Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36220 OF 2025 Rukhsana Shaikh, Legal heirs of Shahja Shaukat Ali & Ors ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 36480 OF 2025 Mohammad Hanif Abdhullan ...Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee Western Suburb, SRA & Ors. ...Respondents _______

Ms. Pushpa Ganediwala a/w Anshu Agrawal, Mr. Santosh Gupte, Ankit Rathod for Petitioner in WPL/36220/2025.

Ms. Aarti R. Dharamsey for Petitioner in WPL/36480/2025.

Mr. Yuwraj D. Patil a/w Raman B. Jaybhoye for R. No. 3 in WPL/36220/2023 and for R. No. 6 in WPL/36480/2025.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Ms. Neha Mehta, Mr. Aditya Miskita, Mr. Umair Merchant, Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Ms. Kanak Purohit and Ms. Rima Ajmerwalla i/b M. T. Miskita & Co. for R. No. 4 in WPL/36220/2023 and for R. No. 5 in WPL/36480/2025.

Mr. Saurabh Utangale a/w Ms. Mansi Pawar i/b Utangale & Co. For R. No. 5 MHADA in WPL/36220/2025.

Ms. Lavina Kriplani, AGP for State.

Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Ms. Aarushi Yadav for SRA/AGRC for R. No. 2, 19 and 20 in WPL/36220/2023 and for R. No. 1 To 3 in WPL/36480/2025.

Mr. Junid Khan for R. No. 10 & 11 in WPL/36220/2025.

Ms. Pushpa Yadav i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for BMC.

_______

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 25 November 2025 P.C.

1. Affidavit on behalf of MHADA is served on the advocate for the petitioners today.

2. On the objections as raised on behalf of the respondents, Ms. Ghanediwala, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No. 36220 of 2025 states that prayer clause (i) shall not be pressed. We accept the statement. Let prayer clause (i) be deleted during the course of the day.

3. We also note that order dated 27 October, 2025 passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee confirming the order passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 have been confirmed by the learned Single Judge by dismissing Writ Petition (L) No. 36707 of 2025 filed by the petitioner. The order dated 19 November, 2025 passed by the Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 36707 of 2025 is placed on record. Thus, the said orders passed against the petitioners under Section 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slums Area have attained finality.

4. At this stage, we may observe that on 19 November, 2025 in regard to the orders passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee that the present petition would not be pressed was the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners. The said order reads thus:

“1. This Writ Petition challenges the Eviction Order dated 23^rd July, 2025 passed by the Deputy Collector, SRA (Respondent No.2) and the Appellate Order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). These Orders were passed pursuant to Notices issued under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Slum Act’).

2. The main contention of the Petitioners is that the SRA did not have jurisdiction to issue a notice under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act as there was no notification issued under Section 3C of the Slum Act. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that MHADA being the Planning Authority, SRA cannot issue any notification and they are entitled to redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also referred to a Circular dated 27th January, 2021. On these grounds, the Petitioners have sought setting aside of the impugned orders.

3. At the very outset it should be noted that the challenge in this Petition is to proceedings arising out of notices issued under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. In Andrade Motors Vs. Additional Collector 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 358, this Court has held that the