Bombay High Court
Sakharam Savlaram Choudhari vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on 3 October, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
501_WPL_31529_25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 31529 OF 2025
Sakharam Savlaram Choudhari and others ... Petitioners
vs.
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and others ... Respondents
Mr. Vijay Kurle a/w. Mr. Vikas Pawar, Ms. Sonal Manchekar and
Mr.Jayendra Manchekar for petitioners.
Ms. Aarushi Yadav, i/b. Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal for respondent Nos.2 and 3-
SRA.
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho,
Mr.Rishab Murali, Mr. Pankaj Uttaradhi and Mr. Sagar Hate for respondent
No.4-developer.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Vikram Garewal and Ms. Sabeena
Mahadik for respondent No.5-proposed society.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 03rd OCTOBER, 2025 P.C. : . Heard Mr. Kurle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 14.11.2025. Learned counsel waive notice on behalf of respective respondents.
3. This petition was mentioned in the morning for urgent listing, in the light of the fact that the contesting respondents had caused notices to be issued on 16.09.2025 and 29.09.2025, in pursuance of the order dated 03.09.2025 (the impugned order), passed by the respondent No.1-Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) for demolition of the structures with which the petitioners are concerned. The respondents, through their counsel, were also 1/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc present at the time of mentioning and it was confirmed that necessary machinery was already at the site to carry out the work of demolition. In that light, the present petition was directed to be taken up on production board at 03:00 p.m.
4. The respondent No.1 is the AGRC that passed the impugned order. Ms. Yadav represents respondent Nos.2 and 3. The contesting respondent No.4 i.e. the developer is represented by Mr.Sakhardande, learned senior counsel and Mr. Khandeparkar appears on behalf of contesting respondent No.5 i.e. the proposed society of the slum dwellers.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that urgent interim orders are necessary in the present petition, for the reason that the entire actions sought to be undertaken by the respondents are based on fraud and that there are litigations pending in competent Civil Courts, raising disputes which need to be resolved before the drastic action of demolition can be permitted. It is submitted that crucial aspects pertaining to fraud and pendency of civil litigation have been ignored by respondent No.1-AGRC, while dismissing the two appeals filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that in the present case, respondent No.4-developer has 'muscled' the consent of certain slum dwellers and that in reality, it cannot be said that majority of the slum dwellers have agreed for such redevelopment and that therefore, the actions undertaken by the respondents are unsustainable.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners are owners of the land as well as the structures and therefore, this aspect goes to the root of the matter and it demonstrates that respondent No.4-developer 2/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc cannot be permitted to use the authorities under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (SRA Act), to carry out such illegal acts, which would effectively deprive the petitioners of their legal and constitutional rights. It is sought to be impressed upon this Court that the SRA Act has been enacted with the object of serving public welfare and this has been judicially recognized in judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1634) and in the order passed by this Court (Coram: G. S. Patel & Neela Gokhale, JJ) in the case of Ameya Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Sai Pawan SRA CHSL and others [order dated 27.07.2023 passed in Review Petition (L) No.20289 of 2023 in Writ Petition No.1197 of 2023]. In support of the contention that fraud vitiates everything and that therefore, this Court ought to grant urgent interim reliefs in the present case, reliance is placed on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Gandhi [(2012) 1 SCC 476]; S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs, and others [(1994) 1 SCC 1] and Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A. Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat [(2014) 8 SCC 425].
7. During the course of arguments, attention of this Court was invited to an order passed by the City Civil Court, to contend that even the claim of ownership of respondent No.4-developer in the land in question, is in serious cloud of doubt and that therefore, the entire slum rehabilitation scheme has been vitiated. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the document on record at Exhibit C further shows that the purported consent of a number of individuals was obtained by fraud, thereby further vitiating the entire 3/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc scheme. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners tendered a communication dated 16.05.2018 sent by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Eviction) and Competent Authority, Mumbai to the Deputy Collector of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). By referring to certain contents of the said communication, it was alleged that the consent fraudulently obtained by respondent No.4-developer was looked into by the Competent Authority and having found the same to be doubtful, a fresh exercise took place, thereby indicating that claim of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that overwhelming majority of the slum dwellers have given consent, is rendered seriously doubtful. It was submitted that in such circumstances, respondent Nos.4 and 5 ought to be directed to file reply affidavits to justify their claims and till such time, urgent interim reliefs ought to be granted in favour of the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Sakhardande, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4-developer and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5-society, refuted the claims made on behalf of the petitioners.
