Full Judgment Text
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shephali
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
1. Ghass Compound
Industrial Association,
through its President Mr Abdul Haq
Ansari, having address at Ghass
Compound Opp. Hindu Cemetery,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
2. Shamshad Nazim Ali Khan,
Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 448,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
3. Haroon Yakub Nedariya,
Through C.A. Fakruddin Y Khan,
Age – 46 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 299,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
4. Bilal Khalid Sheliya,
Through C.A. Shamshad Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 300,
Page 1 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
5. Zuber Khalid Sheliya,
Through C.A. Shehanshah Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 303,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
6. Shoheb Mohammad
Badhra,
Through Shah Mohamad Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 37 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 304,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
7. Mohd Asif Usmani,
Age – 49 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 305,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
8. Pramod Y Bandivadekar,
Through C.A. Jamil Ahmed Chinku,
Age – 72 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 309,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
9. Sajid Mohd Badhra,
Through C.A. Akram Ali Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 349,
Page 2 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
10. Usman Mohd Badhra,
Through C.A. Saeed Farid Khan,
Age – 34 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 551,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
11. Mohd nazir Abdulla,
Through C.A. Abdul Rashid
Krimullah, Age – 42 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
354, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
12. Mohd Mohsin Mohd
Shakub,
Through C.A. Maqsood Raees
Ahmed, Age – 39 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
357, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
13. Shafina Banu I Ahmed,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 356,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
14. Tarikunnisa A Chaudhari,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 364,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 3 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
15. Abdul Wadood A Khan,
Age – Adult years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 373,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
16. Iftikhar (Iftar) Ahmed
Khan,
Age – 56 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 374,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
17. Asif Abdul Dayila,
Through C.A. Ismail Kadam
Mansuri, Age – 46 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
376, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
18. Iliyas A Dayla,
Through C.A. Mohd Sakur I Khan,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 379,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
19. Amin A Dayila,
Through C.A. Rabiya Mohd Sakur
Khan, Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 380,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
Page 4 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
20. Tabarak H Ansari,
Through Wife Salimunnisha Tabarak
H Ansari, Age – 66 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
382, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
21. Khariunissa R Chaudhari,
(Deceased) Through Husband
Abdulrehman Taj Mohd Chaudhary,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 383,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
22. Karam Hussain Abutallah
Chaudhary,
Age – 32 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 384,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
23. Mohd Yusuf Mansoori,
Through C.A. Mohd. Rafeeq Khan,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 386,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
24. Safi Mohd Chaudhary,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 388,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
Page 5 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
25. Abdul Hamid Ashnullah
Chaudhary,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 390,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
26. Abdus Sabur Khan,
C.A. Nafees Abbas Khan, Age – 42
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 396,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
27. Mohd Skub Inuamullah
Khan,
Through C.A. Irshadul Haq
Jalaluddin Khan, Age – 44 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 398, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
28. Nafis Jumman Khan,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 399,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
29. Haju Moharam Ali Khan,
(Deceased) Through his Widow
Shahidunnisa Haji Moharam Khan,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 400,
Page 6 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
30. Mohd Khalid Nazir Khan,
Through C.A. Hakimullah
Karimullah Khan, Age – 57 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 401, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
31. Mohd Haroon Noor Mohd
Khan,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 403,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
32. Sageeer Mohd Hanif Khan,
Age – 41 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 404,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
33. Mohammad Hussain Ishaq
Khan (Deceased),
Through his Widow, Sakinabano
Hussain Khan, Age – 41 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
405, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
34. Mohd Muslim Shafiullah
Khan,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 7 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 408,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
35. Salauddin Rehamtullah
Chaudhary,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 410,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
36. Akram Nazim Ali Khan,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 459,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
37. Mohd Hanif Mohd I
Sayyad,
Age – 78 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 460,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
38. Naresh S Ruparel,
Through C.A. Ismail Mastab Khan,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 807,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
39. Shila R Mansukhani,
Through Sakir Mastab Khan,
Age – 42 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 808,
Page 8 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
40. Abdul Wahab Ansari,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 572,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
41. Siddik A Nandoliiya,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 157,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
42. Sahid A Nandoliya,
Age – 28 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 158,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
43. Sajid A Nandoliya,
Age – 33 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 159,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
44. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 162,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
45. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Page 9 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 163,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
46. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 164,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
47. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 168,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
48. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 169,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
49. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 170,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
50. Shahid Abdul Patel,
Age – 41 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 193,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 10 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
51. Aamir Abdul Patel,
Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 194,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
52. Huzefa Abdul Patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 195,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
53. Zaid Abdul Patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 196,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
54. Abdul Rahim Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 475,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
55. Shamsad Nazimali Khan
Hafizurrehman
Mohammad Ali Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 480,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
56. Hafizurrehman
Page 11 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mohammad Ali Khan
Shamsad Nazimali Khan,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 556,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
57. Fazlur Rehman Abdul
Kadir Khan Mohammad
Mukeem Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 561,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
58. Mohammad Mustakeem
Safiullah Khan
Shafiqurrehman Abdul
Qadir Khan,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 562,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
59. Hafizurrehman
Mohammad Ali Khan,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 568,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
60. Safikurrehman Mohammad
Ali Khan,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 569,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 12 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
61. Abdul Wahab Ansari,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 570,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
62. Abdul HaqAnsari,
Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 571,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
63. Abdul Rahim Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 573,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
64. Mohammed Yaseen Saifee,
Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 221,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
65. Munawwar ali M Mehboob,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 150,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
66. Akbal Habib Ansari,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 151,
Page 13 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
67. Saeed M Dular M,
Age – 69 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 153,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
68. Jamal Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 155,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
69. Hayat M Ansari,
Age – 66 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 161,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
70. M Hassan KHan,
Age – 33 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 180,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
71. M Hussain Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 181,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
72. Abdul Rasul Nedaria,
Through C.A. Irfan Yakum Nadaria,
Page 14 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 191,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
73. Amin Habib Jagrala,
Age – 61 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 192,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
74. Yakub Hasim Beg,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 197,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
75. Govind P Chauhan,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 199,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
76. Amiruddin Ansari,
Age – 72 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 200,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
77. M Namin M Shafi Ansari,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 201,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 15 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
78. Ibrat Ali M Shafi Ansari,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 202,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
79. M Akram Ansari,
Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 203,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
80. M Gous Shaikh Ahmed
(Deceased),
Through Widow Jamila M Gous
Shaikh, Age – 65 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
209, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
81. Abbas Ghulam Sunshera,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 211,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
82. Yakub Ghulam Rasool,
Through C.A. Usmangani
Abdulkarim Maknojia,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 217,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
83. Ghulam Rasool Asmadi,
Page 16 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Through C.A. Ayub Abdul Rahim
Marediya, Age – 53 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
218, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
84. Riazuddin Ahmed,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 219,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
85. Ibrahim Ghulam Rasul
Piyarji,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 223,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
86. M Ibrahim Piyarji,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 224,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
87. Nandaram Chotturam
Sharma (Deceased),
Through his Gahendra Kumar
Nandaram Sharma, Age – 43 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 231, Ghass Compound Opp.
Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400
102
88. Nirajanlal N Sharma,
Page 17 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 232,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
89. Iqbal Hussain Hasmat A
Shah,
Through C.A. Mohammed Irfan
Hussain Khan, Age – 25 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
317, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
90. Ashok Hari Shinde,
Through C.A. Akram Husain.
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 324,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
91. Vijay Ashok Shinde,
Through C.A. Jalil Ahmed H Khan,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 325,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
92. Badruddin Pir M Khan,
Age – 61 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 333,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
93. Iqbal Ansari,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 18 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 363,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
94. Syed Ifkar Haidar,
Age – 44 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 372,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
95. Syed Izhar Haidar,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 374,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
96. Syed Ansar Haidar,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 375,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
97. Syed Jaishan Haidar,
Age – 44 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 376,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
98. Jannatunnisa R Ali,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 499,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
99. Badrul Haq B Khan,
Page 19 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 43 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 386,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
100. Yunus Yusuf Palasara,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 115,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
101. Taukir Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 80 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 124,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
102. Amir Hussain Ansari,
Age – 40 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 125,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
103. Matlub Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 56 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 126,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
104. Mehmood Ali Ansari,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 127,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 20 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
105. Ezaz Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 128,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
106. M Arif Ansari,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 129,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
107. M Ibrahim Piyarji,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 224,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
108. Wagri Baijal Sava
Waghela,
Age – 68 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 269,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
109. Shamshad Hussain
Manshooque Khan,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 348,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
110. Naseer Ahmed Abdul
Rashid Khan,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 21 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 349,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
111. Gulzar Rajob Ali Shaikh,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 343,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
112. Gulam Rasul R Shaikh,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 354,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
113. Deepak Chetan Mal Shah,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 355,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
114. Neha Deepak Shah,
Age – 30 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 356,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
115. Usha Devi Jayram
Vishwakarma,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 360,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 22 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
116. Syed A Haidar,
Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 373,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
117. Shyam Lal Muniram
Prajapati,
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 380,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
118. Badruddin Khan
(Deceased),
Through widow Sadrunissa
Badurddin Khan, Age – 68 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 384, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
119. Shamshuddin Khan,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 385,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
120. Saheb Ali Nazizullah,
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 395,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
121. Gayasuddin M Idris Khan,
Page 23 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 399,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
122. Rashik Khorja,
Through C.A. Sirajudddin I Khan
and M Muslim S Khan, Age – 57
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 413,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
123. Altaf Aslam Patel,
Through C.A. Sartaj Khan and
Shamshulhuq A Khan, Age – 27
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 417,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
124. Nabi Rahim Gul Hassan
Khan,
Through C.A. Abdul Wahab M Yasin
Ansari, Age – 50 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
418, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
125. Mohammad Saeed Shaikh,
Through C.A. Islamuddin S Khan
and Sahabuddin, Age – 31 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 421, Ghass Compound Opp.
Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Page 24 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mumbai – 400 102
126. Abdul Mubeen Abdul
Quddus Shaikh,
Age – 49 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 446,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
127. Malik Abujan Rehmat Ali,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 453,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
128. M Husain Barkatullah
Khan,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 457,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
129. Abdul Latif Abdul Kasim,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 470,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
130. Irfan Usman patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 543,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
131. M Isaak Khan,
Through C.A. Raj Mohd
Page 25 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 29 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 591,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102 … Petitioners
~ versus ~
1. Slum Rehabilitation
Authority,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
3. Secretary,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
4. Deputy Chief Engineer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
5. Deputy Collector
(Western Suburbs),
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
Page 26 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
6. Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies,
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
7. Asst. Registrar of Co-
operative Societies,
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
8. Maharashtra Housing And
Area Development
Authority ,
Through its Vice-President,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
9. Vice-President ,
Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
10. Chief Officer,
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Board),
A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
11. Competent Authority And
Dy Chief Officer
(Marketing),
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Page 27 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Board), A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
12. Chief Officer And
Vigilance Officer,
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Board), A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
13. Mumbai Metropolitan
Region Development
Authority,
Through its Metropolitan
Commissioner,
Having its address at MMRDA
Building, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
14. Metropolitan
Commissioner,
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority,
Having its address at MMRDA
Building, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
15. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai ,
Through its Municipal
Commissioner,
MCGM Head Office,
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai CSMT,
Mumbai – 400 001.
16. Senior Inspector ,
Page 28 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shops And Establishment
Department,
K-West Ward, MCGM,
K-West Ward Office Building,
2nd floor, Palvram Path,
Opposite BEST Depot,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 058.
17. Reliance Infrastructure
Ltd ,
(Erstwhile Reliance Energy Ltd),
E-4 (ii), MIDC, Marol,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400 093.
18. Adani Electricity ,
SV Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 058.
19. Gajanan Builders,
A Partnership Firm,
Having office at 20,
Patel Industrial Estate, Singh
Compound, Opp. Veena Dalwai
Estate, Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
20. Abdul Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Chief Promoter of Respondent
No.29-Aashiyana CHS (Prop), Chief
Promoter of Respondent No.30-
Sangam CHS (Prop), Partner of
Respondent No.19 – Gajanan Builder,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 79, 81, 478, 610 of
Respondents-Societies,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Page 29 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp.
Veena Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
21. Khairunissa Wajidali
Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Mother of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan, Partner of
Respondent No.19 – Gajanan
Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
22. Sameer Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Son of Respondent No.20 – Abdul
Ahad Khan, Partner of Respondent
No.19 – Gajanan Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
23. Saif Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Son of Respondent No.20 – Abdul
Ahad Khan, Partner of Respondent
No.19 – Gajanan Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
Page 30 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
24. Asif Riyaz Khan,
Chief Promoter of Respondent No.
31. Sahara CHS (Prop),
Nephew of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 441, 614 of
Respondents-Societies,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
25. Imtiaz G Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Nephew of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan,
Present Chairman of Respondent No.
30-Sangam Co-operative Housing
Society,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 80, 131, 609 of
Respondents-Societies,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
26. Paradigm Framework LLP
Having address at 201, 2nd Floor,
Nivan Plot No. 96, CTS E/751, SV
Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
27. Parth Mehta ,
Partner of Paradigm Framework LLP,
Page 31 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Having address at 201, 2nd Floor,
Nivan Plot No. 96, CTS E/751, SV
Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
28. Gajanan Property And
Developers Pvt Ltd,
201, 2nd Floor, Nivan Plot No. 96,
CTS E/751, SV Road,
Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
29. Ashiyana Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
30. Sangam Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
31. Sahara Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
32. Sahara And Sangam SRA
Commercial Premises Co-
operative Housing Society
(Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
33. Sarfaraz Shaikh ,
Age: 43 Years, Occ: Business,
2/502, Sea Crest, Saath Bangla,
Page 32 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(Seven Bunglows), Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 059.
34. Airf Muzzammil Khan ,
Age: 47 Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 171, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
35. Vaidehi S Mehndale ,
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 238, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
36. Shreeram S Mehendale ,
Age: Adult Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 238, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
37. Commissioner of Police ,
Greater Mumbai,
Mumbai Police Head Quarter,
Opposite Crawford Market,
Mumbai – 400 001.
38. Joint Commissioner of
Police-Crime Branch ,
Greater Mumbai,
Mumbai Police Head Quarter,
Opposite Crawford Market,
Mumbai – 400 001.
39. Senior Inspector of
Police ,
Oshiwara Police Station,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Page 33 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mumbai – 400 102.
40. State of Maharashtra ,
Through Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
(Summons to be served upon Ld.
Government Pleader appointed under
O.27, R.4 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908)
41. Urban Development
Department ,
Through its Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
42. Housing Department ,
Through Its Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
43. Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee ,
(Earlier Known as High Power
Committee),
Administrative Building, at Slum
Rehabilitation Authority,
Prof AK Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31568 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 29003 OF 2021
Page 34 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2244 NO. 2019
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2512 OF 2019
A PPEARANCES
for the
petitioners,
Petitioner No. 62,
said to be
President of
Petitioner No.1
Mr Abdul Haq Ansari,
for respondent-
SRA
Mr Abhijit P Kulkarni , with Viraj
Hake.
for respondent-
MHADA
Mr PG Lad , with Prerana Dhoke &
Sayli Apte.
for respondent-
MCGM
Ms Shilpa Redkar.
for respondent
nos. 17 & 18
Mr Satish Kamat.
for respondent
nos. 2o, 22 & 23
Mrs Vaishali Thorat , i/b Bijal
Gandhi.
for respondent
nos. 26 & 27
Mr Gauraj Shah , i/b Fatima
Officewala.
for respondent no.
28
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar , i/b Imtiaz
Shaikh.
for respondent no.
32
Mr Pradeep Thorat , with Aniesh
Jadhav, i/b Aditi Naikare.
Page 35 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
for respondents
nos. 37 to 42
Mr Hemant Haryan, AGP ,with
Sukanta Karmakar, AGP.
for respondent no.
43-AGRC
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy).
CORAM : G.S.Patel &
Madhav J Jamdar, JJ
DATED : 9th March 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per GS Patel J) :-
1. Before we turn to the Petition, we believe we must make a
reference to events in Court during several hearings after this
Petition was first moved in September 2021, and then from
November 2021 onwards, when this Petition was first in the roster
of this Division Bench.
(a) The Petition was filed on 3rd April 2021, as per the CIS
records. It does not seem to have been moved or even
served urgently, for the vakalatnamas of some of the
Respondents were filed only between 9th September
and 16th November 2021. Reply affidavits were filed
much later.
(b) The Petition seems to have been first moved only on
24th September 2021 before Ujjal Bhuyan, J and one of
us, Madhav J Jamdar, J. On that day, the Petitioners
were represented by counsel instructed by Mr KP
Page 36 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Tiwari. The Petitioners’ counsel sought time ‘to take
instructions’. The order of that day reads:
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
time to obtain instructions.
2. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the
developer submits that even at this stage the
developer is ready to provide transit rent in
parity with other slum dwellers provided it is
agreeable to the petitioners to vacate the
premises.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner may
serve copies of the writ petition on learned
counsel for the respondents.
4. Stand over to 12.10.2021.
5. We make it clear that no order,
preventive or otherwise, has been passed in
this writ petition.
( Emphasis added )
(c) On 12th October 2021, the matter did not reach. It was
adjourned to Thursday, 21st October 2021. It does not
seem to have been listed or taken up that day.
(d) On Saturday, 23rd October 2021, the Petitioners
‘urgently’ moved another Division Bench in Chambers
(SJ Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ). The
Petitioners were represented by Mr Shivraj Kunchge
and Mr Rahul Gupta, instructed by Mr KP Tiwari.
None of the Respondents were represented, although
they had appeared on notice on 24th September 2021.
Page 37 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
At least three Respondents or sets of Respondents had
filed vakalatnamas by this time (Mr Imitiaz Shaikh on
9th September 2021, Ms Fatema Officewala on 4th
October 2021, and Ms Aditi Suresh Naikare on 14th
October 2021). We are today once again told that at this
Saturday hearing — which was apparently not before
the roster Bench; the matter had since been assigned to
the Bench presided over by Prasanna B Varale J on a
change in roster — the Petitioners moved entirely
without notice. This is the order that came to be passed
that day:
Ghass Compound Industrial
Association and Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation
Authority and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Shivraj N. Kunchge with Mr. Rahul
Gupta i/by K.P.Tiwari and Co., for
petitioners.
CORAM: (In Chambers )
S.J. KATHAWALLA
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
( through video conferencing )
DATE: 23rd OCTOBER, 2021
P.C.:
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on
board.
2. Due to extreme urgency, the learned
Advocate for the Petitioners has mentioned
Page 38 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
the above matter before this Court. After
seeking permission of the Learned Chief
Justice, we have heard the learned
Advocate for the Petitioners.
3. We have gone through the order dated 24th
September, 2021 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court (Coram : Ujjal Bhuyan (as
he then was) and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.). We
are informed that after the said order was
passed, the Petitioners received a notice
dated 21st October, 2021 from the
Respondent No.1 (SRA) stating that they
will demolish the impugned structures of
the Petitioners within 48 hours. The
Petitioners moved the above Writ Petition
before the regular Court i.e. the Division
Bench headed by Prasanna B. Varale, J., on
22nd October, 2021 and as per the
directions of the said bench, the above Writ
Petition is placed on 25th October, 2021 for
Admission/hearing. The Petitioners now
apprehend that their structures will be
demolished any time since the 48 hours
timeline set out in the Notice issued by the
SRA is over.
4. We therefore, direct the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (Respondent
No.1) to maintain status quo as of today in
respect of the impugned structures upto
26th October, 2021. However, the Writ
Petition will appear before the regular Court
i.e. before the Division Bench headed by
Prasanna B. Varale, J. on 25th October, 2021,
when the parties may appear before that
bench and seek necessary reliefs.
Page 39 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
4. All concerned to act on an ordinary copy of
this order duly authenticated by the Private
Secretary of this Court.
( Emphasis added )
This ad-interim order has continued for months
thereafter, all the way until today.
(e) After the Diwali court recess in 2021, the matter was in
the roster of this Division Bench. On Monday, 29th
November 2021, no longer than two weeks after the
post-Diwali term commenced, we heard all parties.
Before us, the 131 Petitioners (the 1st Petitioner being
an association and the remaining Petitioners being
individuals) were all represented by Mr Anil Sakhare,
Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr KP Tiwari and Mr
Tushar Kochale. The Maharashtra Housing & Area
Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai, slum societies and the developers
were all represented. We heard Mr Sakhare for the
Petitioners fully and then, at his request on instructions
he was given in Court, we stood the matter over to
Wednesday, 1st December 2021 for orders. We
continued the previous ad-interim order until the next
date.
(f) On 1st December 2021, the Writ Petition was listed at
903, the third matter on the Supplementary Board for
that day. Senior Counsel for the Petitioners was not
Page 40 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
present. Mr KP Tiwari represented the Petitioners.
Without further comments, we reproduce the order of
1st December 2021 in full:
Ghass Compound Industrial
Association & Ors
…Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
& Ors
…Respondents
Mr KP Tiwari , for the Petitioner.
Mr PG Lad , with Aparna Kalathil & Sayli Apte,
for Respondents Nos. 8 to 12.
Mr Gauraj Shah , with Fatema Officewala, for
Respondents Nos. 26 and 27.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar , with Imtiaz Shaikh,
for Respondent No. 28.
Mr Pradeep Thorat , i/b Aditi Naikare, for
Respondent No. 32.
Mr Hemant Haryan , AGP , for Respondents Nos.
37 to 42.
Mr PK Dhakephalkar , Senior Advocate , with
Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent
No. 43 – AGRC.
Ms Rupali Adhate , for MCGM.
Mr Abhijit P Kulkarni , for Respondent – SRA.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 1st December 2021
PC:-
1. Mr Tiwari on behalf of the Petitioners,
including the individuals from 2 to 131, states that
he has instructions that each of these individuals
will furnish a signed undertaking to vacate. The
Page 41 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
undertaking requests for some grace period from
the date of signing of the undertaking to vacate.
2. There is today no signed undertaking
available.
3. During the course of the hearing, we
expressed our dissatisfaction in the manner in
which the Petition was signed and purportedly
affirmed. We believed that this would conceivably
be against the interest of some of the Petitioners
— including, in particular, those found to be
eligible. We do not wish to pass an order that
would render those found eligible vulnerable for
any reason whatsoever.
4. We, therefore, require all Petitioners 2 to
131 to come to Court on 10th December 2021.
Each of them will sign an undertaking
incorporating the terms that are presented to us in
draft by Mr Tiwari today. We take that sheet on
record and mark it ‘X1’ for identification with
today’s date. In addition, the final undertaking
will contain a clause in the usual form that the
person giving the undertaking and his family are
the only ones in occupation of the premises in
question; that they have not created any third
party rights and will not create any third party
rights; and that they and their family members
will remove themselves and deliver vacant
possession within the time provided. We allow a
period of eight weeks from the date of signing of
the undertaking. By our reckoning, this means
that all these persons giving the undertakings
must vacate by 1st February 2022 (we have
granted a few days more than eight weeks). If this
is not done, we give the developer liberty to apply to
Page 42 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
the SRA for a forcible removal with the necessary
police protection.
5. The Court Associate before whom the
undertakings are being affirmed will ensure that
the person affirming the undertaking has been
read over and explained and has understood the
contents of the undertaking as also to the
necessary extent, the Petition itself. If any person
has not understood either of these, an officer from
the Official Translators’ Office will be present at
the time to explain the substance of the Petition
and the precise terms of the proposed
undertaking. The Associate will also endorse that
the identity of each person signing the
undertaking has been verified. We make it clear
that identifying documents are not to be retained
as part of the record because of privacy concerns.
The endorsement of the Associate is enough.
6. At the same time, we accept the
undertakings given by one Swadesh Anand, a
director of the Gajaanan Property Developers
Private Limited. These undertakings are stated in
an Affidavit dated 29th November 2021. All the
statements in this Affidavit including in particular
those in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are accepted as
undertakings to the Court. The affirmed affidavit
containing the undertakings is taken on record
and marked ‘X2’ for identification with today’s
date. So that there is no misunderstanding, we
reproduce paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in this order
itself.
“2. In furtherance to the said
statement made by the Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No. 28,
Page 43 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
which statement is recorded in para 2
of the order dated 24th September,
2021 passed by the Hon’ble Division
bench of the Hon’ble High Court, at
Bombay, I hereby say that the Respondent
No. 28 shall provide monthly displacement
compensation for 17 months (11 months
upfront and 6 months vide PDC) in
parity with similarly placed slum dwellers,
to all the 105 Petitioners who have been
declared as eligible, provided they hand
over vacant, quiet and peaceful possession
of their respective structures to the
Respondent No. 28. The details of the
105 eligible Petitioners is as under:-
Sr No. Petitioner
Status of Eligibility
Number
1. 3 Eligible
2. 4 Eligible
3. 5 Eligible
4. 6 Eligible
5. 7 Eligible
6. 8 Eligible
7. 9 Eligible
8. 10 Eligible
9. 11 Eligible
10. 12 Eligible
11. 13 Eligible
12. 14 Eligible
13. 15 Eligible
14. 16 Eligible
15. 17 Eligible
16. 18 Eligible
17. 19 Eligible
18. 20 Eligible
19. 21 Eligible
20. 22 Eligible
21. 23 Eligible
Page 44 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
22. 24 Eligible
23. 25 Eligible
24. 26 Eligible
25. 27 Eligible
26. 28 Eligible
27. 29 Eligible
28. 30 Eligible
29. 31 Eligible
30. 32 Eligible
31. 33 Eligible
32. 34 Eligible
33. 35 Eligible
34. 36 Eligible
35. 37 Eligible
36. 38 Eligible
37. 39 Eligible
38. 64 Eligible
39. 65 Eligible
40. 66 Eligible
41. 67 Eligible
42. 68 Eligible
43. 69 Eligible
44. 70 Eligible
45. 71 Eligible
46. 72 Eligible
47. 73 Eligible
48. 74 Eligible
49. 75 Eligible
50. 76 Eligible
51. 77 Eligible
52. 78 Eligible
53 79 Eligible
54. 80 Eligible
55. 81 Eligible
56. 82 Eligible
57. 83 Eligible
58. 84 Eligible
59. 85 Eligible
60. 86 Eligible
61. 87 Eligible
62. 88 Eligible
Page 45 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
63. 89 Eligible
64. 90 Eligible
65. 91 Eligible
66. 92 Eligible
67. 93 Eligible
68. 94 Eligible
69. 95 Eligible
70. 96 Eligible
71. 97 Eligible
72. 98 Eligible
73. 99 Eligible
74. 100 Eligible
75. 101 Eligible
76. 102 Eligible
77. 103 Eligible
78. 104 Eligible
79. 105 Eligible
80. 106 Eligible
81. 107 Eligible
82. 108 Eligible
83. 109 Eligible
84. 110 Eligible
85. 111 Eligible
86. 112 Eligible
87. 113 Eligible
88. 114 Eligible
89. 115 Eligible
90. 116 Eligible
91. 117 Eligible
92. 118 Eligible
93. 119 Eligible
94. 120 Eligible
95. 121 Eligible
96. 122 Eligible
97. 123 Eligible
98. 124 Eligible
99. 125 Eligible
100. 126 Eligible
101. 127 Eligible
102. 128 Eligible
103. 129 Eligible
Page 46 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
104. 130 Eligible
105. 131 Eligible
3. I say that on humanitarian
grounds, the Respondent No. 28 is also
willing to provide monthly displacement
compensation only for a period of 11
months to the Petitioners who have been
declared as ineligible, subject to the
Petitioners handing over vacant, quiet and
peaceful possession of their respective
structures to the Respondent No. 28. In the
event the ineligible Petitioners herein are
declared as eligible and their names are
reflected in the Supplemental Annexure-II
to that effect, they shall be entitled to all
the benefits of an eligible slum dwellers as
per SR Scheme. The details of the 25
ineligible Petitioners are as under:-
Sr. No. Petitioner
Status of Eligibility
Number
1. 41 In-Eligible
2. 42 In-Eligible
3. 43 In-Eligible
4. 44 In-Eligible
5. 45 In-Eligible
6. 46 In-Eligible
7. 47 In-Eligible
8. 48 In-Eligible
9. 49 In-Eligible
10. 50 In-Eligible
11. 51 In-Eligible
12. 52 In-Eligible
13. 53 In-Eligible
14. 54 In-Eligible
15. 55 In-Eligible
16. 2 In-Eligible
17. 56 In-Eligible
Page 47 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
18. 57 In-Eligible
19. 58 In-Eligible
20. 59 In-Eligible
21. 60 In-Eligible
22. 61 In-Eligible
23. 62 In-Eligible
24. 63 In-Eligible
25. 40 In-Eligible
4. I say that in paragraph 27 of the
Short Affidavit dated 8th September
2021 filed by the Respondent No. 28, a
specific statement is made stating that
the Respondent No. 28 has vide its
letter dated 16th February 2021,
deposited with the Assistant Registrar,
SRA, post-dated cheques amounting to
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Only) towards rent of the Petitioners
herein.”
7. For the present, we do not dispose of this
Petition. We will list it for compliance and directions,
if necessary, on 13th December 2021, a few days after
the undertakings are to be executed by Petitioners
Nos 2 to 131.
8. Previous order, if any, to continue until next
date.
9. All concerned will act on production of a
digitally signed copy of this order.
( Emphasis added )
(g) The next order of 13th December 2021 is crucial. This
is how it reads.
Page 48 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
1. The entire matter has taken a very
disturbing turn since our order of 1st
December 2021. We reproduce paragraphs 1
to 5 and the principal portion of paragraph 6
of the order of 1st December 2021:
...
