Rukhsana Shaikh Legal Heirs Of Shahja ... vs State Of Maharashtra Summons To Be Govt ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 4368 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rukhsana Shaikh Legal Heirs Of Shahja ... vs State Of Maharashtra Summons To Be Govt ... on 29 April, 2026

Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak

                                                                   49-wpl 36220-25.doc

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36220 OF 2025

Rukhsana Shaikh
Legal Heirs of Shahja Shaukat Ali & Ors.                            ... Petitioners
         Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                         ... Respondents

                                    WITH
                      WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36480 OF 2025

Mohammad Hanif Abdhullah                                            ... Petitioner
       Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.                       ... Respondents
                                __________________________

Mr. Satish Muley a/w. Mr. Mosin Naik i/b Mr. Santosh Gupta for the
Petitioners.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar for the Respondent-BMC.
Smt. Lavina Kriplani, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Yashi Bhatt i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal for the Respondent-SRA.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Ms. Neha Mehta,
Ms. Aditya Miskita, Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Mr. Umair Merchant, Ms. Rima
Ajmerwalla i/b M/s. M. T. Miskita & Co. for Respondent No.4 in WPL
36220/25 and Respondent No.5 in WPL 36480/25.
Mr. Yuwraj D. Patil a/w Mr. Raman B. Jaybhaye for Respondent No.3.
                       __________________________

                                       CORAM      : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                    S. M. MODAK, JJ.

                                       DATED      : 29th APRIL, 2026.

P.C. :

1.       Heard learned counsel.

2. These petitions are taken out of turn and given a priority hearing as

learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the structures of the

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

petitioners is likely to be demolished in the course of the day. To

substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon

a notice dated 24th April, 2026 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

3. It is submitted that in respect of similarly situated slum dwellers, the

SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending and those set of slum

dwellers have been protected. It is submitted that the petitioners are

similarly situated and therefore even the petitioners should be protected

from the action of demolition. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13 th February, 2026

to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain

the SLP only because the matter is pending before this Court and has not

been finally decided.

4. The petitioners in this petition pray for the following reliefs:-

"a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to stay the operation and effect of Notice/SRA/Deputy Collector/kavi-25, Outward No. 44989/44990/44991 issued on dated 07.11.2025.

b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India to restrain the Respondent No.2 SRA from vacating the Petitioners from the subject premises;

c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India to stay the Orders dated 22.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 passed by the Respondent No.19;

d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India to stay the order dated 2710.2025 passed by the Respondent No.20 AGRC;

e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ or Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India to quash and set aside the Order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Respondent No.20 AGRC.

f) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, direction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of Constitution of India and direct the Respondent Authorities to maintain status quo and further direct the Respondent Authorities to implement the proposal of the Respondent No.7 dated 08.08.2025 within a reasonable period of time;

(g) To declare that the Petitioners being tenants in terms of DCR 33(5) and the relevant statutory provisions in particular the MHADA Act is entitled to be treated as tenants and to be provided rehabilitation in terms of DCR 33(5) which mandates a rehabilitation tenement of a minimum of 540 sq ft and that they are not liable to be treated as illegal slum dwellers in terms of the SRA Act entitled to a rehabilitation tenement of only 305 sq. ft. and further to declare that to treat them as slum dwellers is a fraud, a crime committed by the bureaucrats in connivance with the builders;

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

h) To declare that CTS 7643 is MHADA land liable to be developed by MHADA authorities in accordance with Rule 33(5) of the DCR read with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 2534/2018 and not one liable to be treated as slums to be developed under the SRA in terms of DCR Rule 33(10);

i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the false statement of Adv. Lad in order dated 04.01.2023 in para no.6, in IA (L) No. 38242 of 2022 in WP (L) No. 38237 of 2022 in Bombay High Court, statement made in order dated 08.05.2025, in paragraph 8 of the order in Writ Petition (st) No. 31690 of 2024 Bombay High Court and oral statement made by MHADA's advocate on 27.02.2025 in SLA © 1665 of 2023 before Hon'ble Supreme Court at para no.11 at 7th line the MHADA has played fraud with the tenants of MHADA started demolition on plot bearing CTS No. 7643."

5. This Court by the Order dated 19th November, 2025 recorded thus:-

"1. Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 36220 of 2025, states that the Petitioners are not pressing the Petition insofar as it pertains to the order dated 27 th October 2025 passed by the AGRC. Since the Petitioners have accepted the said order of the AGRC, we shall now proceed to hear the Petitioners on the remaining challenges.

2. As the reply affidavit on behalf of the SRA has been served on the Advocate for the Petitioner today, Ms. Ganediwala, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, seeks time to obtain instructions.

3. At her request, stand over to 25th November 2025 (HOB).

4. The earlier orders shall continue to remain in operation until the adjourned date of hearing.

5. In the meantime, MHADA shall also place on record its reply

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

affidavit in compliance with the order dated 14 th November 2025 and shall serve a copy of the same on the Advocate for the Petitioner on or before 22nd November 2025."

6. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 25 th November, 2025, this

Court passed the following Order:-

"1. Affidavit on behalf of MHADA is served on the advocate for the petitioners today.

2. On the objections as raised on behalf of the respondents, Ms. Ghanediwala, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 36220 of 2025 states that prayer clause (i) shall not be pressed. We accept the statement. Let prayer clause (i) be deleted during the course of the day.

3. We also note that order dated 27 October, 2025 passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee confirming the order passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by dismissing Writ Petition (L) No. 36707 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. The order dated 19 November, 2025 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 36707 of 2025 is placed on record. Thus, the said orders passed against the petitioners under Section 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slums Area have attained finality.

4. At this stage, we may observe that on 19 November, 2025 in regard to the orders passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee that the present petition would not be pressed was the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners. The said order reads thus:

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

"1. This Writ Petition challenges the Eviction Order dated 23rd July, 2025 passed by the Deputy Collector, SRA (Respondent No.2) and the Appellate Order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). These Orders were passed pursuant to Notices issued under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Slum Act').

2. The main contention of the Petitioners is that the SRA did not have jurisdiction to issue a notice under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act as there was no notification issued under Section 3C of the Slum Act. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that MHADA being the Planning Authority, SRA cannot issue any notification and they are entitled to redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also referred to a Circular dated 27th January, 2021. On these grounds, the Petitioners have sought setting aside of the impugned orders.

3. At the very outset it should be noted that the challenge in this Petition is to proceedings arising out of notices issued under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. In Andrade Motors Vs. Additional Collector 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 358, this Court has held that the challenge under these provisions is a very limited challenge, and that while considering such a challenge, the authority has no jurisdiction and authority to test the validity of the SRA scheme and letter of intent already issued. It is further held that the Authority under Section 33 of the Act is not empowered to interfere with the final sanctioned scheme. Hence, the scope of challenge in such proceedings is very limited.

4. As far as Circular dated 27th January, 2021 relied upon by the Petitioners is concerned, the same has been superseded by Circular dated 23rd May 2022. This has been held in a judgement of this Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Maharashtra 2025 SCC

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

Online Bom 2110.

5. Further, as far as the Petitioners' submission that the SRA does not have jurisdiction to issue a notice under Sections 33 and 38 as there is no Section 3C notification, is concerned, the CEO, SRA has issued a LoI under Section 12(10) of the Slum Act, as amended by Section 3D (H) of the Slum Act. Since the LoI is issued under the said amended Section 12(10), read with Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, the deeming provision under Regulation 33(10) is triggered, and because of the deeming provision being triggered, no separate declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Act is required.

6. This position has been confirmed by the judgements of this Court in i) Om Sai Darshan Vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 SCC Online Bom 480 ii) Rafique Abdul Sattar Sayyed & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 741 of 2010), iii) Ibrahim Abdullah Shaikh & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition (L) No. 15579 of 2023) and of (iv) Ritesh Trikamdas Patel & Ors. Vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 7630 of 2025) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 28th January, 2015 which is referred to at page 1012 of Volume III of the Affidavit-in-Reply of Respondent No.4.

7. For this reason, the submission of the Petitioners, that the SRA does not have jurisdiction to issue notices under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act as there is no Section 3C notification, cannot be accepted.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioners referred to a Notification dated 23rd May, 2018 at page 216 of the Petition.

From a perusal of the said Notification it is very clear that the same enables MHADA to take up outstanding projects and does not efface or impair an existing scheme where SRA is the planning authority.

9. Further, Mr. Lad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of MHADA, has drawn my attention to Regulation 2.8 of Regulation

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

33(10) and submitted that the NOC given by MHADA in 2005 and 2006 has not been challenged by the Petitioners. Further, the Petitioners are only pitch holders and not beneficiaries of any MHADA scheme. The Petitioner are encroachers on MHADA land. Further, the Petitioners have participated in the slum rehabilitation scheme and have been held eligible, and, therefore the Petitioners have no rights to raise the contentions in this Petition.

10. Further, Regulation 2.1 of Regulation 33(5) shows that the Petitioners can take the benefit of Regulation 33(5) if they are a part of any housing scheme. The Petitioners are not a part of any housing scheme but are pitch holders.

11. Further, I have perused the impugned orders. In the impugned Order of the AGRC dated 27th October, 2025, the AGRC has correctly dealt with all the contentions of the Petitioner. The AGRC has rightly held that in proceedings under Section 33/38 of the Slum Act, the authority has a limited scope and it cannot get into other details of the scheme. Further, it has been held that the authorities have to consider as to whether the demolition is necessary for re-development and whether the developer has made provisions for payment of transit rent and rehabilitation of the eligible slum dwellers. The AGRC has held that, in the present case, the order of the Deputy Collector, SRA, reveals that the demolition of structures is necessary for re-development and the Respondent developer has agreed to deposit the rent before demolition of structures and has also shown his willingness to rehabilitate the eligible slum dwellers, which includes the Petitioners.

