905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11272 OF 2026 Sonya Chaitya Varthe and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. … Respondent Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Induprakash Tripathi i/by C.K.Tripathi and Co., for Petitioners. Ms. Tanaya Goswami (through VC) for AGRC. Ms. Rutuja Shedge i/by Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for SRA. Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Abhishek Kothari, Ms. Saloni Shah, Ms. Shivani Khanwilkar, Ms. Dhun Vinod Santosh i/by Khanwilkar and Shah Associates, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners assail the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 21 August 2026 in Appeal No.255 of 2026 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, - AGRC (R5), whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the order dated 19 June 2026 passed by the Deputy Collector – SRA (R2) directing the eviction of the Petitioners under the provisions of Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, came to be dismissed. SSP 1/7 2026:BHC-AS:36312 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc 3. The Petitioners claimed that they are the members of Schedule Tribe (ST). An area admeasuring 5931.80 sq. mtrs., along with the structures standing thereon, situated at Survey No.163, CTS No.128/A/7, Bunder Pakhadi, Kandivali, Mumbai (the subject premises) has been in the possession and occupation of the Petitioners and their predecessors in title, who were the protected tenants of the subject premises. The Petitioners claimed, on the Tiller’s day, the predecessors in title of the Petitioners became the deemed purchasers of the subject premises under the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the MT & AL Act, 1948). The names of the predecessors in title of the Petitioners have been mutated to the record of right of the subject land as the tenants thereof. Since the predecessors in title and, after their demise, the Petitioners have become the purchasers of the subject premises, the provisions contained in Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, prohibiting the transfer of the land to a non-tribal person without the prior permission of the District Collector are also attracted. Thus, the invocation of the provisions contained in the Slum Act, 1971 qua the subject premises was completely illegal. Resultantly, the order passed by the Respondent No.2 directing the petitioners to vacate their structures and deliver the possession of the subject premises without delving into the issues raised by the Petitioners is completely illegal. The AGRC has also not examined the issues raised by the SSP 2/7 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc Petitioners and has upheld the order of Respondent No.2 on untenable grounds. 4. Mr. Naphade, learned Counsel for the petitioners, invited attention of the court to the record of rights of the Survey No.163 (Exh.D), which, inter alia, records the name of the predecessors in title of the Petitioners as one of the tenants. Mr. Naphade would submit that, once the predecessors in title of the Petitioners were shown to be the tenants in respect of the subject premises on the Tiller’s day, the ownership in the land stands transferred to the tenant, as the tenant became the deemed purchaser. Thus, the provisions contained in Sections 32G and 32M of the MT and AL Act, 1948, were clearly attracted. This aspect has not been examined by the authorities, though specific grounds were raised. Therefore, till the claim of tenancy of the Petitioners, which is borne out by the record, is determined under Act, 1948, the possession of the Petitioners deserves to be protected. 5. Mr. Kapadia, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent No.4 countered the submissions on behalf of the Petitioners. It was urged that, the Petitioners have left no stone unturned to put hindrances in the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. Not only the Petitioners were provided an efficacious opportunity of hearing by the authorities under the Slum Act, 1971, but the Petitioners had also instituted proceedings before the National Commission for ST and instituted suit before the City Civil Court SSP 3/7 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc being L.C.Suit No.1045 of 2026, and failed to obtain any relief. The claim of the Petitioners that they are the tenants in respect of the subject premises has also been negatived by the revenue authorities. Attention of the Court was invited to a communication dated 19 November 2003, addressed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, that the subject premises is Government Waste Land, Khoti tenure has been abolished and the provisions of MT and AL Act, 1948 were not attracted to the subject premises. 6. I have perused the material on record. The AGRC declined to interfere with the order of eviction passed by the Respondent No.2, recording that the names of the Petitioners are included in the Annexure II at Sr. Nos.212, 210, 113 and 182, respectively. The report submitted by the DSLR – SRA dated 4 August 2026, on the basis of the site inspection conducted on 3 August 2026, revealed that the structures of the Petitioner No.2 – Ravi (Sr. No.182 in Annexure II) appeared to fall within the slum boundary; the structure of Santosh - Petitioner No.4 (Sr. No.213) appeared to be outside the slum boundary; and some portions of the the structures of the Petitioner No.3 – Ramesh (Sr. No.210) and Petitioner No.1 Sonya (Sr. No.212) lay outside the slum boundaries. Banking upon the Circular issued by the SRA dated 11 June 2023, which provides that, if more than 10% of the structure is situated within the boundary of the Slum Scheme, the Competent Authority shall determine the eligibility of the concerned hutment dwellers, the AGRC held SSP 4/7 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc that, the inclusion of the subject structures in the SR Scheme was justified. Since the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 have been declared eligible in the certified Annexure II and the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4, though declared ineligible in the year 2010, have not challenged the said declaration for over 16 years and as the SR scheme had reached an advanced stage; with 184 out of 231 structures already demolished and the respondent No.4 has deposited the transit rent for the Petitioners as well, the order of eviction passed by the Respondent No.2 under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, 1971, did not warrant interference, ruled AGRC. 7. If the controversy is appraised through the prism of the provisions of the Slum Act, 1971, no fault can be found with the impugned order as the Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 would be entitled to the benefits as admissible under the SR Scheme. Wheras, the Petitioner Nos.2 and 4 will have to work out their remedies, as available in law to avail the said benefits. 8. Thus, the thrust of the challenge on behalf of the Petitioners was on their perceived status as the successors in interest of the person(s), who was / were in cultivation of the subject land as tenant thereof on the Tiller’s day. 9. At this juncture, the determination need not be based on the letter dated 19 November 2003, which was purportedly issued by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, declaring that the subject land is Government SSP 5/7 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc Waste land and the provisions of MT and AL Act, 1948, are not attracted. It could be urged that the issue has to be decided by the Tribunal constituted under the MT and AL Act, 1948. 10. There is a more surer foundation on which the claim of the Petitioners can be determined. The provisions contained in Section 43C of the MT and AL Act, 1948, provide a complete answer. Section 43C with its proviso came into force on 1 August 1956. Section 43C declares that, nothing in Sections 31 to 32R (both inclusive), 33A, 33B, 33C and 43 shall apply to lands in the areas within the limits of Greater Bombay and the areas included in clauses (b) to (f) thereof. Since the provisions of Section 31 to 32R are not at all attracted to the lands within the limits of Greater Bombay, unless the benefit of the proviso to Section 43C becomes available, the claim of the Petitioners premised on the applicability of the provisions contained in Sections 32, 32G and 32M of the MT and AL Act, 1948, is plainly unsustainable. 11. Prima facie, the copies of the record of rights of the subject premises placed on record by the Petitioners do not bring the case of the Petitioners within the ambit of the proviso to Section 43C. The entries in the cultivation column in the record of rights (Exh.D – page 79), at best, indicate the cultivation by the predecessor in title of one of the Petitioners, in the year 1980-81. 12. Having regard to the object of the provisions of the Slum Act, 1971 and SSP 6/7 905 wp 11272 of 2026.doc the stage of the implementation of the subject SR scheme and the limited scope for interference in an order passed under Sections 33 and 338 of the Slum Act, 1971, this court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. The Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 7/7 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 22:31:03