9. It was impressed upon this Court that only the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, in respect of an appeal filed on their behalf, arising out of an order passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the SRA Act, can be entertained.
10. The contention pertaining to the appeal arising out of the order of declaration of slum passed as far back as on 08.07.2010, ought not to be considered at all. It was submitted that the said appeal was correctly rejected by respondent No.1-AGRC on the 4/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc ground that a challenge already raised, was rejected as far back as on 14.03.2012 and the present petitioners filed the appeal against the order dated 08.07.2010, after about 14 years.
11. It was submitted that the 18 petitioners before this Court are in a hopeless microscopic minority and they are making all efforts to somehow stall the slum rehabilitation scheme, in support of which an overwhelming majority of slum dwellers have given consent. They have vacated the premises and as mentioned in the impugned order, more than 500 structures have been already demolished. It is submitted that these petitioners are hellbent upon holding the majority of the slum dwellers to ransom and to somehow stall such rehabilitation scheme. It is alleged that the conduct of the petitioners goes against the object of the SRA Act, which is for public welfare.
12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.1 has taken care of the pendency of the said proceeding before the Civil Court and that, in fact, civil litigation initiated only by petitioner No.17, survives and therefore, no argument can be raised in that regard.
13. As regards the allegation of fraud, it is submitted that there is no substance in the said contention. It is submitted that therefore, this Court may not consider granting interim reliefs in favour of the petitioners.
14. A perusal of the prayer clauses in the petition shows that the petitioners are pressing for urgent interim reliefs seeking stay of the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by respondent No.1, which is an order dismissing two appeals filed on behalf of the petitioners.
5/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 :::501_WPL_31529_25.doc The petitioners are also praying for urgent stay to the operation and execution of notices dated 16.09.2025 and 29.09.2025, issued by respondent No.3-Deputy Collector of SRA, in pursuance of the impugned order.
15. Having heard the rival contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for grant of interim reliefs in the present petition. The reasons for rejecting interim reliefs are as follows:
(a) The petition shows that there are only 18 petitioners before this Court, who are opposing the slum rehabilitation scheme and challenging the impugned order. It is seen that there are total 660 members (slum dwellers) of respondent No.5-society of whom, 559 are found to be eligible and as a matter of fact, only 18 petitioners herein have raised challenge to the said slum rehabilitation scheme and the eviction notices.
(b) The aforesaid facts have been specifically recorded in the impugned order. It is also specifically recorded that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the order dated 08.07.2010 passed under Section 3C(1) of the SRA Act, is highly belated, for the reason that the challenge raised by way of Appeal bearing No.3 of 2024, was filed only by 5 slum dwellers and that too, after about 14 years of the said order being passed.
(c) It is also a matter of record that the said order passed under Section 3C(1) of the SRA Act for declaration of slum, was earlier challenged and the said challenge was repulsed, as far back as on 14.03.2012. There was no further challenge raised to the same and hence, it can be said that the said declaration has already attained finality. The belated challenge raised on behalf 6/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc of 5 slum dwellers, was correctly repulsed by respondent No.1- AGRC in the impugned order.
(d) That leaves a serious challenge only to Appeal No.13 of 2025, filed by the 16 slum dwellers in respect of order passed by the competent authority for vacating the structures under Sections 33 and 38 of the SRA Act. Insofar as the said challenge is concerned, it is settled law laid down by this Court in a series of orders i.e. in the cases of Andrade Motors vs. Additional Collector (Eng./Rem) and Competent Authority and others (2009 SCC OnLine Bom 358), Jimmy Talakchand Savla and another vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and others (order dated 16.06.2025, passed in Writ Petition No.3836 of 2025), as also Ritesh Trikamdas Patel and others vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and others (order dated 27.06.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.7630 of 2025), holding that the scope of enquiry under the said proceedings is extremely narrow and the aggrieved persons cannot be permitted to open the challenge to even seek a declaration as against an order passed under Section 3C(1) of the SRA Act. Therefore, the challenge in the present petition also stands narrowed down to that extent.
