Bombay High Court
Karimulla Nurulla Khan vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority Through ... on 30 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
904.DOC
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Digitally signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
LAXMI SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2025.10.01
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
19:31:04 +0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27073 OF 2025
Karimulla Nurulla Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Akash Rebello a/w Nitesh Achary & A. S.Bhogil for Petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Srivastav a/w Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent SRA.
Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Kewal Ahiya for Intervenor-Farida Samir Shaikh.
Mr. Arman Parve for Intervenor.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 30th September 2025
P.C.
1. This is another Petition reaching the Court in regard to the 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme' which was undertaken by the Developer - HDIL. The building in question is situated at the Mumbai-Bandra Kurla Complex, described as Building No.11. In regard to several illegalities in the nature of illegal allotments and unauthorised occupation of slum tenements as made by the Developer or the tenements being sold to those who are not eligible to occupy such tenements, contrary to the Rules and Regulations in regard to the transfer of the tenements as prescribed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) were before the Court in the proceedings in Writ Petition No. 3464 of 2022 (Shakir Ahmad Shah Vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.). It is in such context an order dated 8 th August 2025 was passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shakir Ahmad Page 1 of 8 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC Shah Vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. (supra) in which the following observations were made:-
"6. Before parting, as a Constitutional Court, we cannot shut our eyes to the gross illegalities which have taken place insofar as the slum dwellers who are entitled to permanent alternate accommodation being left suffering in the manner the petitioner has suffered. For almost 13 years he was deprived of the benefit of the commercial tenement. The loss which he has suffered by such deprivation, cannot be imagined or quantified. However, as to why such illegality ought to perpetuate and be not addressed in a timely manner by the concerned officials of the SRA is the question. Certainly this case is an eye opener if not for the officials of the SRA, which the Chief Executive Officer would be required to consider, to be an example of how illegality perpetuates. Certainly such state of affairs cannot emerge unless there is a tacit approval to such illegality at the hands of concerned officials of the SRA, who for reasons best known to them, overlook such illegalities of unauthorized and illegal occupants enjoying SRA tenements, depriving those who are legitimately allotted these tenements under the slum scheme in question. As in the facts of the present case, for years together, genuine allottees cannot be deprived of the fruits of the allotments merely for the reason that illegal occupants, under the blessings of the concerned officials and illegalities of the developers, permit illegal occupation of such tenements entitled to others. It also cannot be that only after litigation on such issue and intervention of the Court or different authorities like GRC/AGRC, such issues are being attended. This appears to be the usual mantra. There is a gross breach of legal and constitutional rights of the citizens when they are deprived of their legitimately allotted tenements. This apart, valuable rights conferred under Slum Rehabilitation Act read with Development Control Regulation 33(10) are being openly flouted by such deprivation of the legitimate claim. Certainly such illegalities amount to violation of the rights under Article 14 read with Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
7. We, accordingly, direct the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to undertake an enquiry as to who are the officers in the SRA who are responsible for not taking action on illegal occupation of SRA tenements allotted to those slum dwellers who are named in the Annexure-II to be entitled for a Permanent Alternate Accommodation and as to Page 2 of 8 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC why such officers ought not to be proceeded for such gross illegalities/inaction, and more importantly those who are responsible for brazen violation of the fundamental and constitutional rights of the slum dwellers.
8. We also direct that an enquiry be ordered in respect of the illegalities as noticed by us against the officials who were concerned with the project in question and subject matter of the present proceedings, and an appropriate action in accordance with law be initiated against such officers if so found to be involved in the illegalities. This more particularly that such lawlessness, breach of fundamental rights and the hardship which has been faced by the citizens cannot be overlooked and is required to be redressed in the manner known to law. We would also observe that no public official is permitted to discharge his duties in a manner which would violate the fundamental and legal rights guaranteed to the citizens and/or discharging their duties in open abuse of the powers, authority and the jurisdiction vested in them which is required to be exercised in public interest. All such powers are coupled with onerous obligations, duties and responsibilities to be discharged for pubic good and in public interest. However, we find that lawful actions to be taken and adhered in such matters is the last priority and illegality of an extent which cannot be confined to words, is what is being nurtured and perpetuated bringing a situation of no rule of law in the administration of Slum Rehabilitation Authority. If a welfare legislation is being abused in such manner, in connivance with the developers and other persons who are interested in only making money on illegality, it is better that such schemes are not vested with such officials.
9. We could not have stopped in not making the aforesaid observations, as case after case we come across such gross illegalities, in the slum rehabilitation projects, which are also echoed in several judgments rendered by this Court and including the serious observations as made by the Supreme Court in the case of Yash Developers vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the proceedings of which are pending before this Court. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department is, therefore, required to act expeditiously so as to bring about an appropriate regime of rule of law being followed and very meticulously insofar as the slum schemes are concerned."
(emphasis supplied) Page 3 of 8 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC
2. The other proceedings before this Court was Writ Petition 1397/2024 (Ahmed Hussain, son of Majibullah Khan & Anr. Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.) wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court rendered Judgment and order dated 8th August 2025, which also pertained to the very building wherein considering the several illegalities as noted by this Court. The Court made the following observations:-
"13. Needless to observe that those occupants in the unauthorized building who are eligible slum dwellers, would be required to be considered for allotment of permanent alternate accommodation in the pool of tenements which are available with the SRA and their rights for entitlement to a legitimate tenement need to be recognized by the SRA.
14. Further those who are rank illegal occupants can in no manner be entitled to occupy slum tenements. They would have no legal right to remain in occupation of the slum tenements. They need to be evicted as per law.