12. The AGRC has further rightly held that the claim of the Petitioners regarding entitlement of development under Regulation 33(5) is not accepted by any authority or Court and despite the same the Petitioners were putting forth the said claim. Further, the AGRC, while upholding the order passed by the Deputy Collector, has held that the Executive Engineer, SRA, is directed to ensure,

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

while approving building plans, that in the event of any slum dwellers being held to be entitled for benefit of the area as per Regulation 33(5) of DCR, 1991, then the Developer shall comply with the same by effecting necessary modification in the building plans. In this manner, the Petitioners are protected.

13. Further, as can be seen from the Order of AGRC, the Scheme is an advanced stage. In these circumstances, if a stay is granted against the demolition of the structures of the Petitioners, then that would adversely affect the whole scheme and the other slum dwellers.

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

15. There will be no order as to costs."

5. In this view of the matter, it is clear that prayer clause (a) to

(f) would not survive. In the event, the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 19 November, 2025, the remedy of the petitioners is to resort to appropriate remedies as may be permissible in law.

6. What remains to be adjudicated in this petition is prayer clauses (g) and (h), which reads thus:

"g) To declare that the petitioners being tenants in terms of DCR 33(5) and the relevant statutory provisions in particular the MHADA Act is entitled to be treated as tenants and to be provided rehabilitation in terms of DCR 33(5) which mandates a rehabilitation tenement of a minimum of 540 sq.ft. and that they are not liable to be treated as illegal slumdwellers in terms of the SRA Act entitled to a rehabilitation tenement of only 305 sq.ft.

and further to declare that to treat them as slumdwellers is a fraud, a crime committed by the bureaucrats in connivance with the builders;

h) To declare that CTS 7643 is MHADA land liable to be developed by MHADA authorities in accordance with Rule 33(5) of the DCR read with the judgment of the Bombay High Court in

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

Writ Petition no. 2534/2018 and not one liable to be treated as slums to be developed under the SRA in terms of DCR Rule 33(10)."

7. We shall proceed to hear the parties on such prayers on the adjourned date of hearing.

8. We clarify that the orders of the learned Single Judge are clear. We have not granted any protection in the present proceedings.

9. Whichever affidavits the parties intend to file are taken on record.

10. Stand over to 16 December, 2025."

7. The aforesaid Order dated 25th November, 2025 was challenged

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No(s). 2949/2026 on

various grounds. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 pointed out from

the copy of the SLP that even the ground that petitioners are seeking parity

with those who have approached the Supreme Court is raised in the SLP.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the Order dated 13 th February, 2026

which reads thus:-

"The writ petition of the petitioners is still pending before the High Court and has not been finally decided.

In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of."

8. It is thus pertinent to note that in terms of the Order dated 25 th

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

November, 2025 passed by this Court, this Court has clearly observed that

what remains to be adjudicated in the present case is prayer clauses (g)

and (h). So far as the challenge to the Order of learned Single Judge dated

19th November, 2025 against the AGRC's Order is concerned, this Court

had left the liberty of the petitioners open to file appropriate proceedings.

The petitioners have not filed any proceedings challenging the Order.

9. In fact it is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not challenged

the AGRC's Order. However, learned counsel for the petitioners says that

since other similar situated occupants had challenged the Order of the

AGRC before the learned Single Judge and now that they are protected by

the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the ground of parity

even the petitioners are entitled to be protected.

10. What the petitioners want us to do is to stay the demolition

consequent to the notice dated 24th April, 2026 issued by SRA. The Order

passed by the competent authority so far as the present petition is

concerned has attained finality since there is no challenge to the said Order

or that of AGRC at the behest of the petitioners. The remedy of the

petitioners is to resort to appropriate remedies against the Order of the

AGRC or the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 19th November, 2025.

It is not possible for us to grant any relief to the petitioners seeking stay to

the demolition in these proceedings which are now restricted only to

49-wpl 36220-25.doc

prayer clauses (g) and (h).

11. The reliefs sought by the petitioners staying the demolition is not in

aid of prayer clauses (g) and (h) which are different and independent

causes altogether. The notice of demolition dated 24 th April, 2026 which

has been issued is consequent to the Order of the competent authority

which so far as the petitioners are concerned, has attained finality as there

is no challenge to the Order passed by the AGRC by the present petitioners.

Merely because the AGRC's Order has been challenged by some other slum

dwellers before the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, is no

reason to grant any relief to the petitioners.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the

mandatory notice of 15 days is not given in terms of the SRA's policy.

However, this contention is not in the scope of this petition. The oral

request of the petitioners for grant of stay of the demolition on the basis of

notice dated 24th April, 2026 is rejected. It is, however, open for the

petitioners to resort to appropriate remedies available in law challenging

the notice dated 24th April, 2026. All contentions in that regard are kept

open.

13. List the petitions on 16th June, 2026.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)                                              (M. S. KARNIK, J.)