2. After this order, Mr Ramesh Kusurkar,
Associate of this Court was appointed by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master as the Court
Officer. He was to explain the substance of the
Petition and the precise terms of the proposed
undertaking to all the Petitioners. He visited
the GT Hospital premises where the office of
the Official Translator is on 10th December
2021 at about 12.00 noon. There was no one
present. He attempted to contact Mr Tiwari,
the Advocate for the Petitioners. He was
assured they would. But nobody came until
2.45 p.m. When Mr Kusurkar returned to the
High Court at about 3.00 p.m. one Abdul Haq
Ansari, saying he was the President of
Petitioners’ association contacted Mr
Kusurkar and said that Petitioners were all
waiting outside the High Court since 10.00
a.m. They had not gone to the Translator’s
office at GT Hospital. Mr Kusurkar was told
that not one of the Petitioners was willing
to sign the undertaking proposed on their
behalf. Mr Kusurkar went out of the High
court premises where the Petitioners were
waiting to reconfirm this. Every one of
them said they were unwilling to sign any
such undertaking. Mr Kusurkar made a
hand written report and put the signatures
Page 49 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
of some of the Committee Members and
Petitioners who were present at that time.
3. Today present before us are Mr
Abdul Haq Ansari and Mr Shamshad
Nazim Ali Khan. They say they represent
the Petitioners. We do not know if this is
true or not. Both were present on 1st
December 2021. They personally confirm
to us that they were present on that day.
4. They have submitted a set of written
submissions and an Interim Application.
Today they seek time to engage a new
Advocate. They say that Mr Tiwari had no
instructions to offer any such undertaking. We
will discharge Mr Tiwari and Mr Tushar
Kochale the Advocate on record for the
Petitioners and will permit the Petitioners to
engage fresh representation.
5. We are also informed that two of the
present Petitioners have separately filed a
separate Writ Petition before the learned
Single Judge assailing the LOI issued to the
developer. That relates to the same subject
matter.
6. We do not think it is possible to
proceed with the matter today in these
circumstances. The Petitioners will have to be
given some reasonable time to engage lawyers.
7. We list this matter on 3rd January 2022
first on board. We make it clear that we
propose to dispose of the Petition finally on
that day.
Page 50 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
8. Mr Lad on behalf of the MHADA
fairly agrees that in view of these unforeseen
developments, MHADA will not take action
on its eviction notice until the end of the day
on 3rd January 2022. In this context, we make
it clear that MHADA is at liberty to keep in
readiness all its personnel and equipment to
proceed with the removal but will not deploy
it until further orders of the Court on that day.
9. Liberty to the present Respondents to
apply on the administrative side to have the
Single Judge matter tagged and clubbed with
the present Writ Petition and to have both
matters assigned to such Bench as the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice may deem fit.
10. The Interim Application and the
written submissions filed today are taken on
record.
( Emphasis added )
(h) This order assumes significance because even today, as
we make this final order on the Petition, we do not
know for certain if the remaining Petitioners other than
the handful who are in Court are, or have been made,
fully aware of what is being argued on their behalf.
(i) On 3rd January 2022, the Petitioners sought time.
They asked for permission to be represented by a
Constituted Attorney. We refused. We said any one of
the Petitioners could appear in person, or they could
engage an advocate. We stood the matter over to 10th
Page 51 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
January 2022 and continued the ad-interim order until
the next date.
(j) On 10th January 2022, we were presented with a new
Interim Application by the Petitioners. It was under
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and also sought recall of our order of 1st December
2021, alleging fraud etc. There was nothing to recall.
The 1st December 2021 order had clearly been
overtaken by subsequent events, as the order of 13th
December 2021. Moreover, recalling that order would
mean releasing the developer from its undertakings,
something the Petitioners seemed not to understand,
or refused to understand. The Petitioners had no
lawyer. They asked for four weeks’ time. We declined
such a long adjournment, saying:
4. We are not inclined to grant such a long
adjournment. There are 131 Petitioners. As
against that, there are 720 odd slum dwellers
who have already vacated without resisting
the vacating process. Their interests are
seriously compromised by the continued delay
in implementation of the SRA project. For
this reason, we decline the application for an
adjournment of the matter for four weeks.
We said we would hear the main Petition itself finally
and the IA on 17th January 2022.
Page 52 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(k) The Omicron-related disruption brought a new SOP to
court proceedings. We could not take up the matter on
17th January 2022, and adjourned it to 2nd February
2022, continuing the previous order. On that date, we
had to further adjourn the matter (largely for the same
reason of Omicron and the still continuing SOP) to
15th February 2022. On that date, we disposed of yet
another Interim Application filed (needlessly) for
correcting a typographical error, and stood the matter
over to 18th February 2022. We were compelled to do
so because we did not then have a copy of the written
submissions on which the Petitioners proposed to rely.
(l) This is the order that we made on 18th February 2022,
when all parties were represented (the Petitioners
through Ansari):
1. We had earlier directed that the
Petition would be taken up for final disposal at
the admission stage. The 1st Petitioner is an
association. We have permitted one of the
Petitioners, Mr Ansari, to argue in person
on behalf of all the Petitioners.
2. Mr Ansari submits that the Petitioners
occupy certain commercial industrial galas or
premises said to be part of the slum project
but which the Petitioners dispute. According
to them, the entire slum rehabilitation
scheme, at least so far as they are concerned,
is fraudulent and is based on bogus and got up
documents. The Annexure-II is also,
according to them, bogus. The Gumasta or
Page 53 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shops and Establishments licenses are also
alleged to be bogus. Other licenses are alleged
to have been procured. Fake electricity bills
have been generated only to deprive the
Petitioners of their rights.
3. We propose to hear the Petitioners
fully so that there is no scope for any
controversy on that scope. We understand
that the Petitioners are more than
somewhat handicapped because they
cannot, for reasons that do not concern us,
engage an Advocate .
4. Mr Ansari has submitted a volume
styled as written submissions. From pages 8 to
10 there are some comments. Then there are
various annexures running to page 318. The
documents put together in this compilation
have no discernible correlation to what Mr
Ansari is canvassing before us. Indeed, on a
prima facie reading of some portions of
these written submissions we find that
there are discrepancies. Some parts are
also inappropriate. The Applicant agrees to
withdraw his written submissions and
compilation. This will be replaced with a
revised and more accurate set of written
submissions with cross references to the
appropriate pages. We make it clear that
the compilation has to contain, and contain
only, relevant documents. Copies of the
revised submissions are to be served by the
Petitioners’ representative in hard copy
and by email to the Advocates for all the
Respondents. This is to be done by 28th
February 2022.
Page 54 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
5. Mr Khandeparkar for the developer
agrees that, for his part, he will prepare a
comprehensive list of dates. This will be
necessary because the matter has travelled a
great distance with very many events since the
Petition was filed. Copies of this list of dates
are to be filed in advance by 28th February
2022 with a copy to Mr Ansari. The list of
dates should be sent to Mr Ansari in both
hard copy and by email.
6. We had proposed to take up the matter
at an earlier date but since the party appearing
for the Petitioner says that there is a marriage
in his family, we list the matter on 8th March
2022.
7. Previous orders to continue until the
next date.
8. All concerned will act on production of
a digitally signed copy of this order.
( Emphasis added )
(m) We then heard the matter fully yesterday, 8th March
2022, and kept it for orders today.
2. These are the circumstances in which Ansari comes to be
allowed to represent the Petitioners. As we noted, we do not know if
the Petitioners are all individually aware of what Ansari canvasses.
The reason is plain. Many of the Petitioners are eligible for
rehabilitation. Yet Ansari maintains that the very document that
confers eligibility, the Annexure-II list of eligible and ineligible
persons, is entirely bogus from start to finish. Therefore, even those
Page 55 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
who have now the promise of rehabilitation all 732 eligible persons
will, if Ansari succeeds, be robbed of that right. With this
background, we turn to the Petition.
3. The slum rehabilitation project in question has a long and
chequered history. The Petition ostensibly challenges certain steps
taken during the course of implementation of a Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme. These include a challenge to what is called an “Annexure-
II”, a listing of those slum dwellers who are found eligible for
rehabilitation and those who are not. It also has a challenge to the
Letter of Intent issued to the developer. Indeed, as we shall see, and
for reasons to which we will turn presently, dislodging the present
developer — at any cost, even at a very high cost to other slum
dwellers — seems to be the true intent of this Petition. After several
hearings and granting much latitude to the Petitioners, we have
found no merit at all in the Petition. Our reasons for rejecting it
follow.
4. In the circumstances that we will briefly outline in the
chronological narrative that follows, Ansari, Petitioner No 62, and
claiming to be the ‘President’ of the 1st Petitioner association
represented the Petitioners in person. We permitted this.
5. The slum rehabilitation project in question is a large tract of
land at CTS Nos. 410/C/1 (pt) and 446/C/2 (pt) of Village
Oshiwara, Andheri West, Mumbai. The total area under the SR
scheme is 38,990.94 sq mtrs, just under 10 acres. The area was
declared as a slum and so notified under Section 4(1) of the
Page 56 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“ the Slum Act ”) on 14th October 1977.
This is important because admittedly at no level and at no time has
there ever been a challenge to the Slum Notification. We note this
because before us today, Ansari on behalf of Petitioners insist that
the “whole slum notification” is a “fraud”.
6. This submission has to be rejected at the threshold for one
simple, over-riding reason. A look at Section 4 of the Slum Act
shows that where in any ‘area’ (an undefined term, which must
therefore receive its ordinary meaning) or any building (defined in
Section 2(d)) in any area, certain conditions obtain — lack of
hygienic living and working conditions, sanitation, and so on — and
the Competent Authority is satisfied about the existence of these
conditions, the area may be declared as a ‘slum’. This has to then be
notified in the Government Gazette. It directly follows, therefore,
that if Ansari and his cohorts challenge the Section 4 slum
notification , i.e., the notification of this area as a slum , they must be
able to show that admittedly and without further enquiry, the pre-
conditions necessary for the issue of the Notification did not obtain
on site at the date of the Notification . This can be shown by an
admission of the other side, or something non-contentious.
Otherwise, this challenge is anchored to fundamental disputed
questions of fact that a writ court cannot and will not examine.
Worse yet, in the nearly 200 pages of this Petition, there is
absolutely nothing to show that, admittedly or unambiguously, the
slum-conditions on site did not exist at the time of the Slum
Notification.
Page 57 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
7. We turn now to the background facts. This narrative will take
us to the immediate challenges in the Petition.
8. On 15th February 2006, a resolution was passed in the
proposed Sahara CHSL to appoint one Gajanan Builders as the
developer under the Development Control Regulation 33(10)
Scheme. Another resolution by the Sangam SRA CHSL, also a
proposed society, in the same terms followed on 25th May 2006.
The two firms then came together to form Respondent No. 28. The
usual steps followed, i.e. confirmation by the societies of the
appointment of Respondent No. 28 as a developer, and finally on
10th September 2009, there was a development agreement between
the societies and the developer. Both societies have since being
amalgamated as Respondent No. 32, which is represented before us
today.
9. At this stage, some numbers. The total number of slum
dwellers as certified in the Annexure-II issued by MHADA twelve
years ago on 1st February 2010 was 871. Of these, 832 are eligible
and 39 are ineligible. Of the total number of structures on site, 752
structures have been demolished.
10. We note this at this very stage because of the prayers sought
in the Petition. These prayers are at page 197. Prayer clauses (a) to
(d) read thus:
“ A] That this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, be
pleased call for records and proceedings of the following
from the respective respondents.
Page 58 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
i. Annexure-II dated 01.02.2020 [Exhibit-A-15]
prepared and issued by Respondent No. 11-Deputy Chief
Officer (Marketing) and Competent Authority-Mumbai
Housing Board.
ii. Letter of Intent dated 15.06.2018 [Exhibit-A-34]
from Respondent No. 1-Slum Rehabilitation Authority in
respect of S.R. Scheme on the Suit Property,
iii. Withdrawal of consents by 516 occupants vide
individual Notarised Declarations on the grounds of fraud,
misrepresentation, coercion, from Respondent No. 1-SRA
and Respondent No. 8-MHADA,
iv. Order dtd 07.02.2020 [EXHIBIT-A91] passed in
Application No. 48/2019 by Respondent No. 43-AGRC,
v. Eviction Orders dtd. 04.05.2019, 18.03.2020,
02.12.2020, 11.01.2021 [EXHIBIT – A-68, A-94, A-140, A-
151] passed by Respondent No. 5 – Deputy Collector
(Western Suburbs), - Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
vi. Common Final Order dtd. 18.03.2021 [EXHIBIT-A-
169] passed by Respondent No. 43- AGRC in Appeal No.
4/2020 and Application Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 1/2021.
B] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 after
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Annexure-II
dated 01.02.2010 [Exhibit-A-15], Letter of Intent dated
15.06.2018 [Exhibit -A-34], be pleased to quash and set
aside said Annexure-II dated 01.02.2020, Letter of Intent
dated 15.06.2018 and, all subsequent sanctions, permissions
on the basis of said Annexure-II and Letter of Intent, issued
in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the Suit
Property, by declaring the same as product of fraud, illegal,
null and void;
C] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising powers under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, after
Page 59 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Order dtd
07.02.2020 [EXHIBIT-A-91] passed in Application No.
48/2019 by Respondent No. 43-AGRC, be pleased to quash
and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, null
and void;
D] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, after
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Common final
Order dtd. 18.03.2021 [EXHIBIT – A-169] passed by
Respondent No. 43-AGRC in appeal No. 4/2020 and
Application Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 10/2021 confirming
eviction orders passed against Petitioner for said fraudulent
S.R. Scheme, be pleased to quash and set aside said
Common Final Order dtd 1803.2021 by declaring the same
as illegal, null and void and this Hon’ble Court be further
pleased to allow said appeal No. 4/2020 and application
Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 10/2021 in absolute terms.”
11. Ex facie, the frame of these prayers is itself a problem. There
is a combined challenge to the Annexure-II of 1st February 2010 and
the Letter of Intent that followed from the SRA on 15th June 2018.
Now, what is being sought is that even those who consented to
individual declarations in favour of the re-development should
forcibly have their consensus withdrawn by a mandamus from this
Court. These 516 persons whose consensus are sought to be
withdrawn are not all parties here and no such mandamus can, in
any case, ever issued.
12. But, more importantly, and this possibly goes to the root of
the matter, is the question of locus. As we noted there is a challenge
to Annexure-II. Of the 140 Petitioners, fully 100 are actually eligible.
Page 60 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
These are Petitioners Nos. 3 to 34 and 64 to 131. There is no
possibility whatsoever of these Petitioners assailing the very
Annexure-II that holds them eligible for rehabilitation or of them
challenging the Letter of Intent at all. Not one of these persons has
any title to the land under their structures. The initial entry onto the
land is illegal and without valid title.
13. Equally important is the fact that all the other 732 eligible
persons mentioned in Annexure-II have not been made party
respondents to the present Petition. If the Petitioners succeed, the
eligibility of all those 732 eligible persons will also go — and the
Petitioners seek this relief without affording those persons an
opportunity of placing their case before us, or of even indicating
whether they are supporting the Petitioners in the first place. This
will also have a bearing on the question of bona fides.
