Bombay High Court
Masjid And Madarsa Gausiya vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 29 September, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:16701
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.27453 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.13045 OF 2025
1. Masjid and Madarsa Gausiya ]
Registered under the Waqf Act, 1995 ]
Under Waqf Registration No. MSBW/MUM ]
86892004(Waqf),[New No.MSBW/MUM ]
5262024, having its registered address at ]
Hanuman Tekdi, Near Virwani Industrial ]
Estate, Opp. Western Express Highway, ]
Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400 063. ]
Through its Members/Mutawallis. ]
2. Mohammad Farooq I.Ansari ]
Age: 54 Years. ]
3. Mohammad Ayub Murshad ]
Age: 52 Years. ]
4. Ateequr Rehman Ansari ]
Age: 46 Years. ]
5. Israphil Ansari ]
Age: 54 Years. ]
All having their address at- Hanuman Tekdi ]
Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Opp. ]
Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) ]
Mumbai - 400 051. ]... Applicants/
Org. Petitioner
In the matter between
1. Masjid and Madarsa Gausiya ]
Registered under the Waqf Act, 1995 ]
Under Waqf Registration No. MSBW/MUM ]
86892004(Waqf),[New No.MSBW/MUM ]
5262024, having its registered address at ]
Hanuman Tekdi, Near Virwani Industrial ]
Estate, Opp. Western Express Highway, ]
Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400 063. ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
1/15
2025.09.30
11:46:32
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2025 21:18:31 :::
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
Through its Members/Mutawallis. ]
2. Mohammad Farooq I.Ansari ]
Age: 54 Years. ]
3. Mohammad Ayub Murshad ]
Age: 52 Years. ]
4. Ateequr Rehman Ansari ]
Age: 46 Years. ]
5. Israphil Ansari ]
Age: 54 Years. ]
All having their address at- Hanuman Tekdi ]
Near Virwani Industrial Estate, Opp. ]
Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E) ]
Mumbai - 400 051. ]... Petitioners
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Grievance Redressal Committee ]
Mumbai Suburban District, having address ]
at- Old Custom House, Mumbai. ]
2. The Addl. Collector (Enc/Rem) and ]
Appellate Authority, Western Suburbs, ]
07th Floor, Administrative Building, ]
Government Colony, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai - 400 051. ]
3. The Competent Authority-VI, ]
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ]
New Administrative Building, A.K. Marg, ]
A-Wing, 4th Floor, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
4. Aman Shanti SRA Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd., ]
Through its Chairman/Secretary, having its ]
Registered address as CTS No.34A, 34/1, ]
63, 63/1, 63/2, 64/1, 64/2, Hanuman Tekdi, ]
Opp. Western Express Highway, ]
Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 063. ]
2/15
::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2025 21:18:31 :::
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
5. M/s. Indu Construction ]
st
1 Floor, Jagdeesh Building, Plot No.185 ]
th
15 Road, Chembur (E), Mumbai - 400 071. ]... Respondents
Mr. A.A. Siddique a/w Mr. Chowdhari Moin i/by Mr. Chowdhari Moin
for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Vikram Garewal, Mr. Kiran
Mohite, Ms.Deepika Mule and Mr. Kartik Malusare i/by Kiran Mohite
for Respondent No.5
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 12th September 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 29th September 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1) By a praecipe dated 9th September 2025, the Advocate for
the Applicant/Petitioner sought circulation on the ground that
demolition of the structures was proposed on 11 th September 2025.
The praecipe and the submissions led the Court to believe that the
structures were wrongfully being demolished by the Concerned
Authorities, notwithstanding the fact that the property was a
religious structure registered with the Waqf Board of Maharashtra.
The Petition was listed on the supplementary board on 11 th
September 2025.
2) Mr. A.A. Siddique, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, at
the outset submitted that the Petitioners were not opposed to the
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
demolition of the structures. However, since the Respondent No.5
had not entered into an agreement with the Petitioners, the present
Application was filed.
3) Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.5, raised a preliminary objection to this Interim Application. He
submits that the Application is a classic case of extortion; that the
Petitioners have suppressed material facts from this Court and
committed perjury. He pointed out that the Writ Petition challenges
the Order dated 17th March 2025, whereby the Competent Authority
rejected the Petitioners' Application for change of name in Annexure-
II. He submitted that the Petitioner No.1 claims to be a Waqf
registered in the year 2004 and the Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are its
trustees. According to him, under the guise of change of name, an
attempt is made to alter the nature of eligibility from Madarsa/School
to a Masjid/religious place. He pointed out that while the Petition
seeks to challenge the Notice dated 20th August 2025, it suppresses
the Order dated 27th May 2025 passed by the Competent Authority
under Sections 33 and 38 Of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('Slums
Act'). The Notice under challenge is only a consequence of, and
intended to implement, the Order dated 27th May 2025.
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
4) Mr. Khandeparkar further submitted that while the Writ
Petition pertains to a structure described at serial No.679 of
Annexure-II, the impugned Notice dated 20 th August 2025 does not
relate to the said structure. He contended that the Interim
Application seeks reliefs beyond the subject matter of the Writ
Petition. Respondent No.5, being a developer, has no discretion to
execute a Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreement
('PAAA') with any person not reflected in Annexure-II. Since the
trustees of Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee, including Mohammad
Farooq Ansari and Ateequr Rehman Ansari, failed to execute the
PAAA, the Agreements were deposited with the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority ('SRA') on 9th September 2025.
5) Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that in paragraph Nos.4 to
8 of the Interim Application, the Applicants falsely contended that
the residential and commercial structures forming part of the Notice
dated 20th August 2025 are also a Waqf properties and that the
Agreement should be executed in the name of Petitioner No.1 instead
of Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee. This, he argued is contrary to the
Annexure-II. They further claimed that the Madarsa-E-Gausiya
Committee trust ceased to exist upon registration of the Petitioner
No.1-Waqf in 2004 - demonstrably false statement, disproved by the
audit report filed by Petitioners 2 to 5 for the assessment year 2022-
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
23. According to him, this amounts to perjury to the knowledge of
Mohammad Farooq Ansari and Ateequr Ansari.
6) After hearing Mr. Khandeparkar's preliminary objections
to the Interim Application and the response of Mr. Siddique, and after
due deliberation with the Court, Mr. Siddique requested that the
matter be kept back to enable him to obtain instructions for
withdrawal of the Interim Application.
7) Mr. Khandeparkar, however, objected even to the
unconditional withdrawal and requested permission to place an
Affidavit on record setting out his objections for a ruling by the Court.
Accordingly, the matter was stood over to the following day, and
Respondent No.5 was permitted to continue with the demolition of
the structures.
8) In continuation, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the
Petitioners, particularly Mr. Mohammad Farooq Ansari and Mr.
Ateequr Ansari, have repeatedly attempted to obstruct
implementation of the scheme and harassed the Officers of these
Respondents and of SRA at every stage. These individuals have filed
pleadings on behalf of both the Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee and
Masjid and Madarsa Gausiya. He pointed out that of the 690 slum
dwellers, 383 have been vacated and shifted to transit camps, and
only 7 structures have remained on site. As of today, only one
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
structure remains on site as the impugned notice dated 20 th August
2025 has already been implemented and six structures were
demolished.
9) Mr. Khandeparkar further relied upon the Order dated
27th May 2025 - particularly internal page No.4 - wherein the
Petitioners had themselves stated before the Concerned Authority
that they supported the redevelopment process and were willing to
peacefully vacate eight premises, including commercial and
residential, at serial Nos.675, 676, 677, 678, 680, 681, 682 and 683
in Annexure-II. The impugned Notice was issued only because they
failed to vacate despite this statement.
10) Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Hilla Homi
Daddy alias Hilla Homi Dadysett vs. Hoshang Jehangir Khan & Anr. 1
he submitted that where a party relies on documents to mislead the
Court, obstruct the administration of justice, cause a substantial
injury and compel the Courts to take a divergent view, the Courts
must act. He urged initiating proceedings under Section 379 of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, emphasizing that filing of
false affidavits is an evil that must be curbed with a strong hand. He
argued that in this case, prosecution is warranted to punish the
delinquent not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the
statement which may be innocent or immaterial but because there is
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2938.
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
a prima facie case against the Petitioners who have deliberately made
false statements on substantive matters.
11) Relying on the judgement in the case of Sugee Developers
vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors2 he argued that this is a fit case
for imposition of exemplary costs, as the litigant is treating the
Courts for speculations and illegitimate gains.
12) Relying on the decision in the case of Neelesh
RamkaranYadav & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra3 he argued that the
Petitioners have obstructed the scheme, refused to co-operate, and
demanded benefits beyond what law permits.
13) He further argued that it is a fit case to invoke Section
227 r/w Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 with
Section 215 and Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 33A of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and
Regulation 33 (10) (VI) sub clause (1.6) (iv) and (v) of DCPR, 2034,
to forfeit the rights of the concerned Petitioners to any permanent
tenement, and their tenements deserve to be forfeited by the SRA to
accommodate the pavement dwellers and other slum dwellers who
cannot be accommodated in situ.
14) In view of the above, he contended that the Interim
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2885.
2025:BHC-OS-4639
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
Application deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
15) In response, the learned Counsel Mr. Siddique has written
instructions to withdraw this Interim Application and volunteered to
pay the costs in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
Reasons and Conclusion
16) Having heard both learned Counsel and after perusing
the documents on record, I find that the Applicants have abused the
process of this Court.
17) The matter was mentioned at 5.00 pm. on 10 th September
2025 on the plea that their structures would be wrongfully
demolished if the Court did not take up the matter immediately on
the next date. Accepting the submissions of the Counsel and being
empathetic towards the plight of the slum dwellers, the matter was
placed high on board on the very next date.
18) After hearing the objections of learned Counsel for
Respondent No.5, the Petitioner's Counsel initially reacted with
strong objections, but upon considering his position - particularly in
light of the concession recorded in the Order dated 27 th May 2025
that the Petitioners would voluntarily vacate the premises - the
Counsel realised that his arguments would amount to backtracking
from the stand earlier taken before the Competent Authority.
Consequently, he decided to consider to withdraw this Interim
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
Application.
19) The learned Advocate candidly conceded that the
Petitioners had failed to inform him of the Order dated 27 th May
2025. From this candid disclosure, it is apparent that the Petitioners
have not only attempted to mislead the Court but also suppressed
material facts from their own Counsel. Such litigants deserve to be
non-suited at the very inception.
20) The Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL &
Ors4 has held that a party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must be
truthful, frank and transparent, and must disclose all material facts
without any reservation, even if they are against him. A litigant
cannot play 'hide and seek' or 'pick and choose' the facts that he likes
to disclose and suppress (keep back) or not disclose (conceal other
facts). The Supreme Court has observed that an Applicant who does
not come with candid facts and clean breast should not be
entertained. It further held that suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an 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
2008 12 SCC 481.
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the
rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If such conduct is permitted, the Court would fail in
its duty. Indeed, such an Applicant is liable for contempt for abusing
the process of the Court.
21) Applying the principles laid down in the above judgment,
I find this to be a fit case where, although the Applicant now seek to
withdraw the IA, they deserve to be held liable for attempting to play
a fraud on the Court and for seeking to stall the demolition of
structures which they had themselves volunteered to vacate, as
recorded in the Order dated 27th May 2025.
