Bombay High Court: In the present petition, the petitioner sought review of an earlier order, claiming wrongful denial of a rehabilitation tenement and rent under a slum redevelopment scheme. She alleged that Pioneer India Developers (P) Ltd. (‘Developer’) had misattributed a transit room meant for a Trust, and that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’) failed to correct the error, resulting in the denial of her residential entitlement. The Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata*, JJ., while dismissing the petition, held that the pleadings revealed suppression of material facts and selective disclosure intended to mislead the Court into granting reliefs to which the petitioner was not entitled. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs 5 Lakh to the Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.
Background:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking (a) a direction to the respondents to allot a rehabilitation tenement under the slum scheme based on her eligibility in Annexure-II for her residential structure, and (b) arrears of rent for temporary transit accommodation from 2009. She pointed out that rehab buildings were ready and allotment had commenced, but despite repeated requests, no tenement was allotted. She feared that once allotment was completed, she would be permanently deprived of her entitlement.
She submitted that the Developer in its Affidavit dated 05-02-2024, falsely claimed that Room No. G3 in Building A/1/4 was allotted to her as transit accommodation. She clarified that Room No. G3 was allotted to Maulana Azad Social & Cultural Association Sanskar Urdu High School (‘Trust’), which appeared separately in Annexure-II for a non-residential structure. The Trust was allotted both Room No. G3 and Room No. G6. She also argued that the Court failed to verify this and did not allow her to file a rejoinder with supporting documents.
She further submitted that the Developer’s allegations lacked documentary support, while the record showed she was declared eligible for a residential structure in 2009, and the rooms in question were allotted to the School in 2003. She was eligible for two structures, one residential and one commercial and had already received the commercial tenement. However, the Developer conflated her residential entitlement with that of the Trust, depriving her of the residential rehab tenement.
In response, the Developer submitted that the petitioner was allotted Rooms G3 and G6 and was in possession of three premises. It was pointed out that Room No. G6 had not been returned, even though the Trust was allotted temporary accommodation in Building D1. The Developer argued that both the original and review petitions suffered from suppression of material facts and that no error apparent on the face of the order was shown.
The SRA supported this position, confirming that both the petitioner and the Trust were eligible for permanent alternate accommodation but asserting that the petitioner failed to return the third premises despite being allotted temporary accommodation in Building D1. Therefore, it was contended that the review petition was meritless and deserved dismissal.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court perused the entire record and found complete agreement with the impugned judgment dated 08-02-2024. The Court observed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts while portraying herself as a senior citizen in poor health, whereas documents demonstrated she was a practicing doctor. The Court highlighted that she was in possession of three structures, occupying over 2,200 sq. ft. in the slum, used respectively as a residence, clinic, and a school run by the Trust of which she was the Chairperson, as evident from her own pleadings.
The Court found no justification for her failure to disclose these facts and noted she had deliberately filed two petitions under the pretext of asserting rights of two “independent entities,” while claiming multiple entitlements. The Court further noted that her initial entry upon the land was unauthorised. While she emphasised Room No. G3 was allotted to the Trust, she suppressed the allotment of Room No. G6 and temporary accommodation in Building D1 provided under the SRA’s order dated 04-12-2019. The Court also observed that she failed to disclose her commercial entitlement which was allotted to her as early as 25-02-2006.
The Court emphasized that the pleadings in the petition revealed suppression of material facts and selective disclosure intended to mislead the Court into granting reliefs to which the petitioner was not entitled. Such conduct amounted to abuse of process and, if unchecked, would have undermined the Court’s duty to dispense justice.
The Court observed that the petitioner had made false statements, including the assertion that she was residing at the mercy of her parents. On the contrary, she claimed to be a doctor and had encroached upon prime land. She obtained residential, commercial, and school premises and suffered no deprivation. Despite receiving Rooms G3 and G6, temporary premises in Building D1, and Shop No. 46, she suppressed facts, including refusal to return Room No. G6. These suppressions disentitled her to any relief.
The Court found it unbelievable that the petitioner, who claimed deprivation of alternate accommodation or rent since 2009, remained silent until 2022. The Court held that the evidence produced to establish occupation was fabricated, with suspicious and ex facie bogus receipts issued to unnamed individuals for “poultry songs.” The Court concluded that the entire claim was built on falsehood.
The Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’) and the SRA to conduct an inquiry into how the Trust was permitted to run a school in a slum with 150 students. The inquiry was to ascertain whether requisite permissions were obtained from the BMC and whether the Fire Department had granted a fire NOC. The Court noted the dangers posed to young children and the apparent inaction of the authorities in allowing such activities in unsafe and unauthorised structures.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the review petition with costs of Rs 5,00,000 to be paid by the petitioner to the Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment. Upon failure to pay, the Collector, Mumbai was directed to recover the amount under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as arrears of land revenue and may attach and sell the petitioner’s properties within three months. Consequently, upon recovery, the amount was to be paid to the Welfare Fund within two weeks.
Further, the Court directed the Registry to issue a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against her. The Show Cause Notice was made returnable on 13-11-2025, and the matter was listed for compliance of the judgment on the same date.
[Mumtaz H. Khoja v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Review Petition No. 18 of 2025, decided on 16-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Kamal Khata
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aseem Naphade a/w. Adv. Saurabh Utangale, Adv. Vedant Joshi i/by Adv. Rohan Sawant for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Ravleen Sabharwal i/by R.S. Justicia Law Chambers
Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Adv. Mayur Singh, Adv. Santosh Pathak, Adv. Deepesh Kadam