Bombay High Court
SANTANA ADOLF PINTOversusTHE APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The existence of a regularisation order makes the petitioners lawful occupants, and any challenge to that order must be pursued separately, leading to the allowance of the petitioners' relief.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of occupants, challenged eviction proceedings initiated by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on the ground that a regularisation order had already been passed in their favour. Respondent No.5, the complainant, argued that the occupants were illegal and sought to enforce the earlier eviction order. The Court noted that the regularisation order, though not contested in the present petitions, rendered the occupants lawful, and any challenge to that order must be brought through appropriate legal proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to relief under their prayer clauses and that the respondent’s right to challenge the regularisation order remained open. The petitions were therefore allowed and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are illegal occupants subject to eviction by the SRA.
- Whether the existing regularisation order supersedes the earlier eviction order.
- Whether Respondent No.5 may challenge the regularisation order in a separate proceeding.
Subjects
- illegal occupation
- regularisation order
- eviction
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- writ petition
- challenge of order
Judgment
16-wp 4550-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4550 OF 2025
P. V. Surendran … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2026
Allwyn Gilbert Monteiro … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4971 OF 2025
Sebastian Augustin Fernandes … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2026
Vibha Sarvesh Singh … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026
Santana Adolf Pinto … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
Amk 1/5
16-wp 4550-25.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4515 OF 2025
Robert Felix Dmello … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 841 OF 2026
Harcharan Singh Harjit Singh Hanjara … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 837 OF 2026
Supriya Ravindra Yerram … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 361 OF 2026
Anthony Augustin Fernandes … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2026
Rahim Abdul Jalil through POA Holder Atif Rahim … Petitioner
Shaikh
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
Amk 2/5
16-wp 4550-25.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2026
Damodar Annu Poojary … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2026
Supriya Subhash More … Petitioner
Versus
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Chandrakant Yadav for the Petitioners.
Mr. Anoop Patil for Respondent No.1-AGRC.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w. Ms. Aarushi Yadav for the Respondent-SRA.
Mr. Fakhruddin Khan i/b Ajaz Ahmed Ansari for Respondent No.5.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 30th APRIL, 2026.
P.C. :
1. These petitions involve common questions, hence by consent of
parties taken up for final disposal by a common order. We have heard
learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. Respondent No.5 is the complainant. Respondent No.5 says that the
petitioners are illegal occupants of the SRA flats. SRA therefore initiated
Amk 3/5
16-wp 4550-25.doc
proceedings for eviction. The case of the petitioners is that now they are in
lawful occupation of the premises since there is an Order of regularisation
in their favour. This is not denied by learned counsel for the SRA.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 invited our attention to Order
dated 6th November, 2025 passed by this Court. The Order relied is not
concerned with the present petitions and is in a different case altogether.
The Order reads thus:-
“1. In the light of the order dated 06 October, 2025, an action
which was required to be taken by the SRA in pursuance thereto
and more particularly as observed in paragraph 5 thereof, we are
informed by Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner that
instead of the action of eviction, a regularization order has been
passed in favour of the illegal occupants. This has really surprised
us. Mr. Sawant intends to place on record an additional affidavit.
Let the same be filed within one week from today. Copy of the
same be served on the advocate for the SRA.
2. We shall hear the parties on such issues on the adjourned
date of hearing.
3. In the meantime, our order dated 06 October 2025 in
regard to the eviction of the illegal occupants in accordance with
law as directed needs to be taken forward and complied with.
Compliance report be placed on record of this Court on the
adjourned date of hearing.
4. Stand over to 19 November 2025 (H.O.B.)”
4. The aforesaid Order is an interim Order. In the present facts, we
find that there is already an Order of regularisation. The petitioners are in
occupation of the premises. It is submitted that when the Order was
passed by the AGRC, the petitioners were not party to such proceedings.
Since the Order of regularisation has already been passed, the said Order
will have to be challenged by filing appropriate proceedings. In such view
Amk 4/5
16-wp 4550-25.doc
of the matter, liberty to respondent No.5 to challenge the Order of
regularisation, if he so desires is kept open. Obviously, the Order of
regularisation is subject to any challenge raised in accordance with law.
5. By keeping all contentions of respondent No.5 open to a challenge
the Order of regularisation, the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 5/5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.