[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Subhash Ramharsh Gupta vs State Of Maharashtra Thoru. Govt ... on 23 February, 2026

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

2026:BHC-AS:9148-DB

                                                                                  -WP-6745-2025.DOC




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 6745 OF 2025


                      Subhash Ramharsh Gupta                                          ..Petitioner
                      An Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
                      Age: 60 Years, Residing at Flat No. 204,
                      4-B Binakumari SRA Cooperative Housing
                      Society, Roshanlal Patra Chawl,
                      Mulund (E), Mumbai - 400 081.

                             Versus

                      1. State of Maharashtra,                                    ...Respondent
                      Through Government Pleader
                      Having office at Bombay High Court.

                      2. The Honourable Grievance Redressal
                      Committee Appellate Authority (Mumbai
                      Suburban)
                      Having its office at 1st Floor, Old Custom House
                      Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Fort,
                      Mumbai 400 001.

ARUN
RAMCHANDRA            3. Additional Collector and Appellate Authority
SANKPAL
                      Mumbai Eastern Suburban District Industrial
Digitally signed by
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.02.23
                      Insurance Building
18:24:29 +0530
                      Opp: Churchgate Station,
                      Mumbai 400 020.

                      4. The Deputy Collector (Enc/R)
                      & Competent Authority Ghatkopar
                      S.R.A. Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
                      Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.

                      5. Chairman/Secretary
                      Binakumari SRA Cooperative Housing Society
                      Roshanlal Patra Chawl,
                      Mulund (E), Mumbai - 400 081.

                      ARS                                    1/13



                       ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2026 20:34:02 :::
                                                                     -WP-6745-2025.DOC



6. Developer, Shri Sunil Thomas,
M/s Omkar Builders and Developers
101, Vrundavan Society, Opp IIT Main Gate,
Mumbai - 400 076.

7. Hanuman Ramharsh Gupta,
203, New Sant Ramdas Society, Gavhanpada,
90 ft Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai - 400 081.

Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, with Mithilesh Tiwari, for the Petitioner.
Smt. S.D. Chipade, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Adv Priyanka Bhadrashete, for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. Hitesh P Mishra, for Respondent No. 7.

                                    CORAM:        N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                               RESERVED ON :      2nd FEBRUARY 2026
                         PRONOUNCED ON :          23rd FEBRUARY 2026.


JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of

the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails

the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 3 rd

January 2025 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee in Appeal

No. 111 of 2024, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against

an order dated 28th November 2022 passed by the Additional Collector

(E/R) and Appellate Authority, under Section 35 of the Maharashtra

Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971,

came to be dismissed by affirming the said order passed by the

Appellate Authority.

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

3. A Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under the name Binakumari SRA

Cooperative Housing Society ("Binakumari SRA CHSL") was

implemented on the parcel of lands bearing Survey Nos. 456, 457A,

459A, 459B, 460, 461, 463, 464, 465, 466, 469(Pt), situated at Mouje

Mulund, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai. In the Annexure II certified by the

Additional Collector (E&C), the name of Hanuman Ramharsh

Gupta( R7), who is the brother of the Petitioner, was included as an

eligible occupier.

4. The Petitioner claimed that the Petitioner has been in the

occupation and exclusive possession of the hut No. 43 at the Chawl,

known as Roshanlal Patra Chawl, situated on the subject lands.

Petitioner's mother, Smt. Amoladevi Gupta, was the original holder of

the said hut. The occupants of Roshanlal Patra Chawl formed a

cooperative housing society under the name and style of " Binakumari

SRA Cooperative Housing Society". Eventually, the slum rehabilitation

scheme was implemented on the subject lands. Amoladevi Ramharsh

Gupta, the mother of the Petitioner, became the member of the society.

By executing an Affidavit dated 15 th Mach 2000, Amoladevi transferred

her right, title and interest including the membership in, and the share

certificate issued by, the society in favour of the Petitioner.

5. Initially, the Petitioner was allowed temporary alternate

accommodation by the Developer (R6). Subsequently, the permanent

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

alternate accommodation i.e., Room No. 204 in rehab Building No.4.

was allotted to the Petitioner.

6. The Petitioner claimed that he has been in the continuous use and

occupation of the said permanent alternate accommodation and the

Petitioner has all the documents to demonstrate that he had been in the

possession of Room No. 43 in the Roshanlal Patra Chawl. However, in

the Annexute II at Sr. No. 43, the name of his brother Hanuman

Ramharsh Gupta (R7) has been wrongly inserted. Hence, the Petitioner

filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority to determine the

eligibility of the Petitioner.

7. Respondent No. 7 contested the claim of the Petitioner. It was

inter alia contended that the Respondent No..7's name has been rightly

included in the Annexure II. Reliance was placed on the documents like

Voters Id Card, Aadhar Card, Ration card and Voters list to substantiate

the claim of Respondent No. 7 that he had been in possession of the

said hut.

