Respondent No.2.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 15th September, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th October, 2025.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Review Petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the
Order dated 8th February, 2024 based on the liberty granted by the
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
SONAWANE
NAMDEO
SONAWANE Date:
2025.10.17
10:12:05
+0530
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 23 rd August, 2024. The
Supreme Court granted liberty to the Petitioner (i) to bring to the
notice of this Court her personal claim considering the reliefs sought,
and (ii) to challenge the Order to be passed in the Review Petition
before the Supreme Court.
2) Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner,
submits that, in the Writ petition (which came to be dismissed), the
Petitioner had sought (a) a direction to the Respondents to allot
rehabilitation tenement under the subject slum scheme on the basis
of her eligibility reflected in Annexure-II for her residential
structure, and (b) arrears of rent towards temporary transit
accommodation from 2009 till date. He points out that the
Respondents have commenced allotment of rehab tenements to
eligible slum dwellers, as the rehab buildings are ready for
occupation. The grievance is that, despite repeated requests, no
rehab tenement has been allotted to her. There is a genuine
apprehension that allotment of all the rehab tenements is completed,
the Petitioner will be permanently deprived of her entitlement.
3) Mr. Naphade submits that Respondent No.2, in its Affidavit
in reply dated 5th February 2024, incorrectly stated that, the
temporary alternate accommodation was provided to the Petitioner
in Room No. G3, Building A/1/4. According to Mr. Naphade, this
statement is demonstrably false since Room No.G3 was in fact
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
allotted to Maulana Azad Social & Cultural Association Sanskar Urdu
High School (a Trust) which appears independently in Annexure II at
serial No.3658 for a non-residential structure. Thus, there exists two
distinct entries in the Annexure-II - one in Petitioner's individual
name for a residential structure, and the other in the Trust's name
for non-residential structure. The Trust, in fact, has been provided
with two premises, namely, Room No.G3 and Room No.G6. Reliance is
placed on the Order dated 19 th April, 2021 passed by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA") on the Trust's Application for
payment of rent, which confirms this position.
4) The grievance raised by Mr. Naphade is that the Court, while
passing the impugned Order, failed to verify the allegations by calling
upon Respondent No.1 (the Planning Authority) to clarify the false
assertion made by Respondent No.2. The request to file a rejoinder
with supporting documents to demonstrate that the so-called "transit
accommodation" was always earmarked for the School, and not for
her, was not considered. The dismissal of her Petition on the ground
of suppression of material particulars was therefore unjustified, as
the Petitioner and the Trust are two separate entities, each of whom
filed independent Writ Petitions.
5) Mr. Naphade further submits that Respondent No. 2's
allegations were not supported by any documentary evidence. On the
contrary, material on record shows that (i) the Petitioner was
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
declared eligible for a residential structure in the year 2009, and (ii)
the two premises claimed to have been allotted were in fact provided
in 2003 and indisputably for the School. Thus, the dismissal of the
Petition rested on a false and misleading statement made by the
Developer.
6) The Petitioner was eligible for two structures: one
residential (where she resided) and one commercial (where she ran
her clinic). She is therefore entitled to (a) a residential tenement in
the rehab building, and (b) a commercial tenement (already allotted)
from the date of handing over the vacant possession of the two
structures till she was rehabilitated in the permanent alternative
accommodation in the rehab building. The Petitioner had never
sought reliefs concerning her commercial entitlement in the earlier
Petition, as the same stood satisfied. However, Respondent No. 2
deliberately conflated her residential entitlement with that of the
Trust, thereby depriving her of the residential rehab tenement.
7) The impugned Order thus overlooked the Petitioner's
specific case that Room No.G3 in Building No. A/1/4 was allotted to
the Trust for running a School, and not to her for residence. This is
further fortified by Clause 8.1 of Regulation 33 (10) of Development
Control & Promotion Regulation 2034 ('DCPR'), which obligates the
Developer to provide for pre-existing social infrastructure such as
Schools run by Charitable Trust, without increase in area, by way of
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
(i) temporary transit accommodation, and (ii) equivalent permanent
alternate accommodation upon completion of the rehab buildings. In
fact, Respondent No.2 was required to provide 2,200 sq.ft. of such
accommodation to the Trust.
8) In these circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned
Order dated 8th February 2024 be set aside and the Review Petition
be allowed.
9) Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2,
submits that the Petitioner was admittedly allotted two rooms,
namely G3 and G6, and is presently in possession of three premises.
He relies upon the table at page 83 of the Review Petition (being the
reply) to point out that, Room No.G6 has not been returned, despite
the Trust being allotted temporary accommodation in Building D1.
He submits that the Review Petition is not maintainable, as both the
original Petition as well as the Review Petition suffer from
suppression of material facts. He further submits that, the Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the
impugned Order, and is merely attempting to rely on additional
material in support of her case. He accordingly submits that, the
Review Petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.
10) The learned Advocate for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(SRA) has tendered documents to establish that both the Petitioner
and the Trust are eligible for permanent alternate accommodation
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
under the scheme. She supports the assertions of Respondent No.2
and submits that the Petitioner, despite being allotted temporary
accommodation in Building D1, has failed to return possession of the
third premises. She accordingly contends that the Review Petition is
without merit and deserves dismissal.
11) We have heard the rival submissions of learned Counsel and
perused the entire record, including documents tendered by the SRA,
the Petitioner, and those annexed to the Review Petition. Upon
consideration, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
observations of the impugned Judgement dated 8th February, 2024.
