Bombay High Court
Vera P Dsouza vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
8.WPL7682_2025.DOC
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 7682 OF 2025
Vera P. D'Souza & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
_______
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr. Santosh Pathak, Mr.
Devansh Shah, Mr. Nimish Lotlikar, Mr. Deepesh Kadam i/b Law Original for the
petitioners.
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for State.
Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w Mr. Harshwardhan Karande for R. No. 4 & 5.
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Shiraj Gole i/b Mr. Chandrakant Gove for
respondent no. 6
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Shashikant Surana i/b Mr. Madhur Surana
for R. No. 7.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATED: 9 SEPTEMBER, 2025
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the present proceedings
which are listed for admission and interim reliefs. Though we have substantially
heard the proceedings, we do not intend to make any observations on the rival
contentions at this stage, as in our prima facie opinion what would go to the root
of the proceedings, is whether the land in question being claimed to be of the
ownership of the petitioners in view of the legal heirs of the original owner-
Thomas Alexander D'Souza, who passed away on 3 March, 1971, can at all be
continued to be held to be a notified slum under the provisions of Section 4 of the
Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 (for short "Slum Act"). This for the reason that although on 18 November
9 September 2025
8.WPL7682_2025.DOC
1977, a notification was issued by the Competent Authority under Section 4 of
the Slums Act declaring the land in question as a slum area, however, the case of
the petitioners is that the said notification came to be challenged before the Slum
Tribunal in the proceedings of Appeal No.381 of 1973 and Appeals No. 399 and
402 of 1979. It is contended that by the judgment and order dated 7 December,
1979 passed by the Slum Tribunal, Section 4 notification was set aside. The
petitioners have contended that they are residents of Canada, the lands in
question have devolved on them as the original owner having expired. Thus, the
question is whether in the absence of such jurisdictional requirement being
complied, further proceedings could at all be initiated in the intervening period to
acquire the land on the ground that the same continued to be notified as slum.
The petitioner's case is that on a per se illegal acquisition of the said land, now a
slums scheme is being pursued on such land at the behest of respondent no. 6-
Society by appointing respondent no. 7 as a developer.
2. There are several issues of challenge to the development of such land as a
slum, on which we shall hear the parties on the adjourned date of hearing.
However, before we proceed further, we are of the opinion that the proceedings of
Appeal No. 381/1973 and Appeal Nos. 399 and 402 of 1979 decided by Slum
Tribunal along with the orders passed thereon on 7 December, 1979 needs to be
produced before the Court. This order be forwarded immediately by the learned
Prothonotary and Senior Master to the Presiding Officer of the Slum Tribunal for
such record and proceedings to be forwarded in a sealed cover. This order shall
9 September 2025
8.WPL7682_2025.DOC
also be informed to the concerned by the learned AGP, who represents the State
Government. Accordingly, on the adjourned date of hearing, such proceedings be
made available before the Court as may be received from the Slum Tribunal.
3. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that
although the private respondents have filed their reply affidavits, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority as also the State Government so far has not filed their
reply affidavits. The reply on behalf of the Collector is imperative, as it is the
Additional Collector who had issued notice dated 14 July 2004 under Section
14(1) of the Slums Act. We direct the Collector to produce the entire record and
proceedings of the original acquisition before this Court on the adjourned date of
hearing as also a detailed reply affidavit on the basis of record be placed on record.
4. As the petitioners are apprehending that the slum scheme would proceed
further as also LOI and CC has been issued, we are of the opinion that if any
action taken to undertake construction shall be subject to the orders which would
be passed by this Court on the present proceedings and no equity either by the
slum dwellers or by the developers be claimed in whatever is undertaken in the
intervening period.
5. We, accordingly, adjourn this proceeding for a period of two weeks so that
reply affidavits can be filed on behalf of State Government as also the Slum
Authority.
6. In the reply affidavit which would be filed by the SRA, it would deal with
9 September 2025
8.WPL7682_2025.DOC
all the relevant materials which are already on the record of SRA and more
particularly the issues which are urged on behalf of the petitioners and the
respondents. We do not want that the SRA or the State Government files an
incomplete affidavit in bereft of material particulars. Let copies of the reply
affidavit be served on all the parties well in advance.
7. Respondent no. 7 shall furnish copies of the proceedings filed by them and
the same be made available to the advocate for the petitioners. The additional
affidavit be filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 within one week from today.
8. Stand over to 23 September 2025 (H.O.B.).
(AARTI SATHE , J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin 9 September 2025
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2025 11:30:06