8. In the intervening period, Respondent No. 7 had filed a suit being

SC Suit No. 3715 of 2007 for declaration and perpetual injunction

against the Petitioner, the Developer (R6), the society (R5) and the SRA

in the City Civil Court alleging that, the Developer (D1 therein) had

forcibly evicted Respondent No.7 from the said hut and demolished the

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

structure. Respondent No. 7 had also sought a declaration that he was

entitled to permanent alternate accommodation, in lieu of the said hut.

9. By a judgment and order dated 30th April 2010, the said Suit was

dismissed holding inter alia that Respondent No.7-Plaintiff failed to

prove that the father of Respondent No. 7 and the Petitioner was the

holder of two rooms in Roshanlal Patra Chawl and he was forcibly

dispossessed of one of the rooms and that the Petitioner herein had

fraudulently got the name of Respondent No. 7 removed from Annexure

II, and obtained the benefits under the SR scheme.

10. Being aggrieved, Respondent No. 7 has preferred a First Appeal

before this Court, which is sub judice.

11. By an order dated 28th November 2022, the Appellate Authority

dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, holding that since in

the Annexure II, certified by the Competent Authority on 25 th October

1996, the name of Respondent No. 7 was included at Sr. No. 43, the

claim of the Petitioner based on the transfer of the right, title and

interest in the said hut by his mother, Amoladevi, after the Annexure II

came to be certified, was unsustainable. The Appellate Authority was of

the view that though an Appeal preferred by Respondent No.7 against

the judgment and decree in SC Suit No. 3715 of 2007 was sub-judice

before the High Court, yet, the Petitioner had preferred an Appeal

before the Appellate Authority, with a view to mislead the Authority.

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

12. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the

Grievance Redressal Committee ("GRC"). The GRC concurred with the

Appellate Authority on the point that, since Respondent No.7 was found

in possession of the subject hut during the survey and declared eligible

in the Annexure II, the transfer of the subject hut to the Petitioner by

Amoladevi was invalid. It was inter alia observed that the Petitioner

failed to produce any proof to establish the existence of independent

hut/structure before 1st January 2000 and that he was in the occupation

thereof.

13. Being further aggrieved the Petitioner has invoked the writ

jurisdiction.

14. I have heard Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner, Mr. Hitesh Mishra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent

No.7, Ms. Sulbha Chipade, the learned AGP for Respondent-State and

Ms. Priyanka Bhadrashete, the learned Counsel for Deputy Collector

(Enc/R) (R4). The learned Counsel took the Court through the

pleadings and material on record.

15. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted

that the Appellate Authority as well as GRC have decided the Appeals in

a mechanical manner. The Authorities have not at all considered the

documents placed on record which indicate that the Petitioner and his

mother, Amoladevi, have been in the occupation of the subject hut since

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

prior to 1st January 2000. All material documents placed on record by

the Petitioner were conveniently discarded by the Appellate Authority as

well as GRC.

16. Mr. Upadhyay would further submit that the fact that Respondent

No. 7 had instituted the Suit and, after a full-pledged trial, the said Suit

was dismissed by the City Civil Court was not properly appreciated by

the Authorities under the Slum Act. The learned Judge, City Civil Court,

has recorded categorical findings that the Petitioner failed to prove that

there were two rooms and he was dispossessed from one of the rooms.

There is no stay to the judgment and decree passed in SC Suit No. 3715

of 2007. In the face of the these judicial findings, the Authorities under

the Slum Act could not have over-reached their jurisdiction, submitted

Mr. Upadhyay.

17. Per contract, Mr. Hitesh Mishra, the leaned Counsel for

Respondent No. 8 stoutly supported the impugned order. It was

submitted that the Competent Authority had correctly included the

name of Respondent No. 7 in Annexure II on the basis of the documents

which indicated that Respondent No. 7 had been in the occupation of

the subject hut. Since the Annexure II was certified much prior to the

purported transfer of the right, title and interest in the subject hut by

Amoladevi, the mother of Petitioner and Respondent No. 7, in favour of

the Petitioner, the Authorities were within their rights in holding that

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

the said transfer, that too by way of an Affidavit, was of no legal

consequence. Though the name of Respondent No. 7 was shown in the

Annexure II, the Petitioner had got the permanent alternate

accommodation allotted in his name despite not being eligible for the

benefit under Binakumari SRA Scheme.

18. Mr. Mishra would submit that, the Appeal preferred by

Respondent No. 7 against the judgment and decree passed in SC Suit

awaits adjudication before this Court and, therefore, the Petitioner

cannot be permitted to take any mileage from the dismissal of the said

suit.

19. To start with, few uncontroverted facts deserve to be noted.

Incontrovertibly, in the Annexure II, certified by the Competent

Authority, the name of Respondent No. 7 was shown at Sr. No. 43. The

area of the hut was shown 26.81 sq mtrs and it was shown to be a

protected structure. Indisputably, the residents of Roshanlal Patra Chawl

formed a Cooperative Housing Society. Eventually Binakumari SRA

Scheme was implemented. The subject hut was demolished on 24 th

February 2007. It appears, the temporary alternate accommodation and

permanent alternate accommodation were allotted to the Petitioner. It is

not in dispute that the Respondent No.7 had instituted SC Suit No. 3715

of 2007 for declaration and perpetual injunction and the said Suit was

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

dismissed by judgment and order dated 30th April 2010. An Appeal

thereagainst is sub judice before the High Court.

