Bombay High Court
CHANDARAO V. JADDU AND 21 ORSversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND 11 ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
Eligibility disputes must be decided by the A.G.R.C., and the court will not entertain such challenges in the disposed contempt petition.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered several interim applications filed in a disposed contempt petition concerning the eligibility of slum dwellers for accommodation and rent/compensation under a redevelopment scheme. The court noted that certain applicants had been provided alternate premises and rent payments, while others were held ineligible. It held that challenges to eligibility cannot be entertained in the contempt petition and must be pursued before the Authority for Grievance Redressal Committee (A.G.R.C.). The court directed that any appeals to the A.G.R.C. be filed within four weeks, after which the developers cannot raise limitation objections, and urged the A.G.R.C. to decide the appeals within 12 weeks. All interim applications were consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can eligibility disputes of slum dwellers under the redevelopment scheme be adjudicated in a disposed contempt petition?
- Is the A.G.R.C. the appropriate forum for hearing challenges to eligibility and rent/compensation claims?
- May developers raise limitation objections if appeals are filed within the stipulated four‑week period?
Subjects
- contempt petition
- eligibility
- slum dwellers
- rent compensation
- interim application
- A.G.R.C.
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation
- rehabilitation tenements
Judgment
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2023
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2020
Chandarao V. Jaddu & Ors. .....Applicants
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & .....Respondents
Ors.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 22373 OF 2023
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2023
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2020
Dashrath Rajaram Sawant & Ors. .....Applicants
Versus
Chandarao V. Jaddu & Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 23166 OF 2023
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2023
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2020
Ramesh Hariba Patil & Ors. .....Applicants
Versus
Chandarao V. Jaddu & Ors. .....Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 22273 OF 2023
IN
Wakodikar 1/7
Digitally signed
RUPALI by RUPALI
RAJESH
RAJESH WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date: 2026.10.05
11:05:06 +0530
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2023
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 8 OF 2020
Sanjay Sitaram Mithbavkar & 25 Ors. .....Applicants
Versus
Chandarao V. Jaddu & Ors. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Enamul Khan, for the Applicant in IA/1292/2023,
IAL/22373/2023, IAL/23166/2026.
Mr. Sarosh Krishnan i/b Mr. Enamul Haq for the Applicant in
IAL/22273/2023.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent No.2 in
IA/1292/2023.
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate with Ms. Simantini Mohite a/w
Mr. A.R.Mishra for the Respondent No.2.
Smt. Usha Rahi, A.G.P for the Respondent – State.
Ms. R.M.Hajare for the Respondent – BMC.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants.
2. We are not referring to the facts in detail. Suffice it to observe
that order dated 17th May, 2021 in Interim Application (Lodging)
Wakodikar 2/7
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
No.8064/2020, this Court passed the following order :
“1. The amount payable towards arrears of rent /
compensation by the developer to the tenants was
forwarded to the Advocate for the Petitioners. However,
the tenants have not accepted the same on the ground
that the amount of arrears payable to them is much more
than what was sought to be paid to them. The said
amount will be again handed over to the Advocate for
the Petitioners before 19th May, 2021. The amount
forwarded to the Petitioners and accepted by them
towards arrears shall be without prejudice to the rights
and contentions of the parties. The monthly payments
due to tenants/slum dwellers who are held eligible as per
Annexure II, towards rent / compensation will be paid to
them by the developer from March 2021 upto 31 May,
2021 on or before 24th May, 2021. Thereafter, they will
be paid monthly rent / compensation on or before the
10th day of each month. All such amounts shall be paid
and accepted without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties. The developer undertakes to
make payments from March, 2021 onwards to the other
slum dwellers immediately upon them being held
eligible. The Competent Authority shall within a period
of two weeks from today decide the eligibility of the
Petitioners who are not held eligible, after considering
the further documents, if any, provided by the Advocate
for the Petitioners.
2. Stand over to 9th June, 2021.”
3. Several interim applications have been filed in a disposed of
contempt petition contending that the applicants therein are eligible
Wakodikar 3/7
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
slum dwellers and are entitled to the accommodation as well as
transit rent.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicants at some
length.
5. As indicated earlier, so far as the applicant in IA/1292/2023
are concerned, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamat appearing for the
developer submitted that after the disposal of the contempt petition,
the petitioner Nos.7, 14, 16, 17 and 19 have been handed over the
alternate premises in February, 2023. Even the rents till July, 2023
are paid to them. Subsequently, even the applicant No.4 Arjun
Krushna Rawale has been handed over the alternate accommodation
i.e. rehab tenament. Likewise, the applicant Nos.15, 18 and 20 have
been handed over the rehab tenaments. Learned Senior Advocate
submitted that this was because the eligibility was decided in their
favour.
6. So far as the applicant Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 to 13, 21 and 22 are
concerned, they are held to be not eligible. It is the contention of the
learned Counsel for the applicants that these applicants have been
Wakodikar 4/7
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
wrongly held to be ineligible. However, it is not possible for us to go
into this question in a disposed of contempt petition. If the
applicants have any grievance, it is for them to challenge their
ineligibility before the Competent Forum i.e. the A.G.R.C.
7. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12 th August, 2026 in
IA/3595/2024 in WP/1379/2024, where in respect of the very same
scheme, this Court passed the following order :
“1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Petition, the relief prayed by the
Petitioners is to direct the MCGM i.e. Competent
Authority to immediately submit certified copy of
the revised list of Annexure-II issued by MCGM, as
per the order of this Court dated 1" March, 2011
passed in the Writ Petition No. 1001 of 2010.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent No.6 submits that revised Annexure - II
was already issued in the year 2014. However,
according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioners,
the same is not revised Annexure II in terms of the
order, but it was in fact a supplementary Annexure.
4. We find that since in any case, Annexure II has
been issued by the MCGM, if the Petitioners have
any grievance regarding the same, the Petitioners
have an efficacious statutory remedy of approaching
the AGRC. We find that this Petition has been filed
Wakodikar 5/7
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
bonafide and therefore, even the learned Counsel for
the Respondents fairly submitted that in case, an
appeal is filed before the AGRC by the Petitioners
within a period of 4 weeks from today, the ground of
delay shall not be raised. We request the AGRC to
entertain the appeal on its own merits.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
No.6 raised an objection of locus of the Petitioners.
All these contentions and other contentions of other
parties are kept open to be raised before the AGRC.
6. With the above observations, Writ Petition is
disposed of.
7. In view of disposal of the petition, nothing
survives in the Interim Application. Interim
Application is disposed of accordingly.”
8. Thus, so far as eligibility is concerned, if the concerned
applicants have approached the A.G.R.C, we request the A.G.R.C to
decide the appeals, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within
a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order.
9. In respect of those applicants who have not yet filed the
appeals, it is open for such applicants to file appeals challenging their
ineligibility before the A.G.R.C. If the appeals are filed within a
period of four weeks, the developers shall not raise any objection of
limitation. Considering that the petitioners have been litigating for a
Wakodikar 6/7
25-IA-1292-2023.doc
considerable length of time, the A.G.R.C is requested to decide the
appeals expeditiously and preferably within the aforesaid period of
12 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.
10. The applicants as well as the developers to co-operate with the
A.G.R.C in the expeditious disposal of the said appeals and shall not
seek any adjournment.
11. All contentions as to the eligibility are kept open.
12. It is open for the applicants to make appropriate application for
interim reliefs before the A.G.R.C.
13. All the applications are disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar 7/7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.