(e) Within the narrow scope available for exercising jurisdiction to examine the proceedings initiated under Sections 33 and 38 of the SRA Act and the consequential orders passed by the authorities, this Court cannot permit the petitioners to open the scope far and wide even to allow contentions being raised pertaining to declaration issued under Section 3C(1) of the SRA Act, as far back as on 08.07.2010.
(f) As regards the question pertaining to the ownership rights of the petitioners and the same pending before the competent Civil 7/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc Court, suffice it to say that the respondent No.1-AGRC itself in the impugned order at paragraph No.90, has made observations that would inure to the benefit of the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 ignored the said contention, while passing the impugned order.
(g) There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioners may be the owners of the structures in question, which, in the first place, are illegal and in that sense, even if they are to be treated as owners of the structures, their rights were vanquished the moment the Letter of intent dated 20.05.2022 was issued, in pursuance of declaration passed on 08.07.2010.
(h) It is stated before this Court that in terms of the statutory requirements and the circulars issued by the SRA from time to time, respondent No.4-developer has deposited amounts towards rents to be paid to the slum dwellers. As regards the petitioners, it is specifically stated that in terms of the requirements of SRA, advance amounts towards rents are deposited.
(i) It is specifically recorded in paragraph No.88 of the impugned order that around 500 structures have been already demolished. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that an overwhelming majority of the slum dwellers are in favour of the slum rehabilitation scheme. Those found eligible have already vacated and a large number of structures are already demolished. The scheme is at an advanced stage of implementation and in such circumstances, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction would be loath to interfere with such findings of fact, which would effectively bring the scheme itself to a grinding halt. Prima facie, it is evident that rather than the 8/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc actions of the respondent Nos.4 and 5, it is the conduct of the petitioners that appears to be contrary to the object of the SRA Act.
(j) The Supreme Court, in such cases, including in the case of Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali and others vs. Tahsildar-I, Special Cell and others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 445), has taken judicial notice of the fact that when an overwhelming majority of the slum dwellers have given consent and the SRA scheme has reached an advanced stage, the Court ought not to interfere in the logical consequences of the scheme that follow. Hence, reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on the judgments in the cases of Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and Ameya Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shree Sai Pawan SRA CHSL and others (supra), cannot inure to their benefit, since the conduct of the petitioners themselves appears to be in the teeth of the object of the SRA Act.
(k) As regards reliance placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and others vs. Ramesh Gandhi (supra); S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRs, and others (supra) and Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A. Shaikh and others vs. State of Gujarat (supra), there cannot be any quarrel about the proposition that fraud vitiates everything. But the petitioners, at this belated stage, appear to be raising the contention regarding fraud, more as a mantra or incantation to extract an interim order from this Court and therefore, they have failed to convince this Court that the said position inures to their benefit.
16. This Court is convinced that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is passed on proper appreciation of the material on 9/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 ::: 501_WPL_31529_25.doc record. The petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case in their favour. In such a situation, any enquiries regarding balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not necessary. Yet, this Court is convinced that the aspects of balance of convenience and grave and irreparable loss, are in fact tilted in favour of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the slum dwellers, as overwhelming majority of the slum dwellers are waiting for rehabilitation, which cannot be injuncted at the behest of the 18 petitioners, who have approached this Court.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.
18. Reply affidavits on behalf of respondents be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder affidavit be filed within two weeks thereafter.
19. List on 14.11.2025.
(MANISH PITALE, J) Priya Kambli Digitally signed by PRIYA PRIYA Date:
KAMBLI KAMBLI 2025.10.04 13:43:41 +0530 10/10 ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2025 00:09:51 :::