Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, J.
Sagar Vinayak Bagade – Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No.33254 of 2024
Decided On : 31-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case background on poverty and housing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of petitioner's claims and context. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. procedural history of the case. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments and contentions put forth by parties. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's observations on unauthorized possession. (Para 22 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. legal reasoning on the application of the slums act. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. interpretation of section 3e. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 8. judgment on the relevance of precedents. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. abuse of judicial process and costs. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 10. conclusion and order for the petition. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1) This is a classic case in more ways than one.
2) This matter is “classic” because those who are assumed to be “poor” as residing in slums governed by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slums Act’) and are given free housing are, in fact, not genuinely poor—an inference evident from the factual narration and averments contained in the Petition.
3) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges an Order dated 1st October 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (‘AGRC’)- Respondent No.1. (in Appeal No.96 of 2024) (“impugned Order”). The impugned Order confirmed the Order dated 28th March 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector (Special Cell)-Respondent No.2 under Section 3 3 of the Slums Act and directed eviction of the occupant from a premises bearing Room No.323, 3rd Floor, Siddheshwar CHS Ltd., Siddharth Nagar, Aliyawar Jung Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-51 (“writ premises”). The writ premises was allotted to one Mr. Vishnu Waghmare (“original allottee”) a slum dweller under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (“SRS”).
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4) The Petitioner claims to be a Class IV employee working with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’). He claims to be a licensee in possession of the writ premises under a registered Leave and License Agreement (L&LA) executed with the original allottee, having paid a security deposit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash, which is recorded in the L&LA.
5) In contrast, Respondent No. 7 claims possession as a bonafide purchaser who has acquired title from the original allottee with due permissions from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (‘SRA’).
6) The Petitioner was residing with his grandmother late Mrs. Yashodhabai Bagade in adjoining tenements (Room Nos. 509 and 510) in the same building as the Mr. Waghmare. The Petitioner claims that his grandmother advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 16,50,000/- to the original allottee, for his catering business. As collateral, the original allottee executed a Leave and License Agreement dated 25th January 2019 and handed over possession of Room No. 323 to the Petitioner. The leave and license agreement for a period of three years i.e. from 1st February 2019 to 31st January 2022 as Mr Waghmare was expected to repay the loan within the stated period. Under a fresh agreement dated 20th July 2020, which was registered with Joint Sub Register, Andheri-05 as Document No. BDR16/4055/2020 an additional sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- was advanced to the Petitioner. The new leave and license agreement was for a period 1st February 2020 to 31st January 2022.
7) Subsequently, the Petitioner discovered that bank officials were visiting the premises to recover dues from the original allottee. It appears that, the original allottee had collected money from both parties. In this scenario, the Petitioner issued a legal notice for refund of the security deposit on 14th December 2020, followed by further notices. The original allottee, in his reply dated 18th January 2021, admitted to the agreement and the Petitioner’s possession and requested additional time to repay.
8) Instead of repaying the amounts, Mr. Waghmare lodged a complaint on at Kherwadi Police Station. The Petitioner responded on 30th June
The Slum Areas Act governs tenement transfer, retaining jurisdiction over properties even after 10 years, requiring authority permission for transfer, thereby affirming lawful eviction for unauthoriz....
The provisions of Section 19 of the Slums Act apply only to tenants-in-law and can be waived by the tenant if not pleaded or if the tenant's conduct disentitles him to the said defence.
Tenants under eviction orders maintain protection under S.19 of the Slum Areas Act, requiring necessary permissions for eviction proceedings.
State cannot acquire private land for slum rehabilitation without recognizing and allowing landowners' preferential rights to develop the land.
An application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, could not be treated as res judicata as same are applicable only to findings which are given after a full-fledged trial.
The court reaffirmed that the preferential right of a landowner over slum redevelopment schemes must be respected before any acquisition is initiated under relevant legislation.
The court affirmed that the Petitioners, claiming tribal allotment rights, failed to prove ownership of the land, thus upholding the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme's implementation and eviction orders.
The court established that the absence of a Section 3C declaration does not prevent the execution of slum rehabilitation schemes, and the delegation of eviction authority to the Tahsildar was valid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