12) The Petitioner has indeed suppressed material facts. While
she sought to portray herself as a senior citizen, dependent on her
parents and in poor health, in order to evoke the sympathy, the
documents placed on record - including those tendered across the
bar by Mr. Naphade - demonstrate that she is a practicing Doctor by
profession. She was in possession not merely of one but three
separate structures, thereby illegally occupying an area exceeding
2,200 sq. ft. carpet area in the slum. She admittedly used one as her
residence, the second as her clinic, and the third for running a School
in the name of the said Trust of which she was a Chairperson. This is
evident from her own pleadings at paragraphs 9(N) and (O) of the
grounds in the Review Petition.
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
13) There was no justification whatsoever for her failure to
disclose these facts in the original Petition. Instead, she deliberately
chose to file two separate Petitions on the pretext of asserting the
rights of two "independent entities," while in substance she was
claiming multiple entitlements.
14) As rightly noted in the Order under Review, the Petitioner's
initial entry upon the land was unauthorized. Furthermore, while
she repeatedly emphasizes that Room No. G3 was allotted to the
Trust, she has conveniently suppressed the allotment of Room No. G6
and the temporary accommodation in Building D1 provided pursuant
to the SRA's Order dated 4th December 2019. She has also failed to
disclose that her commercial entitlement (Shop No 46) was already
allotted to her as permanent alternate accommodation as early as
25th February 2006.
15) In this context. reliance placed on the judgement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma v/s. Steel Authority of India
Limited & Ors1. is apposite. The Apex Court has held that a party
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution must be truthful, frank and disclose all
material facts even those adverse to them. Suppression of facts,
misrepresentation, or concealment cannot be countenanced in
equitable jurisdiction. A litigant cannot be permitted to "play hide
1 (2008) 12 SCC 481
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
and seek" with the Court, choosing to disclose only those facts
favourable to her. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not
Advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or
misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the Applicant does not disclose all the material facts
fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads
the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and
to prevent abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the
Court does not reject the Petition on that ground, the Court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an Applicant requires to be dealt with
for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court.
16) The pleadings in the present Petition unmistakably reveal
suppression of material facts and selective disclosure intended to
mislead this Court into granting reliefs to which the Petitioner is not
entitled. Such conduct amounts to abuse of process and, if
unchecked, would undermine the Court's duty to dispense justice.
17) Having considered the Review Petition, we note that the
Petitioner has sought to introduce an entirely fresh set of facts and
documents which in law this Court is not entitled to examine at the
stage of Review. No error apparent on the face of the judgement
under review is pointed out.
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
18) The Petitioner has patently made false statement, including
the assertion that she is residing at the mercy of her parents. On the
contrary, she claims to be a Doctor by profession and has encroached
upon land in a prime locality. She has not only obtained residential
accommodation and commercial accommodation but also premises
for a School. In substance, she has suffered no deprivation. Having
received the benefit of four premises - namely, Rooms G3 and G6,
temporary premises in Building D1, and Shop No. 46 - she has still
chosen, with mala fide intent, to suppress material facts, including
her refusal to return Room No. G6 despite being allotted premises in
D1. These deliberate suppression by themselves disentitles the
Petitioner to any relief whatsoever.
19) It is indeed unbelievable that a Petitioner, who claims to
have been deprived of temporary alternate accommodation or rent
since 2009, chose to remain silent and took no steps whatsoever
until 2022 to assert such rights. The evidence produced before this
Court to establish occupation of the premises is, to say the least,
fabricated. The so-called receipts relied upon are not only suspicious
but ex facie bogus--being issued by some society, curiously to
unnamed individuals, and for "poultry songs." Such documents are
clearly concocted and it is evident that the entire claim has been built
upon falsehood.
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
20) This case highlights the urgent need for the State authorities
to completely overhaul and re-examine the process of verifying
documents produced by persons claiming eligibility in slum schemes.
The present record demonstrates the ease with which false and
fraudulent documents are pressed into service, leading to gross
misuse of the process of rehabilitation.
21) This, however, is a fit case where proceedings for contempt
of Court merit initiation against the Petitioner and an inquiry
regarding the running of Schools in a slum also deserves to be
undertaken.
22) We further direct the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC) as well as SRA to conduct an inquiry into the manner in which
the Trust was permitted to run a School in a slum with 150 students.
Specifically, the inquiry shall ascertain whether requisite
permissions had been obtained from the BMC for the structure and
whether the Fire Department had granted a fire NOC permitting a
School to function therein. The facts disclosed in this case reveal not
only the dangers to which very young children have been exposed by
individuals such as the Petitioner, but also the apparent inaction and
apathy of the BMC and the SRA in allowing such activities to
continue, thereby jeopardizing the lives of innocent children
attending classes in unsafe and unauthorised structures.
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
23) We accordingly direct that the Review Petition stands
dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner, to
the Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks from the
date of uploading of this Judgment on the website of High Court of
Bombay. The account details of the said Welfare Fund are as under:
Account Name : Armed Forces Battle
Casualties Welfare Fund.
Account Number : 90552010165915.
Bank Name : Canara Bank.
Branch : South Block, Defence
Headquarters, New Delhi -
11011.
IFSC Code : CNRB0019055.
24) Upon failure to pay costs within stipulated period, the
Collector, Mumbai is directed to recover the said costs under the
provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as arrears of
the land revenue and may attach and sell the properties of the
Petitioner for recovery of the costs amount within a period of three
months. Upon recovery of such amount, the same shall be paid to
Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund as compensation within a
period of two weeks.
25) We accordingly direct the Registry to issue a Show Cause
Notice to the Petitioner, calling upon her to explain why proceedings
for Contempt of Court should not be initiated against her. The Show
sns osrpw-18-2025-J.doc
Cause Notice is made returnable on 13th November 2025.
26) List the matter for compliance of Judgment on
13th November 2025.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
