ARUN BANTASINGH SAUDAversusASST. COMMISSIONER S WARD MUMBAI MAHANAGARJPALIKA AND 2 ORS.

2026:BHC-OS:20207

                                                                                  2.WP.825.2019.doc

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 825 OF 2019

            Arun Bantasingh Sauda                                       … Petitioner
                   V/s.
            Asst. Commissioner S Ward
            Mumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors.                             … Respondents

            Mr. Sunil J. Kanoujia for the Petitioner
            Dr. Dhruti Kapadia a/w. Sachin Vajale i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi and Ms Pallavi Thakur
            for Respondent - BMC
            Smt. Fatema Lakdawala, AGP for the Respondent-State.


                                               CORAM         : N. J. JAMADAR, J.

                                               DATE          : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the parties,

            heard finally.

            3.      The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 01/03/2018,

            passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), Mumbai Suburban, in

            Appeal No. 391 of 2017 and 455 of 2018 whereby the Appeal preferred by the

            Petitioner against the judgment and order dated 16/12/2017 passed by the Additional

            Collector and Appellate Authority in Slum Appeal No. 67 of 2017 came to be

            dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

            4.      The Appellate Authority rejected the Petitioner’s claim of independent


            Akn                                       1
                                                                       2.WP.825.2019.doc

eligibility in the slum rehabilitation scheme of Triveni Sangam Co-operative Society

Limited (subject SR Scheme). The Appellate Authority was of the view that there was

only one structure, in respect of which the benefit of slum rehabilitation was granted

to the mother of the Petitioner. In accordance with the governing DCR, if a family

was in the occupation of a structure, only one rehabilitation unit was admissible.

Since the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that there was an independent hut in the

name of the Petitioner and the Petitioner was in the occupation of the said hut since

prior to 01/01/2000, the claim of Petitioner for independent eligibility and

rehabilitation, came to be rejected.

5.     The AGRC found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate

Authority. After an independent appraisal of the material on record, the AGRC found

that the Petitioner failed to establish that he was in the occupation of independent

structure since prior to 01/01/2000 and the documents pressed into service on behalf

of the Petitioner were of the period subsequent to the cut-off date for the purpose of

determination of eligibility.

6.     The Petitioner has preferred this Petition assailing the legality and correctness

of the impugned order on the premise that the authorities have not properly

appreciated the documents which were tendered by the Petitioner to substantiate his

claim of independent eligibility. The documents were misconstrued.

7.     Affidavits-in-reply are filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-Municipal

Corporation, and Respondent No. 4.


Akn                                      2
                                                                        2.WP.825.2019.doc

8.     I have heard Mr. Sunil Kanoujia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.

Dhruti Kapadia, the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Fatema

Lakadawala, the learned AGP for Respondent No. 4, at some length.

9.     The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the

survey receipt to bolster up the submission that the survey receipt was issued in the

name of the Petitioner. Banking upon the said survey receipt, the electricity bill (Exh-

E) and the certificate issued by the electricity connection verification authority, the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the fact that the Petitioner had an

independent structure, apart from the one in respect of which the Petitioner's mother

was declared eligible, is borne out by the aforesaid documents.

10.    In opposition of this, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that

the Petitioner as well as his mother had relied upon the very same documents to claim

independent eligibility. The Petitioner has made an attempt to encroach upon the

subject land to buttress the case of existence of another independent structure. The

authorities below have arrived at the justifiable findings on the basis of the documents

placed on record. Thus, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court need not

interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the authorities.

11.    Learned AGP has also supplemented the submissions on behalf of the

Respondent No. 1.

12.    At the outset, it is necessary to note that, the Appellate Authority, in its order

dated 16/12/2017, has recorded that the subject Hut No. 33 came to be transferred to


Akn                                       3
                                                                         2.WP.825.2019.doc

the Petitioner from his grandfather. The documents which were relied upon by the

Petitioner, especially the electricity bills and the verification certificate, were of the

year 2017. Though the Hut No. 33 was in existence since prior to 01/01/2000, the

mother of the Petitioner was made eligible for the rehabilitation under the Slum

Rehabilitation Scheme. It was further noted         that, in accordance with the Slum

Rehabilitation policy, only one person in the family is entitled to rehabilitation unit.

13.    In the impugned order, especially in paragraph 6, the AGRC has adverted to

the aforesaid documents and arrived at the conclusion that none of the documents

pressed into service by the Petitioner pertained to the period prior to 01/01/2000.

14.    The aforesaid findings are essentially findings of fact based on the appreciation

of the material produced before the quasi-judicial authorities. The remit of the

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well

defined. This Court is not expected to review, re-appreciate and reweigh the

evidence/material produced before the Courts/Tribunals below and take a different

view on the same material. The High Court can interfere with the order passed by the

Courts and Tribunals only where it is demonstrated that the impugned order suffers

from of a patent illegality or perversity or has been passed in violation of principles of

natural justice or fundamental principles of judicial process. In absence of such

infirmities in the orders of the Courts/Tribunals below, the High Court would not be

justified in exercising the jurisdiction as an Appellate Court would do in disguise of

supervisory jurisdiction.


Akn                                        4
                                                                          2.WP.825.2019.doc

15.       A profitable reference in this context can be made to the Constitution Bench

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Diwan vs. Pradeep Kumar

Ranibala and another1 :

           “85. The power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is,
           however, supervisory and not appellate. It is settled law that this power
           of judicial Superintendence must be exercised sparingly, to keep
           subordinate courts and tribunals within the limits of their authority.
           When a Tribunal has acted within its jurisdiction, the High Court does
           not interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction unless
           there is grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law.
           Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised “in the cloak of an
           appeal in disguise”.

           86. In exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or
           judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
           the High Courts restrict interference to cases of patent error of law
           which go to the root of the decision; perversity; arbitrariness and/or
           unreasonableness; violation of principles of natural justice, lack of
           jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court does not re-
           assess or re-analyze the evidence and/or materials on record. Whether
           the High Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction to test a decision of
           the Rent Control Tribunal would depend on the facts and
           circumstances of the case. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court
           cannot be converted into an alternative appellate forum, just because
           there is no other provision of appeal in the eye of law.”
                                                            (emphasis supplied)


16.       On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the case at hand, the

documents placed on record by the Petitioner, prima facie, do not appear to have their

provenance prior to 1st January 2000. The fact that survey receipt pertains to the

structure, in respect of which a unit has already been allotted to the mother of the

Petitioner under the Slum Rehabilitation scheme, is of no avail to the Petitioner as

1     (2019) 20 SCC 143.

Akn                                          5
                                                                                               2.WP.825.2019.doc

                      under the scheme only one of the family members is entitled to a rehabilitation unit.

                      In the case at hand, the rest of the documents appear to have their origin subsequent to

                      01/01/2000. The authorities below have, thus, correctly appreciated the import of the

                      documents and arrived at a justifiable finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that

                      he was in possession of an independent structure since prior to 1 st January 2000. Thus,

                      in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason

                      to interfere with the impugned orders.

                      17.      Hence, the following order :

                                                                      ORDER

                                      (i)     The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

                                      (ii)    Rule discharged.

                                      (iii)   No costs.



                                                                               ( N. J. JAMADAR, J. )




                      Akn                                         6




Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/09/2026 18:25:26