14. The entire Petition proceeds on a fundamental
misunderstanding of slum re-development law. We have said this
repeatedly, but we do so once again. Only because a person has been
declared ineligible does not mean that the person’s structure cannot
be demolished. The entire SRA scheme is predicated on a
demolition from end-to-end within the SR scheme boundaries of all
slum structures. First, there is the slum notification. Then these
structures are surveyed. There is a physical assessment of the
existence of structures on site. Then there is an assessment of who
or which individual is entitled to rehabilitation and can establish that
he or she satisfies the eligibility criteria in respect of his or her
occupancy of a particular structure. If a person is found eligible and
is so noted in Annexure-II (which may be revised periodically as
Page 61 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
circumstances require), that person is entitle to accommodation free
of cost in a rehab unit following the allotment policy. If a person is
found ineligible, it only means that there is no space made available
for him or her in the rehab tenement or building. In either
circumstance, eligible or ineligible, the structure must go.
15. With this we now turn to Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum
Rehabilitation Act. They read thus:
“ 33. Power of eviction to be exercised only by the
Competent Authority
Where the Competent Authority is satisfied either
upon a representation from the owner of a building or upon
other information in its possession that the occupants of the
building have not vacated it in pursuance of any order or
direction issued or given by the Authority, the Authority
shall, by order, direct the eviction of the occupants from the
building in such manner and within such time as may be
specified in the order, and for the purpose of such eviction,
may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary:
Provided that, before making any order under this
section the Competent Authority shall give a reasonable
opportunity to the occupants of the building to show cause
why they should not be evicted therefrom.
38. Order of demolition of building in certain cases
(1) Whether the erection of any building has been
commenced, or is being carried out, or has been completed,
in contravention of the provisions of section 8 or of any
restriction or condition imposed under sub-section (10) of
section 13, or a plan for the redevelopment of any clearance
area or in contravention of any notice, order or direction
issued or given under this Act, the Competent Authority
may, in addition to any other remedy that may be restored
Page 62 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
to under this Act or under any other law, make an order
directing that such erection shall be demolished by the
owner thereof within such time not exceeding two months
as may be specified in the order, and on the failure of the
owner to comply with order, the building so erected shall be
liable to forfeiture or to summary demolition by an order of
the competent Authority and the expenses of such
demolition shall be recoverable from the owner as arrears of
land revenue:
Provided that, no such order shall be made unless
the owner has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
(2) Forfeiture under this section shall be
adjudged by the Competent authority, and any property so
forfeited shall be disposed of as the competent Authority
may direct; and the cost of removal of the property under
this section shall be recoverable as an arrears of land
revenue.
(3) For the purpose of causing any building to be
demolished under sub-section (1) the Competent Authority
may use or cause to be used such force as may be
necessary.”
16. It is for this reason that we hold that this Petition is not
maintainable at the instance of the eligible slum dwellers.
17. There is another circumstance also why such a challenge at
the instance of eligible slum dwellers — and indeed all Petitioners
— must fail. That emerges from the remaining list of dates to which
we will now turn.
Page 63 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
18. For completeness we note that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 40 to 63
are all ineligible.
19. On 3rd February 2017, Petitioner No. 1, an association, filed
an application for self redevelopment. This is where one gets the
sense of having plunged down the rabbit hole like Alice in
Wonderland — where matters get curiouser and curiouser. For, it is
these very Petitioners who propounded a self-redevelopment scheme
relying on the very same Annexure-II of 1st February 2010 that they now
seek to have set aside . Even if people are appearing in person surely
there must be some limit to taking mutually destructive stands at
different points in time.
20. On 18th April 2017, another group of Petitioners came in as
intervenors to say that they have no objection to implement present
scheme but sought permission to apply for electricity connections.
Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 18, 28, 31, 32, 34, 41 to 43, 47 to 50, 61,
62, 64, 73, 75, 76, 81, 92, 99, 100, 104, 106, 109 to 111, 113, 114, 118,
119, 121, 122,126 to 130 were all intervenors in the Chamber
Summons and consented to the scheme. It is entirely unclear to us
how this group can take a different stand before us today and
pretend that the past never happened.
21. On 17th May 2018, entities of another developer were
admitted as partners of the developer. Respondent No. 26 is one
such entity. On 27th June 2018, there were two separate general
body resolutions by the society confirming the appointments of the
Page 64 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
developer and executing the Powers of Attorneys in favour of
developers and its partners.
22. Between January and February 2019, the 1st Petitioner and
other members filed an application bearing No 48 of 2019 before the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee challenging the
implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. In that they
prayed for, and this is important: (i) a cancellation of Letter of
Intent, the intimation of approval and the commencement certificate
issued in favour of developer; (ii) a cancellation and setting aside of
the Annexure-II dated 1st February 2010; (iii) a declaration that the
amalgamation of two societies was illegal; and (iv) maintenance of
status quo. We say this is important for one reason: if this
application was ever unconditionally withdrawn, not one of these
Petitioners could be allowed to raise the same plea again later in any
proceeding or court. That is exactly what happened.
23. On 11th February 2020, the applicants in the AGRC
application (filed in January–February 2019) and now numbered as
Application No. 48 of 2019 unconditionally withdrew that
application. This is recorded in paragraph 10 of the AGRC order as
follows:
“During hearing Advocate for the Applicants Ghass Compound
Industrial Association and Ors submitted that Applicants and
the Respondents have reached an agreement to settle the matter
amicably and in view thereof the applicants are desirous to
withdraw the present application and prayed that this
Committee be pleased to permit the Applicants to withdraw the
present application and prayed that this Committee be please to
permit the Applicants to withdraw the present Application No.
Page 65 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
48 of 2019 unconditionally. The Advocate for respondent
consented to the same.
In view of same this Committee direct Applicants to
submit written withdrawal Application within 2 days.
Accordingly, Applicant has submitted withdrawal Application
dated 10th February 2020 and same is taken on record of this
Committee.
Accordingly, this Committee permits the applicants to
withdraw the application No. 48 of 2019 unconditionally.
Hence Application No. 48 of 2019 filed by Ghass
Compound Industrial Application and Ors. stands disposed off
as withdrawn.”
24. On its own, this means that the present Petition that seeks the
same relief that was abandoned or given up is not maintainable. In
any case, this is clearly for exercise of our discretionary and
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. Meanwhile, on 29th January 2019, ten slum dwellers
approached this Court challenging the scheme because they had
been asked to vacate their structures. That Petition is pending.
Petitioners Nos. 2, 28, 32 and 34 are all Petitioners in that Petition.
26. On 4th May 2019, the Deputy Collector SRA passed an order
under Section 33 and 38 of the Slum Act directing 72 eligible slum
dwellers to deliver vacant possession of their structures. On 16th
January 2020, some of the Petitioners filed another Writ Petition to
quash and set aside the demolition order of 4th May 2019. The
Court granted a status quo on 18th January 2020. This has
continued for some time.
Page 66 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
27. This is extremely significant because it leads us to believe that
what is being attempted now is a gross abuse of the process of this
Court and trying to evoke this Court’s sympathy by saying that
Petitioners are “poor slum dwellers”. Once the Petitioners
unconditionally withdrew their challenge to setting aside of the
Annexure -II and which they had sought before the AGRC, it is
simply impermissible for them to make the same plea before us as if
the withdrawal before the AGRC is entirely inconsequential in law.
It is not. Any withdrawal has serious consequences. An
unconditional withdrawal even more so. There is no point in
individuals standing up and repeating before us “fraud”, “bogus”
etc. Even if the parties before us are appearing in person we cannot
and will not abandon basic principles governing our writ
jurisdiction. If these persons want to claim fraud etc they will be
driven to a suit. On that they will have to pay Court fees. They
cannot simply get around this by filing writ petitions and repeating
allegations and putting up a case that they have consciously and
deliberately withdrawn.
28. On 18th March 2020, the Deputy Collector SRA passed
another order under Sections 33 and 38, this time directing 113
eligible slum dwellers to deliver vacant possession of their structures
to the developers.
29. On 13th July 2020, about 170 slum dwellers filed another Writ
Petition (L) No. 2512 of 2019 challenging the scheme. Some of
those slum dwellers have since settled their disputes. All the
Petitioners who remain in Writ Petition (L) 2512 of 2019 are
Petitioners to the present proceedings as well. This is yet another
Page 67 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
example instance of how the process of this Court is being abused
with the same group of Petitioners coming to the Court in different
Petitions at different times saying the same thing but obviously
doing this in an attempt at forum shopping so that they get their
cases listed before different Benches at different times. We will not
permit this.
30. On 13th October 2020, Respondent No. 28 filed an Interim
Application in Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2020 to vacate the stay
order of 18th January 2020 that had continued by then for ten
months.
31. While this was pending, on 2nd December 2020, the Deputy
Collector passed a Sections 33 and 38 order against another 50
eligible slum dwellers.
32. On 9th December 2020, in Writ Petition 1307 of 2020, this
Court directed the Petitioners to file a comprehensive Appeal before
the AGRC against the demolition order of 4th May 2019, the first
Section 33 and 38 order. That was to be disposed of within four
weeks. We leave aside the fact that some of these Petitioners then
filed Criminal Writ Petitions. It is enough to note that Appeal No. 4
of 2020 was in fact filed before the AGRC challenging the
demolition order of 4th May 2019. It was heard by the AGRC and
reserved for orders on 8th January 2021. Almost predictably, after it
was closed, there came to be filed an application by some of the
appellants seeking a recusal and making allegations of bias.
Page 68 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
33. On 11th June 2021, the Deputy Collector SRA passed a fourth
order under Sections 33 and 38, this time in regard to 26 ineligible
slum dwellers, and demanding possession.
34. Since the AGRC did not accept the recusal application, the
appellants filed an Interim Application in their pending Writ
Petition No. 1307 of 2020. They were granted liberty to move before
the learned Single Judge for a clarification. The AGRC was asked to
take up the application of 8th January 2021 and to hear it with the
main appeal. Between January and February 2021 the AGRC held a
common hearing of four Appeals filed against for demolition orders.
On 25th February 2021, the AGRC sought and was granted and
extension of time. Ultimately, on 18th March 2021, the AGRC
dismissed all four Appeals and upheld all four orders of Deputy
Collector. It is thereafter that this Petition was filed on 3rd April
2021 now not only challenging the Sections 33 and 38 orders but
also expanding the challenge to include the entire Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme.
35. We have already set out at the start of this judgment the
manner in which events unfolded after the Petition was first filed in
April 2021; and the manner in which an ad-interim order taken
without notice on a so-called ‘urgent’ mentioning on a Saturday
before a Bench not rostered to hear the matter but with dispensation
from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, continued for weeks and months.
We have also set out the circumstances in which one of the
Petitioners, Ansari, was permitted to argue.
Page 69 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
36. Before us Ansari has filed very many things, possibly too
many to count. There is a seven-volume set running into several
thousand pages. It was entirely disordered and without discernible
relevance or connection between the submissions and the
annexures. Then there are applications under the CrPC for perjury
and another application to withdraw one of our earlier orders which
has since become entirely inconsequential since said that we would
be hearing the Petition itself.
37. At this stage we note a few other factors. This is not a case
where nothing at all has happened on site. Given to us across the bar
is list of no less than 103 separate permissions obtained by the
developer for this project. The transit rent expenditure alone till
date is said to be a colossal Rs.40 crores. An aggregate of Rs.1.5
crores is being spent on transit rent per month for payment to those
who have vacated. But we leave aside the expenditure that the
developer claims to have made.
38. Instead, we turn to the most significant and dispositive factor
in this case, a facet we have noted earlier. These 113 Petitioners
include amongst them a vast number who are eligible and are
entitled to rehab accommodation. They have banded together, for
what purpose we cannot determine, but it does not appear to be
bona fide, as we do not know who is behind them, but there is surely
some hand there, to assail the scheme. We do not even know if all
these 130 petitioners know what is being said on their behalf and in
their name. We do not know if they are aware that if they succeed in
this Petition, their eligibility will go. So will the eligibility of all the
832 eligibility persons (even if that includes the 100 or so eligible
Page 70 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Petitioners). For all 130 petitioners seek to assail the very Annexure
II that they themselves propounded for the purposes of their own
self redevelopment. Obviously our conceptualisation of what “self-
redevelopment” means varies widely from the Petitioners.
According to us, it means development by slum dwellers
themselves. According to these Petitioners, it probably means
development by some other developer of their choice. Paying the
price for this extraordinary delay occasioned by these Petitioners are
not just the builder — which we will ignore for the moment — but,
more importantly, the vast number of people who have vacated.
This number is not small. A full 752 eligible persons are now in
transit . Their rehabilitation whether in a residential, commercial or
residential-cum-commercial structures is thrown into jeopardy and
they are forced to remain in transit because, and only because, of
these Petitioners.
39. This is leaving aside the question of locus that is against those
of the Petitioners who are eligible.
40. This is also leaving aside the question of any principle
analogous to estoppel or Order 23 where once there is an
unconditional withdrawal, the same relief cannot be re-agitated over
and over again.
41. To give a visual idea of what it is that is involved, we have
before us a sketch, though not to scale, that shows the scheme. We
have had this scanned and a scanned copy is annexed to this order.
There are three rehab buildings, marked Rehab 1, 2 and 3. There is a
Page 71 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
sale building to the west. There is one PAP of building of 775 PAP
units. There are three sectors marked in red dashed line which show
the areas where the Petitioners’ structures continue to exist. Those
marked in red diagonal lines are the Petitioners who have vacated
and are accepting transit rent. It is clear from this that it is these
Petitioners many of whom as we have noted are eligible are simply
holding up this scheme for no good reason. In our view this is not a
situation that can be allowed to continue.
42. We have given Ansari every conceivable latitude. He refuses
to accept the limitations of what is permissible in a Writ Court. He
refuses to adhere to an elementary discipline. He insists that his
submissions in one large volume after the other must be examined
minutely in detail on merits. So be it. We gave him that opportunity
as well, though we should not have. We were not surprised to find
that there is an attempt at a wholesale misleading even in these
Written Submissions. At pages 1035 to 1037, Ansari took us to
certain serial numbers in the Annexure II (leaving aside his own
irreconcilable and conflicting and contradictory stands in that
regard). He claimed that the whole of Annexure II was bogus. Even
those who are found eligible were bogus entries, he said, a
submission that does not appeal to logic or reason and probably
needs only to be stated to be rejected. We are unable to see how
anybody who has the benefit of an Annexure-II eligibility can come
to Court and say that the benefit is fraudulently given and should be
set aside. The suggestion is absurd. But in the tabulation here,
Ansari claims that persons who are eligible have been found to be so
on the basis of fake documents. He illustrates this by pointing to a
list of gumasta licenses. We asked Mr Lad for MHADA to take
Page 72 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
instructions. Overnight, he analysed the twelve entries in Ansair’s
tabulation selectively plucked from this Annexure II of 872 persons.
Mr Lad pointed out today that what Ansari claims to be a gumasta
license is not a gumasta license at all but is a copy of a Form A, an
application for Shops And Establishment license, a completely
different thing; and what has been annexed is a blank Shops and
Establishments certificate with some reference number written in
hand. The Petitioners say this they got this under the RTI Act.
Perhaps so, but what of it? How does this establish the Petitioners’
case that the entirety of the Annexure II is fraudulent? It does not
even establish that one entry is fraudulent, let alone all the others.
43. On any conceptualisation of a balance of convenience or
adopting any standard of proportionality, when one is looking at a
document that has 872 entries to say that one or two may be
erroneous is not enough. A crucial link in the chain is missing.