16. We observe that further appropriate action in accordance with law would be required to be taken by the Chief Executive Officer in regard to all the illegalities in respect of unauthorized occupation of the slum tenements and which has deprived the slum dwellers who are legitimately entitled to be put in possession of their allotted tenements. The eligible slum dwellers who have so far not been granted the possession of their tenements ought to be immediately granted possession of the tenements, as it is already delayed for more than 13 years. Appropriate steps in that regard be taken by evicting those who are in unauthorized occupation, so that these legitimately entitled slum dwellers whose names were already notified in Annexure II and allotment orders issued to them, are not kept deprived of the benefits of the allotments as made in their favour. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
17. Needless to observe that our directions in the order passed today in Writ Petition No. 3646 of 2022 in the case of Shakir Ahmad Shah vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. in regard to the enquiry being undertaken by the Principal Secretary Urban Development Department shall also apply in the present proceedings and for compliance, this petition also be listed along Page 4 of 8 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC with companion petition writ petition after four weeks, i.e., on 8 September 2025.
18. Considering such ground realities in relation to the SRA projects, we also direct the Chief Executive Officer to undetake an immediate survey of all SRA projects in which there are complaints of illegal occupation of slum tenements irrespective of the fact whether such tenements need to come to the common pool of the SRA or to be categorized as surplus/Project Affected Persons or which are entitled to the legitimate allottees and who have not handed over the possession of such tenements. A project-wise lists of all the slum schemes/slum projects after such project be prepared and the action be taken in accordance with law against the illegal occupation."
(emphasis supplied)
3. The present Petition also raises grievances of Petitioner No.1, who is stated to be eligible for being allotted the commercial premises in the slum scheme in question and also Petitioner No.2 is similarly placed. It is the Petitioners' case that they are legitimately entitled for permanent alternate accommodation. However, the tenements which are allotted to the Petitioners are occupied by some persons, who are stated to be not the slum dwellers but illegal occupants. In our opinion, the orders passed by this Court on such issues in Shakir Ahmad Shah Vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. (supra) and Ahmed Hussain, son of Majibullah Khan & Anr. Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. (supra) certainly cover the issue, in the event the contention of the Petitioners is correct, that the occupants of these premises are illegal occupants having no legal rights.
4. This more particularly when qua the allotment of the commercial premises in favour of Petitioner No.1 is concerned, it is used for a hotel namely, "Hotel BKC Mannat" and in so far as Petitioner No.2 is concerned, another hotel namely, "Hotel Diamond" is being conducted in the said building. This is a matter of serious concern.
Page 5 of 8Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC
5. We cannot countenance that the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, merely because this Court directed the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to look into the issues has delayed taking actions against illegal occupants as repeatedly cases in regard to the HDIL Slum scheme cases are being brought before the Court.
6. On such contentions as raised on behalf of the Petitioners, we have also heard Mr. Kewal Ahiya and Mr. Parve, the learned counsel, who are representing the Interveners being the parties who are the persons in possession of the premises which are being claimed by the Petitioners i.e. the persons running these two hotels. We permit them to file appropriate intervention applications in the present proceedings.
7. According to Mr. Kewal Ahiya the premises which are being claimed by Petitioner No.1 are occupied by one Ms. Farida Samir Shaikh. In so far as the allotment of the premises to Petitioner No.2 (who is a legal heir of the original eligible allottee Late Rashid Ahmad Shah ) is concerned, it is informed by Mr. Parve, learned Counsel that one Ms. Zahida Gulam Hajrat Ali Khan, is in possession of the premises under the agreement dated 14th October 2004.
8. In such circumstances, whether these occupants are in legal occupation and/or are entitled under the Rules of SRA to occupy the premises would be required to be ascertained and placed on record of this Court. If such allottees have no legal rights, appropriate action against them would be required to be taken to evict these occupants.
9. We accordingly direct the Interveners to produce all their documents of entitlements to occupy the said premises before the Chief Executive Officer, who would assemble with the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) to hear the Petitioners on these documents and pass appropriate orders. The Petitioners are also permitted to attend the hearing at the relevant time.
Page 6 of 8Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC
10. Let such hearing be held on Friday i.e. 3rd October, 2025 at 3.00 pm in the office of the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. After hearing all the parties, the said Panel shall pass appropriate orders, determining the legality of the occupation of the Interveners in regard to the claim being made by the Petitioners. Let the orders to be passed be placed on record of this Court on or before the adjourned date of the hearing.
11. Needless to observe that insofar as the other illegal occupants are concerned, the Chief Executive Officer needs to take appropriate actions as per law, so that the wheels to weed out such illegalities which are set into motion under the orders passed by this Court and as noted above ought not to halt on any consideration. The compliance report interim/final in that regard is required to be placed before the Court.
12. We would also intend to hear from the State Government as to what actions have been taken by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department in that regard.
13. We accordingly direct the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to place affidavit of the actions which are proposed to be taken on the proposal which has been received by the Chief Executive Officer.
14. We have a serious concern in making the above observations although in the present proceedings, as an impression is gathered, that only when the proceedings are before the Court, the Officials are acting and only that such illegalities are being addressed. If at all actions are taken, they need to be brought to notice of the Court, so that such actions can be referred in the orders being passed by the Court recognizing the steps being taken by the SRA, so that there is a positive way forward on these illegalities, which are rampantly taking place in regard to the slum tenements.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, we adjourn the present proceedings for two weeks FOB.
Page 7 of 8Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::
904.DOC
16. Let the affidavits including of the designated Officer be placed on record in regard to the concerns and orders passed hereinabove.
17. List the proceedings along with Writ Petition No. 3464 of 2022 (Shakir Ahmad Shah Vs. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.) and Writ Petition 1397 of 2024 (Ahmed Hussain, son of Majibullah Khan & Anr. Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.) on 15th October 2025.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 8 of 8 Laxmi ::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2025 21:57:47 :::