22) The record further shows that the subject matter of the
Petition is limited to the change of name in Annexure-II in respect of
one structure at serial No.679. The Petitioners' original Application
for the change of name from Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee to Masjid
and Madarsa Gausiya was already dismissed by the Competent
Authority by an Order dated 4 th May 2023, and the Appeal was also
dismissed on 25th August 2024. The Petitioners claim to be
Mutavalis/trusteees assert that the Masjid and Madarsa Gausiya, is a
Waqf property registered sometime in the year 2004. Pertinently, the
same Petitioners represent the Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee Trust.
Evidently, the structures referred in the IA are clearly not the
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
subject matter of the Petition. Despite that, the Petitioners through
the IA seek to set aside the final eviction Notice dated 20 th August
2025 which is issued for implementation of the Order dated 27 th May
2025 wherein these very Petitioners had volunteered to surrender
the structures.
23) On one hand, the Petitioners sought urgent intervention
of the Court to prevent demolition of their structures; yet on the very
next day, they altered their stand and instructed their Advocates to
contend that they were not opposed to demolition. This in my view is
clearly approbation and reprobation.
24) The Court was thus misled into believing that urgent
intervention was necessary to prevent grave injustice. However,
during arguments they claimed that the Respondent No. 5 should
urgently execute PAAA for the premises in the name of Masjid and
not Madarsa which is reflected in the Annexure II.
25) The record also establishes that the writ structures are
patently illegal and unauthorised. The Petitioners who claim to be the
owners the writ structures are actually trespassers on the
Respondent No 5's land. The narration of events by Mr.
Khandeparkar indicate that the Petitioners are attempting to extract
a deal from the Landlord cum Developer which they are opposed to
being unreasonable. The provisions of the Slums Act are
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
unfortunately and evidently being misused by the Petitioners. This
extortion in the guise of being helpless slum dwellers must be curbed.
26) In my view the seemingly innocuous plea that the name
in Annexure-II be changed from Madarsa-E-Gausiya Committee to
Masjid/religious place is nothing but an attempt to secure unlawful
and illegal gains, with full knowledge of ineligibility.
27) This Court is inclined to propose the SRA/concerned
authority to consider invoking Regulation 33 (10)(VI) sub clause
(1.16)(iv) & (v) of DCPR, 2034 and to forfeit all rights of the
Petitioners for all the claimed structures in their possession.
However, in order to extend the benefit of doubt to the Petitioners,
this Court deems it appropriate to hear the matter on merits in the
main Petition before arriving at a final determination.
28) In view of the above, I pass the following order:
i. The Registry is directed to lodge a complaint against
the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 in accordance with Section
379 (1) (b) and (c) read with Section 382 (1) of the
Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
ii. The Registry is directed to initiate perjury proceedings
against the Petitioners for making patently false
statements about the Masjid and Madarsa.
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
iii. In addition to the above, the Petitioners to pay costs of
Rs 2,50,000/- to Shree Nityanand Ashram, old age
home. The Bank details of the old age home is as
under:
Name of Old Age : Shree Nityanand Ashram
Home
Bank Name : Bank of Maharashtra
Bank Account : 60337871140
Number
IFSC Code : MAHB0000982
Branch : Devchand Nagar, Malad East
Address : Shree Satyanand Ashram, NBMC
School, Jarimari Mata Mandir Road,
Kashigaon, Kashimira, Miraroad (E),
Thane 401 1017.
Mobile No. : 9869345036
Email Id : [email protected]
29) In the aforesaid terms, the Interim Application is
disposed of.
30) List the Petition for hearing on and compliance on 3 rd
November, 2025.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
31) At this stage, Mr. Khandeparkar points out that there
should be a timeline to pay the cost and should be made a condition
precedent. The request is accepted.
Sumedh 6-ial-27453-2023-J.doc
32) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners requests for four
weeks time to pay cost. The request is accepted.
33) The aforesaid costs be paid as a condition precedent
within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the
present Judgment on the website of the Bombay High Court.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