44. Ansari’s entire presentation is on the basis that the eligibility
has been determined only on the basis of a false gumasta license.
This is not even prima facie demonstrated.
45. The submission goes on in this vein and then refers to electric
metres at page 1037 and some discrepancies in names at pages 1038
to 1040.
46. What we do not know is first whether any of the Petitioners
feature in these tables so as to achieve a sought of self-goal. If they
do not, then the matter is even worse because what the Petitioners
Page 73 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
are in fact doing is attacking the eligibility of others , trying to have
them declared ineligible, and doing so without joining those persons
as respondents to the Petition. This is unacceptable. We would not
have allowed any builder to make any such attempt without joining
the individual concerned. We see no reason why these 130
individuals should have any higher or better right.
47. We return to a consideration of the prayers again. Obviously
on this analysis, prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) cannot be granted. Once
these prayers fail, nothing at all remains in the Petition.
48. Apart from the factual narrative completely obliterating any
such claim on the part of the Petitioners, we are not at all satisfied
about the bona fides of Ansari himself. Ms Thorat for some of the
Respondents points out that there are two FIRS and an MECR
against Ansari. FIR No 511 of 2018 dated 12th November 2018 filed
at the Oshiwara Police Station is under sections 307, 326, 324, 323,
421, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, among others. FIR
No. 102 of 2010dated 4th April 2010, filed at the DN Nagar Police
Station is under Sections 324, 504, 506, 34 and 160 of the IPC.
MERC No. 6 of 2015, dated 28th February 2015 at the Amboli
Police Station is under Sections 34, 384, 387, 499 etc of the IPC.
Ansari has been externed from Oshiwara jurisdiction because of
these. Co-accused in FIR 511 of 2018 are Wahab Ansari, Petitioner
No. 61 and Shamshad Khan, Petitioner No. 35.
49. We do not need to say anything further in the matter.
Page 74 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
50. Ansari asks to us a make a reference and pronounce on an
MMRDA order that, according to him, was issued fraudulently and
in haste within one day. Even if it was issued in one day, this will not
invalidate the order nor will it paper over the very many other acts
of palpable wrongness and attempted dishonesty including an
obvious attempt to mislead bench after bench after bench of this
Court by making the same application on repeated occasions
suppressing material from one bench or to other and putting
forward an entirely false claim.
51. We believe there are some among the petitioners who have
been actively misled by Ansari and a few others. We hope and trust
that at least because of this order the Petitioners who are eligible will
see the error of their ways.
52. The Petition is thoroughly misconceived and it is very
possibly mischievous. It is rejected.
53. All previous interim or ad-interim orders stand vacated
forthwith.
54. All IAs filed by the Petitioners are infructuous and are
disposed of accordingly.
55. Ansari applies for a continuation of the stay. The request is
rejected. The balance of convenience is not with these Petitioners. It
is emphatically with their fellow slum dwellers who are adversely
affected by these stay orders by these Petitioners.
Page 75 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
56. In the factual narrative we had mentioned the pendency of
other Writ Petitions. These are Writ Petition (L) No. 2512 of 2019
and Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2019. They will be placed by the
Registry before the roster Benches when so permitted by those
benches along with a copy of this order.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 76 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Page 77 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shephali
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
1. Ghass Compound
Industrial Association,
through its President Mr Abdul Haq
Ansari, having address at Ghass
Compound Opp. Hindu Cemetery,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
2. Shamshad Nazim Ali Khan,
Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 448,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
3. Haroon Yakub Nedariya,
Through C.A. Fakruddin Y Khan,
Age – 46 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 299,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
4. Bilal Khalid Sheliya,
Through C.A. Shamshad Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 300,
Page 1 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
5. Zuber Khalid Sheliya,
Through C.A. Shehanshah Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 303,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
6. Shoheb Mohammad
Badhra,
Through Shah Mohamad Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 37 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 304,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
7. Mohd Asif Usmani,
Age – 49 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 305,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
8. Pramod Y Bandivadekar,
Through C.A. Jamil Ahmed Chinku,
Age – 72 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 309,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
9. Sajid Mohd Badhra,
Through C.A. Akram Ali Nazim Ali
Khan, Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 349,
Page 2 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
10. Usman Mohd Badhra,
Through C.A. Saeed Farid Khan,
Age – 34 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 551,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
11. Mohd nazir Abdulla,
Through C.A. Abdul Rashid
Krimullah, Age – 42 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
354, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
12. Mohd Mohsin Mohd
Shakub,
Through C.A. Maqsood Raees
Ahmed, Age – 39 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
357, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
13. Shafina Banu I Ahmed,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 356,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
14. Tarikunnisa A Chaudhari,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 364,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 3 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
15. Abdul Wadood A Khan,
Age – Adult years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 373,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
16. Iftikhar (Iftar) Ahmed
Khan,
Age – 56 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 374,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
17. Asif Abdul Dayila,
Through C.A. Ismail Kadam
Mansuri, Age – 46 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
376, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
18. Iliyas A Dayla,
Through C.A. Mohd Sakur I Khan,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 379,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
19. Amin A Dayila,
Through C.A. Rabiya Mohd Sakur
Khan, Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 380,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
Page 4 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
20. Tabarak H Ansari,
Through Wife Salimunnisha Tabarak
H Ansari, Age – 66 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
382, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
21. Khariunissa R Chaudhari,
(Deceased) Through Husband
Abdulrehman Taj Mohd Chaudhary,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 383,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
22. Karam Hussain Abutallah
Chaudhary,
Age – 32 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 384,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
23. Mohd Yusuf Mansoori,
Through C.A. Mohd. Rafeeq Khan,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 386,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
24. Safi Mohd Chaudhary,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 388,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
Page 5 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
25. Abdul Hamid Ashnullah
Chaudhary,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 390,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
26. Abdus Sabur Khan,
C.A. Nafees Abbas Khan, Age – 42
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 396,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
27. Mohd Skub Inuamullah
Khan,
Through C.A. Irshadul Haq
Jalaluddin Khan, Age – 44 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 398, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
28. Nafis Jumman Khan,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 399,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
29. Haju Moharam Ali Khan,
(Deceased) Through his Widow
Shahidunnisa Haji Moharam Khan,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 400,
Page 6 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
30. Mohd Khalid Nazir Khan,
Through C.A. Hakimullah
Karimullah Khan, Age – 57 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 401, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
31. Mohd Haroon Noor Mohd
Khan,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 403,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
32. Sageeer Mohd Hanif Khan,
Age – 41 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 404,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
33. Mohammad Hussain Ishaq
Khan (Deceased),
Through his Widow, Sakinabano
Hussain Khan, Age – 41 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
405, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
34. Mohd Muslim Shafiullah
Khan,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 7 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 408,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
35. Salauddin Rehamtullah
Chaudhary,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 410,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
36. Akram Nazim Ali Khan,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 459,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
37. Mohd Hanif Mohd I
Sayyad,
Age – 78 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 460,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
38. Naresh S Ruparel,
Through C.A. Ismail Mastab Khan,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 807,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
39. Shila R Mansukhani,
Through Sakir Mastab Khan,
Age – 42 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 808,
Page 8 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
40. Abdul Wahab Ansari,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 572,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
41. Siddik A Nandoliiya,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 157,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
42. Sahid A Nandoliya,
Age – 28 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 158,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
43. Sajid A Nandoliya,
Age – 33 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 159,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
44. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 162,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
45. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Page 9 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 163,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
46. Abdul Jaan Mohammad
Palasara,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 164,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
47. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 168,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
48. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 169,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
49. Amin Abdul Palasara,
Age – 51 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 170,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
50. Shahid Abdul Patel,
Age – 41 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 193,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 10 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
51. Aamir Abdul Patel,
Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 194,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
52. Huzefa Abdul Patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 195,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
53. Zaid Abdul Patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 196,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
54. Abdul Rahim Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 475,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
55. Shamsad Nazimali Khan
Hafizurrehman
Mohammad Ali Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 480,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
56. Hafizurrehman
Page 11 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mohammad Ali Khan
Shamsad Nazimali Khan,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 556,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
57. Fazlur Rehman Abdul
Kadir Khan Mohammad
Mukeem Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 561,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
58. Mohammad Mustakeem
Safiullah Khan
Shafiqurrehman Abdul
Qadir Khan,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 562,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
59. Hafizurrehman
Mohammad Ali Khan,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 568,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
60. Safikurrehman Mohammad
Ali Khan,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 569,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Page 12 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
61. Abdul Wahab Ansari,
Age – 50 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 570,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
62. Abdul HaqAnsari,
Age – 39 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 571,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
63. Abdul Rahim Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 573,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
64. Mohammed Yaseen Saifee,
Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 221,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
65. Munawwar ali M Mehboob,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 150,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
66. Akbal Habib Ansari,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 151,
Page 13 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
67. Saeed M Dular M,
Age – 69 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 153,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
68. Jamal Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 155,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
69. Hayat M Ansari,
Age – 66 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 161,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
70. M Hassan KHan,
Age – 33 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 180,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
71. M Hussain Khan,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 181,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
72. Abdul Rasul Nedaria,
Through C.A. Irfan Yakum Nadaria,
Page 14 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 191,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
73. Amin Habib Jagrala,
Age – 61 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 192,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
74. Yakub Hasim Beg,
Age – 74 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 197,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
75. Govind P Chauhan,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 199,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
76. Amiruddin Ansari,
Age – 72 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 200,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
77. M Namin M Shafi Ansari,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 201,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 15 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
78. Ibrat Ali M Shafi Ansari,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 202,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
79. M Akram Ansari,
Age – 36 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 203,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
80. M Gous Shaikh Ahmed
(Deceased),
Through Widow Jamila M Gous
Shaikh, Age – 65 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
209, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
81. Abbas Ghulam Sunshera,
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 211,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
82. Yakub Ghulam Rasool,
Through C.A. Usmangani
Abdulkarim Maknojia,
Age – 60 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 217,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
83. Ghulam Rasool Asmadi,
Page 16 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Through C.A. Ayub Abdul Rahim
Marediya, Age – 53 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
218, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
84. Riazuddin Ahmed,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 219,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
85. Ibrahim Ghulam Rasul
Piyarji,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 223,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
86. M Ibrahim Piyarji,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 224,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
87. Nandaram Chotturam
Sharma (Deceased),
Through his Gahendra Kumar
Nandaram Sharma, Age – 43 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 231, Ghass Compound Opp.
Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai – 400
102
88. Nirajanlal N Sharma,
Page 17 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 48 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 232,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
89. Iqbal Hussain Hasmat A
Shah,
Through C.A. Mohammed Irfan
Hussain Khan, Age – 25 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
317, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
90. Ashok Hari Shinde,
Through C.A. Akram Husain.
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 324,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
91. Vijay Ashok Shinde,
Through C.A. Jalil Ahmed H Khan,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 325,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
92. Badruddin Pir M Khan,
Age – 61 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 333,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
93. Iqbal Ansari,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 18 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 363,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
94. Syed Ifkar Haidar,
Age – 44 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 372,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
95. Syed Izhar Haidar,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 374,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
96. Syed Ansar Haidar,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 375,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
97. Syed Jaishan Haidar,
Age – 44 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 376,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
98. Jannatunnisa R Ali,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 499,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
99. Badrul Haq B Khan,
Page 19 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 43 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 386,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
100. Yunus Yusuf Palasara,
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 115,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
101. Taukir Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 80 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 124,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
102. Amir Hussain Ansari,
Age – 40 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 125,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
103. Matlub Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 56 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 126,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
104. Mehmood Ali Ansari,
Age – 45 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 127,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 20 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
105. Ezaz Ahmed Ansari,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 128,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
106. M Arif Ansari,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 129,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
107. M Ibrahim Piyarji,
Age – 35 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 224,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
108. Wagri Baijal Sava
Waghela,
Age – 68 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 269,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
109. Shamshad Hussain
Manshooque Khan,
Age – 62 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 348,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
110. Naseer Ahmed Abdul
Rashid Khan,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
Page 21 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
having address at Gala No. 349,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
111. Gulzar Rajob Ali Shaikh,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 343,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
112. Gulam Rasul R Shaikh,
Age – 52 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 354,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
113. Deepak Chetan Mal Shah,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 355,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
114. Neha Deepak Shah,
Age – 30 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 356,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
115. Usha Devi Jayram
Vishwakarma,
Age – 53 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 360,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
Page 22 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
116. Syed A Haidar,
Age – 57 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 373,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
117. Shyam Lal Muniram
Prajapati,
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 380,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
118. Badruddin Khan
(Deceased),
Through widow Sadrunissa
Badurddin Khan, Age – 68 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 384, Ghass Compound
Opp. Hindu Cemetery,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102
119. Shamshuddin Khan,
Age – 47 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 385,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
120. Saheb Ali Nazizullah,
Age – 55 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 395,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
121. Gayasuddin M Idris Khan,
Page 23 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 58 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 399,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
122. Rashik Khorja,
Through C.A. Sirajudddin I Khan
and M Muslim S Khan, Age – 57
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 413,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
123. Altaf Aslam Patel,
Through C.A. Sartaj Khan and
Shamshulhuq A Khan, Age – 27
years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 417,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
124. Nabi Rahim Gul Hassan
Khan,
Through C.A. Abdul Wahab M Yasin
Ansari, Age – 50 years, Occ.:
Business, having address at Gala No.
418, Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
125. Mohammad Saeed Shaikh,
Through C.A. Islamuddin S Khan
and Sahabuddin, Age – 31 years,
Occ.: Business, having address at
Gala No. 421, Ghass Compound Opp.
Hindu Cemetery, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Page 24 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mumbai – 400 102
126. Abdul Mubeen Abdul
Quddus Shaikh,
Age – 49 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 446,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
127. Malik Abujan Rehmat Ali,
Age – 59 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 453,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
128. M Husain Barkatullah
Khan,
Age – 65 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 457,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
129. Abdul Latif Abdul Kasim,
Age – 70 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 470,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
130. Irfan Usman patel,
Age – 38 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 543,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102
131. M Isaak Khan,
Through C.A. Raj Mohd
Page 25 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Age – 29 years, Occ.: Business,
having address at Gala No. 591,
Ghass Compound Opp. Hindu
Cemetery, Oshiwara, Jogeshwari
(West), Mumbai – 400 102 … Petitioners
~ versus ~
1. Slum Rehabilitation
Authority,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
2. Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
3. Secretary,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
4. Deputy Chief Engineer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
5. Deputy Collector
(Western Suburbs),
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
Page 26 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
6. Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies,
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
7. Asst. Registrar of Co-
operative Societies,
At Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
Prof. A.K. Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
8. Maharashtra Housing And
Area Development
Authority ,
Through its Vice-President,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
9. Vice-President ,
Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
10. Chief Officer,
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Board),
A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
11. Competent Authority And
Dy Chief Officer
(Marketing),
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Page 27 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Board), A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
12. Chief Officer And
Vigilance Officer,
Mumbai Housing And Area
Development Board (Mumbai
Board), A Unit of MHADA,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
13. Mumbai Metropolitan
Region Development
Authority,
Through its Metropolitan
Commissioner,
Having its address at MMRDA
Building, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
14. Metropolitan
Commissioner,
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority,
Having its address at MMRDA
Building, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
15. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai ,
Through its Municipal
Commissioner,
MCGM Head Office,
Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai CSMT,
Mumbai – 400 001.
16. Senior Inspector ,
Page 28 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shops And Establishment
Department,
K-West Ward, MCGM,
K-West Ward Office Building,
2nd floor, Palvram Path,
Opposite BEST Depot,
Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 058.
17. Reliance Infrastructure
Ltd ,
(Erstwhile Reliance Energy Ltd),
E-4 (ii), MIDC, Marol,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400 093.
18. Adani Electricity ,
SV Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 058.
19. Gajanan Builders,
A Partnership Firm,
Having office at 20,
Patel Industrial Estate, Singh
Compound, Opp. Veena Dalwai
Estate, Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
20. Abdul Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Chief Promoter of Respondent
No.29-Aashiyana CHS (Prop), Chief
Promoter of Respondent No.30-
Sangam CHS (Prop), Partner of
Respondent No.19 – Gajanan Builder,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 79, 81, 478, 610 of
Respondents-Societies,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Page 29 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp.
Veena Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
21. Khairunissa Wajidali
Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Mother of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan, Partner of
Respondent No.19 – Gajanan
Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
22. Sameer Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Son of Respondent No.20 – Abdul
Ahad Khan, Partner of Respondent
No.19 – Gajanan Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
23. Saif Ahad Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Son of Respondent No.20 – Abdul
Ahad Khan, Partner of Respondent
No.19 – Gajanan Builders,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
Page 30 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
24. Asif Riyaz Khan,
Chief Promoter of Respondent No.
31. Sahara CHS (Prop),
Nephew of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 441, 614 of
Respondents-Societies,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
25. Imtiaz G Khan,
Age: Adult, Occ: Business,
Nephew of Respondent No.20 –
Abdul Ahad Khan,
Present Chairman of Respondent No.
30-Sangam Co-operative Housing
Society,
Occupant included in Annexure-II at
Structure Nos. 80, 131, 609 of
Respondents-Societies,
Having address at 20, Patel Industrial
Estate, Singh Compound, Opp Veena
Dalwai Estate, Navpada Road,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
26. Paradigm Framework LLP
Having address at 201, 2nd Floor,
Nivan Plot No. 96, CTS E/751, SV
Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
27. Parth Mehta ,
Partner of Paradigm Framework LLP,
Page 31 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Having address at 201, 2nd Floor,
Nivan Plot No. 96, CTS E/751, SV
Road, Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
28. Gajanan Property And
Developers Pvt Ltd,
201, 2nd Floor, Nivan Plot No. 96,
CTS E/751, SV Road,
Khar (West),
Mumbai – 400 052.
29. Ashiyana Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
30. Sangam Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
31. Sahara Co-operative
Housing Society (Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
32. Sahara And Sangam SRA
Commercial Premises Co-
operative Housing Society
(Prop) ,
Ghass Compound, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
33. Sarfaraz Shaikh ,
Age: 43 Years, Occ: Business,
2/502, Sea Crest, Saath Bangla,
Page 32 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(Seven Bunglows), Andheri (West),
Mumbai – 400 059.
34. Airf Muzzammil Khan ,
Age: 47 Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 171, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
35. Vaidehi S Mehndale ,
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 238, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
36. Shreeram S Mehendale ,
Age: Adult Years, Occ: Business,
Gala No. 238, Ghass Compound,
Navpada Road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai – 400 102.
37. Commissioner of Police ,
Greater Mumbai,
Mumbai Police Head Quarter,
Opposite Crawford Market,
Mumbai – 400 001.
38. Joint Commissioner of
Police-Crime Branch ,
Greater Mumbai,
Mumbai Police Head Quarter,
Opposite Crawford Market,
Mumbai – 400 001.
39. Senior Inspector of
Police ,
Oshiwara Police Station,
Oshiwara, Jogeshwari (West),
Page 33 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Mumbai – 400 102.
40. State of Maharashtra ,
Through Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
(Summons to be served upon Ld.
Government Pleader appointed under
O.27, R.4 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908)
41. Urban Development
Department ,
Through its Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
42. Housing Department ,
Through Its Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
43. Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee ,
(Earlier Known as High Power
Committee),
Administrative Building, at Slum
Rehabilitation Authority,
Prof AK Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondents
WITH
WRIT INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31568 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 29003 OF 2021
Page 34 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 9433 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2244 NO. 2019
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2512 OF 2019
A PPEARANCES
for the
petitioners,
Petitioner No. 62,
said to be
President of
Petitioner No.1
Mr Abdul Haq Ansari,
for respondent-
SRA
Mr Abhijit P Kulkarni , with Viraj
Hake.
for respondent-
MHADA
Mr PG Lad , with Prerana Dhoke &
Sayli Apte.
for respondent-
MCGM
Ms Shilpa Redkar.
for respondent
nos. 17 & 18
Mr Satish Kamat.
for respondent
nos. 2o, 22 & 23
Mrs Vaishali Thorat , i/b Bijal
Gandhi.
for respondent
nos. 26 & 27
Mr Gauraj Shah , i/b Fatima
Officewala.
for respondent no.
28
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar , i/b Imtiaz
Shaikh.
for respondent no.
32
Mr Pradeep Thorat , with Aniesh
Jadhav, i/b Aditi Naikare.
Page 35 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
for respondents
nos. 37 to 42
Mr Hemant Haryan, AGP ,with
Sukanta Karmakar, AGP.
for respondent no.
43-AGRC
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy).
CORAM : G.S.Patel &
Madhav J Jamdar, JJ
DATED : 9th March 2022
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per GS Patel J) :-
1. Before we turn to the Petition, we believe we must make a
reference to events in Court during several hearings after this
Petition was first moved in September 2021, and then from
November 2021 onwards, when this Petition was first in the roster
of this Division Bench.
(a) The Petition was filed on 3rd April 2021, as per the CIS
records. It does not seem to have been moved or even
served urgently, for the vakalatnamas of some of the
Respondents were filed only between 9th September
and 16th November 2021. Reply affidavits were filed
much later.
(b) The Petition seems to have been first moved only on
24th September 2021 before Ujjal Bhuyan, J and one of
us, Madhav J Jamdar, J. On that day, the Petitioners
were represented by counsel instructed by Mr KP
Page 36 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Tiwari. The Petitioners’ counsel sought time ‘to take
instructions’. The order of that day reads:
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
time to obtain instructions.
2. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the
developer submits that even at this stage the
developer is ready to provide transit rent in
parity with other slum dwellers provided it is
agreeable to the petitioners to vacate the
premises.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner may
serve copies of the writ petition on learned
counsel for the respondents.
4. Stand over to 12.10.2021.
5. We make it clear that no order,
preventive or otherwise, has been passed in
this writ petition.
( Emphasis added )
(c) On 12th October 2021, the matter did not reach. It was
adjourned to Thursday, 21st October 2021. It does not
seem to have been listed or taken up that day.
(d) On Saturday, 23rd October 2021, the Petitioners
‘urgently’ moved another Division Bench in Chambers
(SJ Kathawalla and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ). The
Petitioners were represented by Mr Shivraj Kunchge
and Mr Rahul Gupta, instructed by Mr KP Tiwari.
None of the Respondents were represented, although
they had appeared on notice on 24th September 2021.
Page 37 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
At least three Respondents or sets of Respondents had
filed vakalatnamas by this time (Mr Imitiaz Shaikh on
9th September 2021, Ms Fatema Officewala on 4th
October 2021, and Ms Aditi Suresh Naikare on 14th
October 2021). We are today once again told that at this
Saturday hearing — which was apparently not before
the roster Bench; the matter had since been assigned to
the Bench presided over by Prasanna B Varale J on a
change in roster — the Petitioners moved entirely
without notice. This is the order that came to be passed
that day:
Ghass Compound Industrial
Association and Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation
Authority and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Shivraj N. Kunchge with Mr. Rahul
Gupta i/by K.P.Tiwari and Co., for
petitioners.
CORAM: (In Chambers )
S.J. KATHAWALLA
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
( through video conferencing )
DATE: 23rd OCTOBER, 2021
P.C.:
1. Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on
board.
2. Due to extreme urgency, the learned
Advocate for the Petitioners has mentioned
Page 38 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
the above matter before this Court. After
seeking permission of the Learned Chief
Justice, we have heard the learned
Advocate for the Petitioners.
3. We have gone through the order dated 24th
September, 2021 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court (Coram : Ujjal Bhuyan (as
he then was) and Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.). We
are informed that after the said order was
passed, the Petitioners received a notice
dated 21st October, 2021 from the
Respondent No.1 (SRA) stating that they
will demolish the impugned structures of
the Petitioners within 48 hours. The
Petitioners moved the above Writ Petition
before the regular Court i.e. the Division
Bench headed by Prasanna B. Varale, J., on
22nd October, 2021 and as per the
directions of the said bench, the above Writ
Petition is placed on 25th October, 2021 for
Admission/hearing. The Petitioners now
apprehend that their structures will be
demolished any time since the 48 hours
timeline set out in the Notice issued by the
SRA is over.
4. We therefore, direct the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority (Respondent
No.1) to maintain status quo as of today in
respect of the impugned structures upto
26th October, 2021. However, the Writ
Petition will appear before the regular Court
i.e. before the Division Bench headed by
Prasanna B. Varale, J. on 25th October, 2021,
when the parties may appear before that
bench and seek necessary reliefs.
Page 39 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
4. All concerned to act on an ordinary copy of
this order duly authenticated by the Private
Secretary of this Court.
( Emphasis added )
This ad-interim order has continued for months
thereafter, all the way until today.
(e) After the Diwali court recess in 2021, the matter was in
the roster of this Division Bench. On Monday, 29th
November 2021, no longer than two weeks after the
post-Diwali term commenced, we heard all parties.
Before us, the 131 Petitioners (the 1st Petitioner being
an association and the remaining Petitioners being
individuals) were all represented by Mr Anil Sakhare,
Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr KP Tiwari and Mr
Tushar Kochale. The Maharashtra Housing & Area
Development Authority, the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai, slum societies and the developers
were all represented. We heard Mr Sakhare for the
Petitioners fully and then, at his request on instructions
he was given in Court, we stood the matter over to
Wednesday, 1st December 2021 for orders. We
continued the previous ad-interim order until the next
date.
(f) On 1st December 2021, the Writ Petition was listed at
903, the third matter on the Supplementary Board for
that day. Senior Counsel for the Petitioners was not
Page 40 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
present. Mr KP Tiwari represented the Petitioners.
Without further comments, we reproduce the order of
1st December 2021 in full:
Ghass Compound Industrial
Association & Ors
…Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
& Ors
…Respondents
Mr KP Tiwari , for the Petitioner.
Mr PG Lad , with Aparna Kalathil & Sayli Apte,
for Respondents Nos. 8 to 12.
Mr Gauraj Shah , with Fatema Officewala, for
Respondents Nos. 26 and 27.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar , with Imtiaz Shaikh,
for Respondent No. 28.
Mr Pradeep Thorat , i/b Aditi Naikare, for
Respondent No. 32.
Mr Hemant Haryan , AGP , for Respondents Nos.
37 to 42.
Mr PK Dhakephalkar , Senior Advocate , with
Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent
No. 43 – AGRC.
Ms Rupali Adhate , for MCGM.
Mr Abhijit P Kulkarni , for Respondent – SRA.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 1st December 2021
PC:-
1. Mr Tiwari on behalf of the Petitioners,
including the individuals from 2 to 131, states that
he has instructions that each of these individuals
will furnish a signed undertaking to vacate. The
Page 41 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
undertaking requests for some grace period from
the date of signing of the undertaking to vacate.
2. There is today no signed undertaking
available.
3. During the course of the hearing, we
expressed our dissatisfaction in the manner in
which the Petition was signed and purportedly
affirmed. We believed that this would conceivably
be against the interest of some of the Petitioners
— including, in particular, those found to be
eligible. We do not wish to pass an order that
would render those found eligible vulnerable for
any reason whatsoever.
4. We, therefore, require all Petitioners 2 to
131 to come to Court on 10th December 2021.
Each of them will sign an undertaking
incorporating the terms that are presented to us in
draft by Mr Tiwari today. We take that sheet on
record and mark it ‘X1’ for identification with
today’s date. In addition, the final undertaking
will contain a clause in the usual form that the
person giving the undertaking and his family are
the only ones in occupation of the premises in
question; that they have not created any third
party rights and will not create any third party
rights; and that they and their family members
will remove themselves and deliver vacant
possession within the time provided. We allow a
period of eight weeks from the date of signing of
the undertaking. By our reckoning, this means
that all these persons giving the undertakings
must vacate by 1st February 2022 (we have
granted a few days more than eight weeks). If this
is not done, we give the developer liberty to apply to
Page 42 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
the SRA for a forcible removal with the necessary
police protection.
5. The Court Associate before whom the
undertakings are being affirmed will ensure that
the person affirming the undertaking has been
read over and explained and has understood the
contents of the undertaking as also to the
necessary extent, the Petition itself. If any person
has not understood either of these, an officer from
the Official Translators’ Office will be present at
the time to explain the substance of the Petition
and the precise terms of the proposed
undertaking. The Associate will also endorse that
the identity of each person signing the
undertaking has been verified. We make it clear
that identifying documents are not to be retained
as part of the record because of privacy concerns.
The endorsement of the Associate is enough.
6. At the same time, we accept the
undertakings given by one Swadesh Anand, a
director of the Gajaanan Property Developers
Private Limited. These undertakings are stated in
an Affidavit dated 29th November 2021. All the
statements in this Affidavit including in particular
those in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are accepted as
undertakings to the Court. The affirmed affidavit
containing the undertakings is taken on record
and marked ‘X2’ for identification with today’s
date. So that there is no misunderstanding, we
reproduce paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 in this order
itself.
“2. In furtherance to the said
statement made by the Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No. 28,
Page 43 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
which statement is recorded in para 2
of the order dated 24th September,
2021 passed by the Hon’ble Division
bench of the Hon’ble High Court, at
Bombay, I hereby say that the Respondent
No. 28 shall provide monthly displacement
compensation for 17 months (11 months
upfront and 6 months vide PDC) in
parity with similarly placed slum dwellers,
to all the 105 Petitioners who have been
declared as eligible, provided they hand
over vacant, quiet and peaceful possession
of their respective structures to the
Respondent No. 28. The details of the
105 eligible Petitioners is as under:-
Sr No. Petitioner
Status of Eligibility
Number
1. 3 Eligible
2. 4 Eligible
3. 5 Eligible
4. 6 Eligible
5. 7 Eligible
6. 8 Eligible
7. 9 Eligible
8. 10 Eligible
9. 11 Eligible
10. 12 Eligible
11. 13 Eligible
12. 14 Eligible
13. 15 Eligible
14. 16 Eligible
15. 17 Eligible
16. 18 Eligible
17. 19 Eligible
18. 20 Eligible
19. 21 Eligible
20. 22 Eligible
21. 23 Eligible
Page 44 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
22. 24 Eligible
23. 25 Eligible
24. 26 Eligible
25. 27 Eligible
26. 28 Eligible
27. 29 Eligible
28. 30 Eligible
29. 31 Eligible
30. 32 Eligible
31. 33 Eligible
32. 34 Eligible
33. 35 Eligible
34. 36 Eligible
35. 37 Eligible
36. 38 Eligible
37. 39 Eligible
38. 64 Eligible
39. 65 Eligible
40. 66 Eligible
41. 67 Eligible
42. 68 Eligible
43. 69 Eligible
44. 70 Eligible
45. 71 Eligible
46. 72 Eligible
47. 73 Eligible
48. 74 Eligible
49. 75 Eligible
50. 76 Eligible
51. 77 Eligible
52. 78 Eligible
53 79 Eligible
54. 80 Eligible
55. 81 Eligible
56. 82 Eligible
57. 83 Eligible
58. 84 Eligible
59. 85 Eligible
60. 86 Eligible
61. 87 Eligible
62. 88 Eligible
Page 45 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
63. 89 Eligible
64. 90 Eligible
65. 91 Eligible
66. 92 Eligible
67. 93 Eligible
68. 94 Eligible
69. 95 Eligible
70. 96 Eligible
71. 97 Eligible
72. 98 Eligible
73. 99 Eligible
74. 100 Eligible
75. 101 Eligible
76. 102 Eligible
77. 103 Eligible
78. 104 Eligible
79. 105 Eligible
80. 106 Eligible
81. 107 Eligible
82. 108 Eligible
83. 109 Eligible
84. 110 Eligible
85. 111 Eligible
86. 112 Eligible
87. 113 Eligible
88. 114 Eligible
89. 115 Eligible
90. 116 Eligible
91. 117 Eligible
92. 118 Eligible
93. 119 Eligible
94. 120 Eligible
95. 121 Eligible
96. 122 Eligible
97. 123 Eligible
98. 124 Eligible
99. 125 Eligible
100. 126 Eligible
101. 127 Eligible
102. 128 Eligible
103. 129 Eligible
Page 46 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
104. 130 Eligible
105. 131 Eligible
3. I say that on humanitarian
grounds, the Respondent No. 28 is also
willing to provide monthly displacement
compensation only for a period of 11
months to the Petitioners who have been
declared as ineligible, subject to the
Petitioners handing over vacant, quiet and
peaceful possession of their respective
structures to the Respondent No. 28. In the
event the ineligible Petitioners herein are
declared as eligible and their names are
reflected in the Supplemental Annexure-II
to that effect, they shall be entitled to all
the benefits of an eligible slum dwellers as
per SR Scheme. The details of the 25
ineligible Petitioners are as under:-
Sr. No. Petitioner
Status of Eligibility
Number
1. 41 In-Eligible
2. 42 In-Eligible
3. 43 In-Eligible
4. 44 In-Eligible
5. 45 In-Eligible
6. 46 In-Eligible
7. 47 In-Eligible
8. 48 In-Eligible
9. 49 In-Eligible
10. 50 In-Eligible
11. 51 In-Eligible
12. 52 In-Eligible
13. 53 In-Eligible
14. 54 In-Eligible
15. 55 In-Eligible
16. 2 In-Eligible
17. 56 In-Eligible
Page 47 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
18. 57 In-Eligible
19. 58 In-Eligible
20. 59 In-Eligible
21. 60 In-Eligible
22. 61 In-Eligible
23. 62 In-Eligible
24. 63 In-Eligible
25. 40 In-Eligible
4. I say that in paragraph 27 of the
Short Affidavit dated 8th September
2021 filed by the Respondent No. 28, a
specific statement is made stating that
the Respondent No. 28 has vide its
letter dated 16th February 2021,
deposited with the Assistant Registrar,
SRA, post-dated cheques amounting to
Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Only) towards rent of the Petitioners
herein.”
7. For the present, we do not dispose of this
Petition. We will list it for compliance and directions,
if necessary, on 13th December 2021, a few days after
the undertakings are to be executed by Petitioners
Nos 2 to 131.
8. Previous order, if any, to continue until next
date.
9. All concerned will act on production of a
digitally signed copy of this order.
( Emphasis added )
(g) The next order of 13th December 2021 is crucial. This
is how it reads.
Page 48 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
1. The entire matter has taken a very
disturbing turn since our order of 1st
December 2021. We reproduce paragraphs 1
to 5 and the principal portion of paragraph 6
of the order of 1st December 2021:
...
2. After this order, Mr Ramesh Kusurkar,
Associate of this Court was appointed by the
Prothonotary and Senior Master as the Court
Officer. He was to explain the substance of the
Petition and the precise terms of the proposed
undertaking to all the Petitioners. He visited
the GT Hospital premises where the office of
the Official Translator is on 10th December
2021 at about 12.00 noon. There was no one
present. He attempted to contact Mr Tiwari,
the Advocate for the Petitioners. He was
assured they would. But nobody came until
2.45 p.m. When Mr Kusurkar returned to the
High Court at about 3.00 p.m. one Abdul Haq
Ansari, saying he was the President of
Petitioners’ association contacted Mr
Kusurkar and said that Petitioners were all
waiting outside the High Court since 10.00
a.m. They had not gone to the Translator’s
office at GT Hospital. Mr Kusurkar was told
that not one of the Petitioners was willing
to sign the undertaking proposed on their
behalf. Mr Kusurkar went out of the High
court premises where the Petitioners were
waiting to reconfirm this. Every one of
them said they were unwilling to sign any
such undertaking. Mr Kusurkar made a
hand written report and put the signatures
Page 49 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
of some of the Committee Members and
Petitioners who were present at that time.
3. Today present before us are Mr
Abdul Haq Ansari and Mr Shamshad
Nazim Ali Khan. They say they represent
the Petitioners. We do not know if this is
true or not. Both were present on 1st
December 2021. They personally confirm
to us that they were present on that day.
4. They have submitted a set of written
submissions and an Interim Application.
Today they seek time to engage a new
Advocate. They say that Mr Tiwari had no
instructions to offer any such undertaking. We
will discharge Mr Tiwari and Mr Tushar
Kochale the Advocate on record for the
Petitioners and will permit the Petitioners to
engage fresh representation.
5. We are also informed that two of the
present Petitioners have separately filed a
separate Writ Petition before the learned
Single Judge assailing the LOI issued to the
developer. That relates to the same subject
matter.
6. We do not think it is possible to
proceed with the matter today in these
circumstances. The Petitioners will have to be
given some reasonable time to engage lawyers.
7. We list this matter on 3rd January 2022
first on board. We make it clear that we
propose to dispose of the Petition finally on
that day.
Page 50 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
8. Mr Lad on behalf of the MHADA
fairly agrees that in view of these unforeseen
developments, MHADA will not take action
on its eviction notice until the end of the day
on 3rd January 2022. In this context, we make
it clear that MHADA is at liberty to keep in
readiness all its personnel and equipment to
proceed with the removal but will not deploy
it until further orders of the Court on that day.
9. Liberty to the present Respondents to
apply on the administrative side to have the
Single Judge matter tagged and clubbed with
the present Writ Petition and to have both
matters assigned to such Bench as the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice may deem fit.
10. The Interim Application and the
written submissions filed today are taken on
record.
( Emphasis added )
(h) This order assumes significance because even today, as
we make this final order on the Petition, we do not
know for certain if the remaining Petitioners other than
the handful who are in Court are, or have been made,
fully aware of what is being argued on their behalf.
(i) On 3rd January 2022, the Petitioners sought time.
They asked for permission to be represented by a
Constituted Attorney. We refused. We said any one of
the Petitioners could appear in person, or they could
engage an advocate. We stood the matter over to 10th
Page 51 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
January 2022 and continued the ad-interim order until
the next date.
(j) On 10th January 2022, we were presented with a new
Interim Application by the Petitioners. It was under
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and also sought recall of our order of 1st December
2021, alleging fraud etc. There was nothing to recall.
The 1st December 2021 order had clearly been
overtaken by subsequent events, as the order of 13th
December 2021. Moreover, recalling that order would
mean releasing the developer from its undertakings,
something the Petitioners seemed not to understand,
or refused to understand. The Petitioners had no
lawyer. They asked for four weeks’ time. We declined
such a long adjournment, saying:
4. We are not inclined to grant such a long
adjournment. There are 131 Petitioners. As
against that, there are 720 odd slum dwellers
who have already vacated without resisting
the vacating process. Their interests are
seriously compromised by the continued delay
in implementation of the SRA project. For
this reason, we decline the application for an
adjournment of the matter for four weeks.
We said we would hear the main Petition itself finally
and the IA on 17th January 2022.
Page 52 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
(k) The Omicron-related disruption brought a new SOP to
court proceedings. We could not take up the matter on
17th January 2022, and adjourned it to 2nd February
2022, continuing the previous order. On that date, we
had to further adjourn the matter (largely for the same
reason of Omicron and the still continuing SOP) to
15th February 2022. On that date, we disposed of yet
another Interim Application filed (needlessly) for
correcting a typographical error, and stood the matter
over to 18th February 2022. We were compelled to do
so because we did not then have a copy of the written
submissions on which the Petitioners proposed to rely.
(l) This is the order that we made on 18th February 2022,
when all parties were represented (the Petitioners
through Ansari):
1. We had earlier directed that the
Petition would be taken up for final disposal at
the admission stage. The 1st Petitioner is an
association. We have permitted one of the
Petitioners, Mr Ansari, to argue in person
on behalf of all the Petitioners.
2. Mr Ansari submits that the Petitioners
occupy certain commercial industrial galas or
premises said to be part of the slum project
but which the Petitioners dispute. According
to them, the entire slum rehabilitation
scheme, at least so far as they are concerned,
is fraudulent and is based on bogus and got up
documents. The Annexure-II is also,
according to them, bogus. The Gumasta or
Page 53 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Shops and Establishments licenses are also
alleged to be bogus. Other licenses are alleged
to have been procured. Fake electricity bills
have been generated only to deprive the
Petitioners of their rights.
3. We propose to hear the Petitioners
fully so that there is no scope for any
controversy on that scope. We understand
that the Petitioners are more than
somewhat handicapped because they
cannot, for reasons that do not concern us,
engage an Advocate .
4. Mr Ansari has submitted a volume
styled as written submissions. From pages 8 to
10 there are some comments. Then there are
various annexures running to page 318. The
documents put together in this compilation
have no discernible correlation to what Mr
Ansari is canvassing before us. Indeed, on a
prima facie reading of some portions of
these written submissions we find that
there are discrepancies. Some parts are
also inappropriate. The Applicant agrees to
withdraw his written submissions and
compilation. This will be replaced with a
revised and more accurate set of written
submissions with cross references to the
appropriate pages. We make it clear that
the compilation has to contain, and contain
only, relevant documents. Copies of the
revised submissions are to be served by the
Petitioners’ representative in hard copy
and by email to the Advocates for all the
Respondents. This is to be done by 28th
February 2022.
Page 54 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
5. Mr Khandeparkar for the developer
agrees that, for his part, he will prepare a
comprehensive list of dates. This will be
necessary because the matter has travelled a
great distance with very many events since the
Petition was filed. Copies of this list of dates
are to be filed in advance by 28th February
2022 with a copy to Mr Ansari. The list of
dates should be sent to Mr Ansari in both
hard copy and by email.
6. We had proposed to take up the matter
at an earlier date but since the party appearing
for the Petitioner says that there is a marriage
in his family, we list the matter on 8th March
2022.
7. Previous orders to continue until the
next date.
8. All concerned will act on production of
a digitally signed copy of this order.
( Emphasis added )
(m) We then heard the matter fully yesterday, 8th March
2022, and kept it for orders today.
2. These are the circumstances in which Ansari comes to be
allowed to represent the Petitioners. As we noted, we do not know if
the Petitioners are all individually aware of what Ansari canvasses.
The reason is plain. Many of the Petitioners are eligible for
rehabilitation. Yet Ansari maintains that the very document that
confers eligibility, the Annexure-II list of eligible and ineligible
persons, is entirely bogus from start to finish. Therefore, even those
Page 55 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
who have now the promise of rehabilitation all 732 eligible persons
will, if Ansari succeeds, be robbed of that right. With this
background, we turn to the Petition.
3. The slum rehabilitation project in question has a long and
chequered history. The Petition ostensibly challenges certain steps
taken during the course of implementation of a Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme. These include a challenge to what is called an “Annexure-
II”, a listing of those slum dwellers who are found eligible for
rehabilitation and those who are not. It also has a challenge to the
Letter of Intent issued to the developer. Indeed, as we shall see, and
for reasons to which we will turn presently, dislodging the present
developer — at any cost, even at a very high cost to other slum
dwellers — seems to be the true intent of this Petition. After several
hearings and granting much latitude to the Petitioners, we have
found no merit at all in the Petition. Our reasons for rejecting it
follow.
4. In the circumstances that we will briefly outline in the
chronological narrative that follows, Ansari, Petitioner No 62, and
claiming to be the ‘President’ of the 1st Petitioner association
represented the Petitioners in person. We permitted this.
5. The slum rehabilitation project in question is a large tract of
land at CTS Nos. 410/C/1 (pt) and 446/C/2 (pt) of Village
Oshiwara, Andheri West, Mumbai. The total area under the SR
scheme is 38,990.94 sq mtrs, just under 10 acres. The area was
declared as a slum and so notified under Section 4(1) of the
Page 56 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“ the Slum Act ”) on 14th October 1977.
This is important because admittedly at no level and at no time has
there ever been a challenge to the Slum Notification. We note this
because before us today, Ansari on behalf of Petitioners insist that
the “whole slum notification” is a “fraud”.
6. This submission has to be rejected at the threshold for one
simple, over-riding reason. A look at Section 4 of the Slum Act
shows that where in any ‘area’ (an undefined term, which must
therefore receive its ordinary meaning) or any building (defined in
Section 2(d)) in any area, certain conditions obtain — lack of
hygienic living and working conditions, sanitation, and so on — and
the Competent Authority is satisfied about the existence of these
conditions, the area may be declared as a ‘slum’. This has to then be
notified in the Government Gazette. It directly follows, therefore,
that if Ansari and his cohorts challenge the Section 4 slum
notification , i.e., the notification of this area as a slum , they must be
able to show that admittedly and without further enquiry, the pre-
conditions necessary for the issue of the Notification did not obtain
on site at the date of the Notification . This can be shown by an
admission of the other side, or something non-contentious.
Otherwise, this challenge is anchored to fundamental disputed
questions of fact that a writ court cannot and will not examine.
Worse yet, in the nearly 200 pages of this Petition, there is
absolutely nothing to show that, admittedly or unambiguously, the
slum-conditions on site did not exist at the time of the Slum
Notification.
Page 57 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
7. We turn now to the background facts. This narrative will take
us to the immediate challenges in the Petition.
8. On 15th February 2006, a resolution was passed in the
proposed Sahara CHSL to appoint one Gajanan Builders as the
developer under the Development Control Regulation 33(10)
Scheme. Another resolution by the Sangam SRA CHSL, also a
proposed society, in the same terms followed on 25th May 2006.
