Bombay High Court
Ayyub Ismail Khan vs The Grievance Redressal Committee And 7 ... on 10 December, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC
2025:BHC-OS:26982-DB
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.01.01
13:30:25
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PERJURY PETITION NO. 4 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3055 OF 2018
Ayyub Ismail Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
The Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Ms Bushra Sayed i/by Altaf Khan, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/by Ms. Komal Punjabi, for BMC.
Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP, for the State.
Mr. Jagdish Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent No. 6, SRA.
Ms. Leena Shah i/by Ms. Shah and Furia Associates, for Respondent No. 4.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 10 DECEMBER 2025
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner who has moved this perjury petition praying that this Court holds an inquiry as per the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by recording a finding on the Map enclosed and marked as 'Exhibit-F' in Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018, which came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 31 July 2019. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that this Court appoint an Officer to file the complaint as per the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to lodge a complaint against the respondents before the Criminal Court, who are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 209 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is prayed that they be Page 1 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC accordingly prosecuted and contempt proceedings be also initiated against them. The prayers made in this notice are required to be noted, which read thus:
"A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold an inquiry as provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and to record finding about the Map enclosed and marked as 'Exhibit-F' with W.P. No. 3055 of 2018 whether it was available in the records of the SRA or not and whether during hearing on 31st July 2018, the Respondent cum proposed contemnors willingly, knowingly hided that Map containing premises "88A" to be produced before this Hon'ble Court and after recording finding on this issue, this Hon'ble Court to file the Complaint under Section 195(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., to lodge a Complaint against the Respondent cum proposed Contemnors for having committed offences under Section 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200, 209 r/w Section 34 of IPC for persecuting the Respondent cum proposed Contemnors in accordance with law.
B] Cost of this Perjury Petition be provided for;
C] And for such further Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to pass in the interest of justice in given facts and circumstances of the present case".
2. At the outset, we may observe that the present notice is a gross abuse of the process of law, to say the least. It also appears that the applicant has intended to overreach the order passed by this Court not only in Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018 which not only came to be dismissed by order dated 31 July 2019, but further also a Review Petition being dismissed and thereafter a Special Leave Petition filed against such orders being dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 8 th January 2020 passed on Special Leave Petition (civil) Diary No. 40295 of 2019.
3. We note the necessary facts in regard to the petitioner having approached the Court in Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018 assailing an eviction order dated 17 May 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority on an appeal filed under section 35(1A) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Slums Act'). Accordingly, on detailed Page 2 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC reasons as set out in such order, the applicant/petitioner's claim of being an occupant of the premises and more particularly of structure No. 88(A) was rejected.
4. On 17 July 2019, on the aforesaid writ petition the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, calling for the original record.
"1. Despite service, none appear for respondent no.5 Society. The Chairman / Secretary of the Society to remain present on the adjourned date along with all the relevant documents pertaining to the scheme submitted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, including minutes of the meetings.
2. SRA also to produce its original records qua the subject matter of the present petition on the next date.
3. Stand over to 23rd July, 2017".
5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the original record was produced before the Court. After examining the original record as received by the SRA, the Court vide a detailed order dated 31 July 2019 (supra) rejected the petitioner's case in the writ petition.
6. The observations made in the said order are quite significant, more particularly when the Court considered the original records as produced before it, which contained all the relevant documents. The Court categorically recorded that the original map in question (at page 123 of the compilation as produced before the Court) did not show existence of a separate shed marked at 88-A, it only showed one structure marked at 88. The Court has also observed that the case of the petitioner was that his father along with other family members, were occupying the shed which was earmarked as 'No. 88'. The petitioner, however, alleged that he was occupying an independent structure adjacent to the shed of his father, which Page 3 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC according to him, was earmarked as 'No. 88A'. The respondents, including the Society, throughout contended that there was no such independent existence of shed 'No. 88A' and that the applicant-petitioner had merely extended the roof, and that, there was no habitable area where the petitioner could reside with his family. The said orders passed by the Court dismissing the petition are required to be noted, which read thus:
"1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority on an Appeal under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1971"). By the said order, giving detailed reasons, the petitioner's claim of being an occupant of a premises in slum area being developed under the said Act of 1971, came to be rejected.
2. The Appellate Authority has given elaborate reasons for not accepting the petitioner's presence as an occupant at the site when the area was declared as slum and the developer, then appointed for development, was allowed to propose the scheme. The case of the petitioner in short is that his father along with other family members was occupying a shed which was earmarked as 'No. 88' whereas the petitioner was occupying an independent structure adjacent to the shed of the father which was earmarked as 'No. 88A'. The other respondents as well as the society have contended throughout that there was no such independent existence of shed "88A"; that the petitioner had merely extended the roof and that there was no habitable area where he could reside with his family. According to them, the petitioner had put up a claim merely to earn resettlement premises.
3. The Appellate Authority found insufficient evidence of existence of the petitioner on the cut off date. It has noted that in the conveyance deed by the owner with the developer, he was shown to be occupant of area of 32.60 sq.ft. According to the Appellate Authority, the petitioner was residing with his father and he had merely created another door to the room to claim independent eligibility for allotment of residence. Other material produced by the petitioner was also taken into consideration. The Authority however found that the evidence on record did not establish independent existence of the petitioner's premises. This petition is therefore directed against the said order.
4. Previously, we had heard the petition from time to time trying to ascertain the truth through the rival contentions and material on record. One of the factors which had caught our eye was a map presented by the Page 4 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC petitioner at Exh. F at page 59 of the petition. As per the averments made in the petition, this map Exh. F was submitted by the landlord along with survey plan on 22.1.2009 which contained the premises in question earmarked as '88A'. If this was correct, this would be one of the significant factors which would some bearing on the petitioner's claim. We had, therefore, gone deeper into the subject and inquired with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. We had called for original records. Further affidavits were also allowed to be filed. Learned counsel for the SRA today produced before us the original file containing all documents presented by the developer with an application for permission to develop the area of the slum already declared. The map in question is found at page 123 of the compilation. This map does not show existence of separate shed marked as '88A'. It only shows one structure marked as '88'. In fact, there was no indication of any independent structure marked as '88A' which is in conflict with the map produced by the petitioner at Exh. F. The documents annexed with the said application of the development contained a list of occupants. It also at Sr. No. 88 shows the name of the father without there being any mention of the son occupying any independent structure. A copy of the map contained in the file of SRA is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Original file be returned.
5. Minutely examining such contemporaneous documents on record would show that the map produced by the petitioner at Exh. F is not found in the original records. The petitioner has shown his inability to explain the source of the said map at Exh. F. Though an attempt was made to suggest that the same was received by a friend of the petitioner in response to an application made under RTI Act, we have not found any evidence or documents in support of such assertion. We have also inquired with the society which was formed at the relevant time if there was any indication of the shed of the petitioner as an independent unit. We did not find such evidence. We notice that the petitioner had attended certain meetings of the society at the initial formative stage, however, that itself would not establish his presence as an independent occupant. Learned counsel for the Society had pointed out that all residents were allowed to participate which the petitioner, his father and brother also did. The petitioner's attempt therefore to demonstrate before us that the map Exh. F showed the existence of shed 88A which the development himself had produced before SRA stands falsified.
6. Independent of this map, we do not find any evidence on record to dislodge the factual findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. The list of occupants produced by the developer (Annexure II) at page 341 of the original records of the SRA also supports the case of the respondents.
7. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed".Page 5 of 9
Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC
7. The petitioner filed a Review Petition seeking review of the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench raising similar contention, being Review Petition (L) No. 58 of 2019. The petitioner's contention of the said structure having independently existed was re-agitated. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 9th October 2019, rejected the said Review Petition, inter alia, observing that in support of such prayer for review, admittedly, no additional ground or material was produced by the petitioner. All the grounds were virtually in the nature of rehearing of the entire Writ Petition which was already adjudicated. The said order passed in Review Petition is also required to be noted which reads thus:
"1. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner - original petitioner seeking recall / review of the order dated 31.7.2019 passed in O.S. Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2018. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged an order dated 17.5.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("the Act" for short). In the writ petition, the petitioner's main ground was that he was occupant of an independent premises marked as '88A' in a slum area and therefore, he ought to have been allotted alternate accommodation under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. We had heard the matter spanned over several dates. Documents were allowed to be brought on record by both the sides. Deficient documents were called from authorities. After such exercises, a detailed order was passed on 31.7.2019. Relevant portion of this order reads as under:-
"5. Minutely examining such contemporaneous documents on record would show that the map produced by the petitioner at Exh. F is not found in the original records. The petitioner has shown his inability to explain the source of the said map at Exh. F. Though an attempt was made to suggest that the same was received by a friend of the petitioner in response to an application made under RTI Act, we have not found any evidence or documents in support of such assertion. We have also inquired with the society which was formed at the relevant time if there was any indication of the shed of the petitioner as an independent unit. We did not find such evidence. We notice that the petitioner had attended certain meetings of the society at the initial formative stage, however, that itself would not establish his presence as an independent occupant. Learned counsel for the Society had pointed out that all residents were allowed to Page 6 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC participate which the petitioner, his father and brother also did. The petitioner's attempt therefore to demonstrate before us that the map Exh. F showed the existence of shed 88A which the development himself had produced before SRA stands falsified.
6. Independent of this map, we do not find any evidence on record to dislodge the factual findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order. The list of occupants produced by the developer (Annexure II) at page 341 of the original records of the SRA also supports the case of the respondents.
7. Under these circumstances, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for interference. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed."
In the review petition now filed before us, the sole prayer is for recall of the said order. In support of such prayer, hardly any additional ground or material is produced. All the grounds are virtually in the nature of rehearing of the entire petition which naturally in exercise of review jurisdiction, we are not inclined to do.
2. Learned counsel for the review petition, however, relied on an additional affidavit dated 5.10.2019 filed by the petitioner. Along with this affidavit, certain documents were sought to be brought on record. There is no clarity why such documents, despite prolong hearing in the petition, could not be previously brought on record. In terms of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Court would have power of review in its own order interalia on the ground that certain relevant information was not available or documents despite due diligence could not be brought on record. In the present case, both these requirements fail. Essentially the petitioner's request is for full fledged re-hearing of the entire matter after its disposal pursuant to the extensive hearing. No case of review / recall of the order is made out. Review petition is dismissed."
8. Both the aforesaid orders passed by this Court have attained finality in view of the Special Leave Petition filed by the applicant - petitioner having been rejected by the Supreme Court by an order dated 8 th January 2020.
9. It is on such backdrop, the petitioner is again before this Court, possibly to coerce the department, as seen from the averments made in the application to agree to its contention.
10. Before hearing of this application, considering the aforesaid glaring facts, we fairly indicated to the learned advocate for the petitioner that the issue in fact Page 7 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC would stand concluded in the concurrent orders being passed by the Division Bench, which were confirmed by the Supreme Court.
11. Accordingly, we have spent substantial judicial time in hearing the learned counsel for the applicant. As noted at the outset, the case of the applicant is relying on the RTI application made on 29 th December 2021 and a reply being received by the applicant along with a map on 28 th January 2022 which, according to the applicant, shows the existence of the structure, as alleged by the applicant. In our opinion, such reply to the RTI application can never form the basis to dislodge, or in any manner take away the effect of the judgment and order passed by the Court, which was after verifying the "original records" as received from the department. In our opinion, in the circumstances as described hereinabove, in fact, perjury proceedings question the wisdom of this Court in passing such orders which were passed after perusal and examination of the original records, as specifically recorded by the Division Bench.
12. The learned counsel has not delved into how such RTI application was made and who issued such copies. Also no substantive proceedings on such document were reported by the applicant on the basis of any of such document/ map. We are certain that on the basis of such subsequent information and in what matter the same was obtained, judicial orders cannot be upset, and when they have attained finality by rejection of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, so as to initiate perjury proceedings. The attempt of the applicant/petitioner is to question, the orders passed by this Court, under the garb of this perjury notice which is in the nature of a coercive proceeding. We are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction Page 8 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 ::: 3-PRP-4-2022.DOC in initiating any perjury proceedings in the present facts. Accordingly, we reject this application.
13. This notice however cannot be rejected simpliciter, considering the litigious nature of the applicant -petitioner who has not left a single stone unturned to not only assert, reassert and re-reassert his contentions which has attained finality on the Court perusing the original record by devicing this proceeding. The application is accordingly rejected with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) which be deposited with the State Treasury on or before 31 January 2026, failing which, it be recovered by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District as arrears of land revenue. For such purpose, warrant as per law be issued for recovery of such costs.
14. The petitioner is directed to submit all the details of his Aadhar Card and Bank Account etc. with the Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Bombay which be forwarded to the Collector, Mumbai, Suburban District, if so necessary, after 31 January 2026 for appropriate action to be taken in accordance with law for recovery of the amounts as directed.
15. Needless to observe that, in the event such amounts are deposited, the Collector is not required to initiate any recovery proceedings.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 9 of 9 Varsha ::: Uploaded on - 01/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2026 20:53:07 :::