Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay, Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata dismissed a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order that had rejected a claim for a rehabilitation tenement under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme. The petitioner alleged that the developer falsely attributed to her an allotment meant for a trust operating a school. The Court found suppression of facts and misuse of its process, imposing a cost of ₹5,00,000 on the petitioner. Expressing concern over fabricated documents being used to secure SRA benefits, the Court urged a comprehensive overhaul of the verification mechanism.

The matter arose from a review petition filed by Dr. Mumtaz H. Khoja seeking reconsideration of an earlier order concerning her claim for allotment of a rehabilitation tenement under a slum redevelopment project supervised by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The petitioner claimed entitlement to a residential unit based on her inclusion in the Annexure-II list of eligible occupants and sought arrears of rent for temporary accommodation from 2009 onward. She asserted that despite repeated requests, no tenement was allotted to her even though the rehabilitation buildings were ready for occupation.

Also Read: [Art. 226]: High Courts Not to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction in Service Matters Within Tribunal’s Scope: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the developer had misrepresented facts by stating that she had been provided temporary accommodation in a specific room, which she claimed was actually allotted to a trust running a school. It was argued that two separate entries existed in the eligibility list—one in her individual capacity for a residential structure and another in the trust’s name for a non-residential unit. She further stated that the developer had conflated the two entries, resulting in her deprivation of the residential allotment. Reliance was placed on a prior order of the SRA confirming the trust’s entitlement to the said premises.

The developer opposed the petition, maintaining that the petitioner had been allotted multiple premises, including residential, commercial, and temporary units, and alleged suppression of material facts. The SRA supported the developer’s position, submitting documents to show that both the petitioner and the trust were recognized as eligible beneficiaries under the scheme.

The petitioner invoked Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulation, 2034, arguing that the developer was required to provide temporary and permanent accommodation to social institutions such as schools. The opposing parties argued that the petitioner had concealed her possession of multiple structures and attempted to seek duplicate benefits under the scheme based on false and misleading representations

Justice Kamal Khata, writing for the Bench, recorded that “the Petitioner has indeed suppressed material facts.” The Court noted that the petitioner had presented herself as a senior citizen dependent on her parents to gain sympathy, whereas the evidence revealed that she was a practicing doctor and had occupied multiple structures totaling over 2,200 sq. ft. in a slum.

The judgment stated that she had used one structure as her residence, another as a clinic, and a third for operating a school through the trust of which she was Chairperson. “There was no justification whatsoever for her failure to disclose these facts in the original petition. Instead, she deliberately chose to file two separate petitions on the pretext of asserting the rights of two independent entities, while in substance she was claiming multiple entitlements,” the Court recorded.

The Bench also held that her original entry upon the land was unauthorized and that she had failed to disclose receipt of commercial premises (Shop No. 46) allotted to her in 2006 as permanent alternate accommodation. It noted that the petitioner’s attempt to introduce new evidence and documents was impermissible at the review stage.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Court observed: “A party invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must be truthful, frank and disclose all material facts even those adverse to them. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy. It is jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction.”

It recorded that “the so-called receipts relied upon are not only suspicious but ex facie bogus—being issued by some society, curiously to unnamed individuals, and for poultry songs. Such documents are clearly concocted.” The Court described her actions as an abuse of the judicial process, adding that her deliberate suppression of facts disqualified her from any equitable relief.

It observed that “the facts disclosed in this case reveal not only the dangers to which very young children have been exposed by individuals such as the Petitioner, but also the apparent inaction and apathy of the BMC and the SRA in allowing such activities to continue.”

It directed that “the Review Petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner, to the Armed Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment. The Collector, Mumbai is directed to recover the said costs under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as arrears of the land revenue and may attach and sell the properties of the Petitioner for recovery of the costs amount within a period of three months.”

Also Read: Pendency of Appeal Under Section 37 Against Earlier Award Does Not Prevent Fresh Arbitration; Sole Arbitrator Appointed: Bombay High Court

Additionally, the Bench directed that an inquiry be conducted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority into how the trust was permitted to operate a school in a slum area without requisite permissions or fire safety clearances. The Court stated that “the inquiry shall ascertain whether requisite permissions had been obtained from the BMC for the structure and whether the Fire Department had granted a fire NOC permitting a School to function therein.” It called for corrective measures to prevent such unauthorized use of structures that put children’s safety at risk.

A Show Cause Notice be issued to Dr. Mumtaz H. Khoja “calling upon her to explain why proceedings for Contempt of Court should not be initiated against her.” The notice was made returnable on November 13, 2025, the same date fixed for compliance with the judgment.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Adv. Saurabh Utangale, Adv. Vedant Joshi i/by Adv. Rohan Sawant.
For the Respondents: Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal i/by R.S. Justicia Law Chambers; Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Adv. Mayur Singh, Adv. Santosh Pathak, Adv. Deepesh Kadam

Case Title: Mumtaz H. Khoja v. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:19530-DB
Case Number: Review Petition No.18 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.773 of 2023
Bench: Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata