Bombay High Court
SUPRIYA SUBHASH MOREversusTHE APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The Court allowed the petitioners' reliefs, held that the order of regularisation governs the occupation, and disposed of the petitions while leaving open the right of Respondent No.5 to challenge that order.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of occupants of flats managed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), filed writ petitions challenging eviction proceedings initiated by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and other respondents, asserting that they now have a valid order of regularisation in their favour. Respondent No.5, a complainant, contended that the petitioners remain illegal occupants and that the earlier eviction order dated 6 October 2025 must be enforced. The Court noted that an order of regularisation had already been passed, placing the petitioners in lawful occupation, and that the earlier eviction order was therefore superseded. However, the Court observed that the petitioners were not parties to the regularisation proceedings and that the order of regularisation could be challenged in accordance with law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioners' prayers (a) and (b), kept open the right of Respondent No.5 to contest the regularisation order, and disposed of the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are illegal occupants of the SRA flats despite the order of regularisation.
- Whether the earlier eviction order dated 6 October 2025 remains enforceable after the regularisation order.
- Whether Respondent No.5 has the right to challenge the order of regularisation.
Subjects
- eviction
- regularisation
- illegal occupation
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- writ petition
- order of regularisation
- challenge
- grievance redressal committee
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.