20. It is also imperative to note the context in which the dispute has

arisen. The Petitioner is the brother of Respondent No. 7. It is the claim

of the Petitioner that the mother of the Petitioner, Amoladevi was the

original occupier and he has been residing in the subject hut along with

Amoladevi. In contrast, as emerges from the judgment in SC Suit No.

3715 of 2007, Respondent No. 7 claimed that the subject hut initially

stood in the name of the father of Petitioner and Respondent No. 7.

After the demise of their father, the said hut was divided in two parts

separated by a common wall.

21. Evidently, both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 claimed

occupation over the subject hut through mother and father, respectively.

It is not a case where a party is claiming exclusive occupation over the

subject premises in his own right.

22. It is in the aforesaid context, the controversy is required to be

appreciated. It is true, the name of Respondent No. 7 was included in

the Annexure II prepared by the Competent Authority. However, apart

from the said document, it appears, till the subject hut came to be

demolished, the rest of the documents leading to implementation of the

SR Scheme were executed in favour of Amoladevi, the mother of

Petitioner and Respondent No. 7. The Share Certificate was issued by

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

Binakumari SRA CHSL in favour of Amoladevi in the month of March

1995. The Agreement between the slum dweller and the developer was

executed in the name of Amoladevi on 6 th January 2003. Temporary

alternate accommodation Agreement was executed between the

developer, the cooperative housing society and the Petitioner, on 21 st

June 2007. Incontrovertibly, the permanent alternate accommodation

was also executed in favour of the Petitioner and the Room No. 204

came to be allotted in rehab Building No.4.

23. Moreover, the Court finds that, apart from the aforesaid material,

the Petitioner had placed on record documents like Ration card, Voter Id

Card and the Voters list which indicated that the Petitioner was residing

in the subject hut.

24. If it was a case of appraisal of the proof of documents in terms of

the Government Resolution dated 16th May 2015, the Authorities would

have been justified in determining the controversy on the basis of the

documents placed on record by the rival parties. However, as noted

above, the context could not have been lost sight of. Neither the

Petitioner nor the Resolution No. 7 claimed occupation over the subject

hut in their independent right. The Petitioner claimed the occupation

through his mother, whereas Respondent No. 7 asserted that, after the

demise of their father, the subject hut was divided into two parts and he

was in the occupation of one of those parts and the Petitioner the other.

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

25. In the aforesaid context, the judgment delivered by the City Civil

Court in SC Suit No. 3715 of 2007 assumes significance.The learned

Judge, City Civil Court has recorded categorical findings that

Respondent No. 7 failed to establish that he was dispossessed of the

part of the subject hut, as claimed. The learned Judge has further

recorded that it was an admitted position that there was only room in

Roshanlal patra chawl which after the death of the father of the

Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 was divided into two parts by erecting

a common wall by the Plaintiff (R7) and Defendant No. 4-Petitioner

herein. Thus, it cannot be said that there were two different rooms and

both the brothers were independently entitled to permanent alternate

accommodation by incorporation of their names in the slum

rehabilitation scheme.

26. In the face of the aforesaid findings, the Appellate Authority was

in error in holding that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner seeking

insertion of his name in the Annexure II, during the pendencey of the

Appeal against the said judgment and decree in SC Suit No. 3715 of

2007, was an attempt to mislead the Authority. On the contrary, the

judgment in SC Suit No. 3715 of 2007 prima facie demolished the claim

of Respondent No. 7 that he had been in exclusive possession and

enjoyment of the subject hut and he alone was entitled to the benefit

under the slum rehabilitation scheme.

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

27. The GRC has also failed to examine the controversy that arose for

consideration in a correct perspective.

28. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 3rd January 2025 passed

by the GRC as well as the order dated 28 th November 2022 passed by

the Competent Authority, without adverting to the relevant factors,

especially the import of the judgment of City Civil Court in SC Suit No.

3715 of 2007, cannot be sustained. Thus, those orders are required to

be quashed and set aside and Appeal No. 56 of 2022 remitted back to

the Appellate Authority for afresh consideration in the light of the

factors which are adverted to by this Court hereinabove.

29. Hence, the following order:

:ORDER:

       (i)     Petition stands partly allowed.

       (ii)    The impugned order dated 3rd January 2025 passed by the

GRC in Appeal No. 111 of 2024 as well as the order dated 28 th

November 2022 passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.

56 of 2022, stand quashed and set aside.

(iii) Consequently, all the notices and actions initiated by the

SRA for the eviction of the Petitioner from the subject premises

i.e., Flat No. 204, Building No. 4, Binakumari SRA CHSL, also

stand quashed and set aside.

-WP-6745-2025.DOC

(iv) Appeal No. 56 of 2022 stands remitted back to the

Appellate Authority for afresh decision in accordance with law

after considering the factors which are adverted to in this

judgment.

(v) The Appellate Authority is requested to hear and decide the

Appeal afresh, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within

a period of six months from the date of communication of this