The two firms then came together to form Respondent No. 28. The
usual steps followed, i.e. confirmation by the societies of the
appointment of Respondent No. 28 as a developer, and finally on
10th September 2009, there was a development agreement between
the societies and the developer. Both societies have since being
amalgamated as Respondent No. 32, which is represented before us
today.
9. At this stage, some numbers. The total number of slum
dwellers as certified in the Annexure-II issued by MHADA twelve
years ago on 1st February 2010 was 871. Of these, 832 are eligible
and 39 are ineligible. Of the total number of structures on site, 752
structures have been demolished.
10. We note this at this very stage because of the prayers sought
in the Petition. These prayers are at page 197. Prayer clauses (a) to
(d) read thus:
“ A] That this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, be
pleased call for records and proceedings of the following
from the respective respondents.
Page 58 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
i. Annexure-II dated 01.02.2020 [Exhibit-A-15]
prepared and issued by Respondent No. 11-Deputy Chief
Officer (Marketing) and Competent Authority-Mumbai
Housing Board.
ii. Letter of Intent dated 15.06.2018 [Exhibit-A-34]
from Respondent No. 1-Slum Rehabilitation Authority in
respect of S.R. Scheme on the Suit Property,
iii. Withdrawal of consents by 516 occupants vide
individual Notarised Declarations on the grounds of fraud,
misrepresentation, coercion, from Respondent No. 1-SRA
and Respondent No. 8-MHADA,
iv. Order dtd 07.02.2020 [EXHIBIT-A91] passed in
Application No. 48/2019 by Respondent No. 43-AGRC,
v. Eviction Orders dtd. 04.05.2019, 18.03.2020,
02.12.2020, 11.01.2021 [EXHIBIT – A-68, A-94, A-140, A-
151] passed by Respondent No. 5 – Deputy Collector
(Western Suburbs), - Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
vi. Common Final Order dtd. 18.03.2021 [EXHIBIT-A-
169] passed by Respondent No. 43- AGRC in Appeal No.
4/2020 and Application Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 1/2021.
B] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 after
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Annexure-II
dated 01.02.2010 [Exhibit-A-15], Letter of Intent dated
15.06.2018 [Exhibit -A-34], be pleased to quash and set
aside said Annexure-II dated 01.02.2020, Letter of Intent
dated 15.06.2018 and, all subsequent sanctions, permissions
on the basis of said Annexure-II and Letter of Intent, issued
in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the Suit
Property, by declaring the same as product of fraud, illegal,
null and void;
C] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising powers under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, after
Page 59 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Order dtd
07.02.2020 [EXHIBIT-A-91] passed in Application No.
48/2019 by Respondent No. 43-AGRC, be pleased to quash
and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, null
and void;
D] That, this Hon’ble Court exercising power under
Article 226, 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, after
scrutinizing legality, validity and propriety of Common final
Order dtd. 18.03.2021 [EXHIBIT – A-169] passed by
Respondent No. 43-AGRC in appeal No. 4/2020 and
Application Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 10/2021 confirming
eviction orders passed against Petitioner for said fraudulent
S.R. Scheme, be pleased to quash and set aside said
Common Final Order dtd 1803.2021 by declaring the same
as illegal, null and void and this Hon’ble Court be further
pleased to allow said appeal No. 4/2020 and application
Nos. 8/2021, 9/2021, 10/2021 in absolute terms.”
11. Ex facie, the frame of these prayers is itself a problem. There
is a combined challenge to the Annexure-II of 1st February 2010 and
the Letter of Intent that followed from the SRA on 15th June 2018.
Now, what is being sought is that even those who consented to
individual declarations in favour of the re-development should
forcibly have their consensus withdrawn by a mandamus from this
Court. These 516 persons whose consensus are sought to be
withdrawn are not all parties here and no such mandamus can, in
any case, ever issued.
12. But, more importantly, and this possibly goes to the root of
the matter, is the question of locus. As we noted there is a challenge
to Annexure-II. Of the 140 Petitioners, fully 100 are actually eligible.
Page 60 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
These are Petitioners Nos. 3 to 34 and 64 to 131. There is no
possibility whatsoever of these Petitioners assailing the very
Annexure-II that holds them eligible for rehabilitation or of them
challenging the Letter of Intent at all. Not one of these persons has
any title to the land under their structures. The initial entry onto the
land is illegal and without valid title.
13. Equally important is the fact that all the other 732 eligible
persons mentioned in Annexure-II have not been made party
respondents to the present Petition. If the Petitioners succeed, the
eligibility of all those 732 eligible persons will also go — and the
Petitioners seek this relief without affording those persons an
opportunity of placing their case before us, or of even indicating
whether they are supporting the Petitioners in the first place. This
will also have a bearing on the question of bona fides.
14. The entire Petition proceeds on a fundamental
misunderstanding of slum re-development law. We have said this
repeatedly, but we do so once again. Only because a person has been
declared ineligible does not mean that the person’s structure cannot
be demolished. The entire SRA scheme is predicated on a
demolition from end-to-end within the SR scheme boundaries of all
slum structures. First, there is the slum notification. Then these
structures are surveyed. There is a physical assessment of the
existence of structures on site. Then there is an assessment of who
or which individual is entitled to rehabilitation and can establish that
he or she satisfies the eligibility criteria in respect of his or her
occupancy of a particular structure. If a person is found eligible and
is so noted in Annexure-II (which may be revised periodically as
Page 61 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
circumstances require), that person is entitle to accommodation free
of cost in a rehab unit following the allotment policy. If a person is
found ineligible, it only means that there is no space made available
for him or her in the rehab tenement or building. In either
circumstance, eligible or ineligible, the structure must go.
15. With this we now turn to Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum
Rehabilitation Act. They read thus:
“ 33. Power of eviction to be exercised only by the
Competent Authority
Where the Competent Authority is satisfied either
upon a representation from the owner of a building or upon
other information in its possession that the occupants of the
building have not vacated it in pursuance of any order or
direction issued or given by the Authority, the Authority
shall, by order, direct the eviction of the occupants from the
building in such manner and within such time as may be
specified in the order, and for the purpose of such eviction,
may use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary:
Provided that, before making any order under this
section the Competent Authority shall give a reasonable
opportunity to the occupants of the building to show cause
why they should not be evicted therefrom.
38. Order of demolition of building in certain cases
(1) Whether the erection of any building has been
commenced, or is being carried out, or has been completed,
in contravention of the provisions of section 8 or of any
restriction or condition imposed under sub-section (10) of
section 13, or a plan for the redevelopment of any clearance
area or in contravention of any notice, order or direction
issued or given under this Act, the Competent Authority
may, in addition to any other remedy that may be restored
Page 62 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
to under this Act or under any other law, make an order
directing that such erection shall be demolished by the
owner thereof within such time not exceeding two months
as may be specified in the order, and on the failure of the
owner to comply with order, the building so erected shall be
liable to forfeiture or to summary demolition by an order of
the competent Authority and the expenses of such
demolition shall be recoverable from the owner as arrears of
land revenue:
Provided that, no such order shall be made unless
the owner has been given a reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
(2) Forfeiture under this section shall be
adjudged by the Competent authority, and any property so
forfeited shall be disposed of as the competent Authority
may direct; and the cost of removal of the property under
this section shall be recoverable as an arrears of land
revenue.
(3) For the purpose of causing any building to be
demolished under sub-section (1) the Competent Authority
may use or cause to be used such force as may be
necessary.”
16. It is for this reason that we hold that this Petition is not
maintainable at the instance of the eligible slum dwellers.
17. There is another circumstance also why such a challenge at
the instance of eligible slum dwellers — and indeed all Petitioners
— must fail. That emerges from the remaining list of dates to which
we will now turn.
Page 63 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
18. For completeness we note that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 40 to 63
are all ineligible.
19. On 3rd February 2017, Petitioner No. 1, an association, filed
an application for self redevelopment. This is where one gets the
sense of having plunged down the rabbit hole like Alice in
Wonderland — where matters get curiouser and curiouser. For, it is
these very Petitioners who propounded a self-redevelopment scheme
relying on the very same Annexure-II of 1st February 2010 that they now
seek to have set aside . Even if people are appearing in person surely
there must be some limit to taking mutually destructive stands at
different points in time.
20. On 18th April 2017, another group of Petitioners came in as
intervenors to say that they have no objection to implement present
scheme but sought permission to apply for electricity connections.
Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 6, 9, 18, 28, 31, 32, 34, 41 to 43, 47 to 50, 61,
62, 64, 73, 75, 76, 81, 92, 99, 100, 104, 106, 109 to 111, 113, 114, 118,
119, 121, 122,126 to 130 were all intervenors in the Chamber
Summons and consented to the scheme. It is entirely unclear to us
how this group can take a different stand before us today and
pretend that the past never happened.
21. On 17th May 2018, entities of another developer were
admitted as partners of the developer. Respondent No. 26 is one
such entity. On 27th June 2018, there were two separate general
body resolutions by the society confirming the appointments of the
Page 64 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
developer and executing the Powers of Attorneys in favour of
developers and its partners.
22. Between January and February 2019, the 1st Petitioner and
other members filed an application bearing No 48 of 2019 before the
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee challenging the
implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. In that they
prayed for, and this is important: (i) a cancellation of Letter of
Intent, the intimation of approval and the commencement certificate
issued in favour of developer; (ii) a cancellation and setting aside of
the Annexure-II dated 1st February 2010; (iii) a declaration that the
amalgamation of two societies was illegal; and (iv) maintenance of
status quo. We say this is important for one reason: if this
application was ever unconditionally withdrawn, not one of these
Petitioners could be allowed to raise the same plea again later in any
proceeding or court. That is exactly what happened.
23. On 11th February 2020, the applicants in the AGRC
application (filed in January–February 2019) and now numbered as
Application No. 48 of 2019 unconditionally withdrew that
application. This is recorded in paragraph 10 of the AGRC order as
follows:
“During hearing Advocate for the Applicants Ghass Compound
Industrial Association and Ors submitted that Applicants and
the Respondents have reached an agreement to settle the matter
amicably and in view thereof the applicants are desirous to
withdraw the present application and prayed that this
Committee be pleased to permit the Applicants to withdraw the
present application and prayed that this Committee be please to
permit the Applicants to withdraw the present Application No.
Page 65 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
48 of 2019 unconditionally. The Advocate for respondent
consented to the same.
In view of same this Committee direct Applicants to
submit written withdrawal Application within 2 days.
Accordingly, Applicant has submitted withdrawal Application
dated 10th February 2020 and same is taken on record of this
Committee.
Accordingly, this Committee permits the applicants to
withdraw the application No. 48 of 2019 unconditionally.
Hence Application No. 48 of 2019 filed by Ghass
Compound Industrial Application and Ors. stands disposed off
as withdrawn.”
24. On its own, this means that the present Petition that seeks the
same relief that was abandoned or given up is not maintainable. In
any case, this is clearly for exercise of our discretionary and
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. Meanwhile, on 29th January 2019, ten slum dwellers
approached this Court challenging the scheme because they had
been asked to vacate their structures. That Petition is pending.
Petitioners Nos. 2, 28, 32 and 34 are all Petitioners in that Petition.
26. On 4th May 2019, the Deputy Collector SRA passed an order
under Section 33 and 38 of the Slum Act directing 72 eligible slum
dwellers to deliver vacant possession of their structures. On 16th
January 2020, some of the Petitioners filed another Writ Petition to
quash and set aside the demolition order of 4th May 2019. The
Court granted a status quo on 18th January 2020. This has
continued for some time.
Page 66 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
27. This is extremely significant because it leads us to believe that
what is being attempted now is a gross abuse of the process of this
Court and trying to evoke this Court’s sympathy by saying that
Petitioners are “poor slum dwellers”. Once the Petitioners
unconditionally withdrew their challenge to setting aside of the
Annexure -II and which they had sought before the AGRC, it is
simply impermissible for them to make the same plea before us as if
the withdrawal before the AGRC is entirely inconsequential in law.
It is not. Any withdrawal has serious consequences. An
unconditional withdrawal even more so. There is no point in
individuals standing up and repeating before us “fraud”, “bogus”
etc. Even if the parties before us are appearing in person we cannot
and will not abandon basic principles governing our writ
jurisdiction. If these persons want to claim fraud etc they will be
driven to a suit. On that they will have to pay Court fees. They
cannot simply get around this by filing writ petitions and repeating
allegations and putting up a case that they have consciously and
deliberately withdrawn.
28. On 18th March 2020, the Deputy Collector SRA passed
another order under Sections 33 and 38, this time directing 113
eligible slum dwellers to deliver vacant possession of their structures
to the developers.
29. On 13th July 2020, about 170 slum dwellers filed another Writ
Petition (L) No. 2512 of 2019 challenging the scheme. Some of
those slum dwellers have since settled their disputes. All the
Petitioners who remain in Writ Petition (L) 2512 of 2019 are
Petitioners to the present proceedings as well. This is yet another
Page 67 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
example instance of how the process of this Court is being abused
with the same group of Petitioners coming to the Court in different
Petitions at different times saying the same thing but obviously
doing this in an attempt at forum shopping so that they get their
cases listed before different Benches at different times. We will not
permit this.
30. On 13th October 2020, Respondent No. 28 filed an Interim
Application in Writ Petition No. 1307 of 2020 to vacate the stay
order of 18th January 2020 that had continued by then for ten
months.
31. While this was pending, on 2nd December 2020, the Deputy
Collector passed a Sections 33 and 38 order against another 50
eligible slum dwellers.
32. On 9th December 2020, in Writ Petition 1307 of 2020, this
Court directed the Petitioners to file a comprehensive Appeal before
the AGRC against the demolition order of 4th May 2019, the first
Section 33 and 38 order. That was to be disposed of within four
weeks. We leave aside the fact that some of these Petitioners then
filed Criminal Writ Petitions. It is enough to note that Appeal No. 4
of 2020 was in fact filed before the AGRC challenging the
demolition order of 4th May 2019. It was heard by the AGRC and
reserved for orders on 8th January 2021. Almost predictably, after it
was closed, there came to be filed an application by some of the
appellants seeking a recusal and making allegations of bias.
Page 68 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
33. On 11th June 2021, the Deputy Collector SRA passed a fourth
order under Sections 33 and 38, this time in regard to 26 ineligible
slum dwellers, and demanding possession.
34. Since the AGRC did not accept the recusal application, the
appellants filed an Interim Application in their pending Writ
Petition No. 1307 of 2020. They were granted liberty to move before
the learned Single Judge for a clarification. The AGRC was asked to
take up the application of 8th January 2021 and to hear it with the
main appeal. Between January and February 2021 the AGRC held a
common hearing of four Appeals filed against for demolition orders.
On 25th February 2021, the AGRC sought and was granted and
extension of time. Ultimately, on 18th March 2021, the AGRC
dismissed all four Appeals and upheld all four orders of Deputy
Collector. It is thereafter that this Petition was filed on 3rd April
2021 now not only challenging the Sections 33 and 38 orders but
also expanding the challenge to include the entire Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme.
35. We have already set out at the start of this judgment the
manner in which events unfolded after the Petition was first filed in
April 2021; and the manner in which an ad-interim order taken
without notice on a so-called ‘urgent’ mentioning on a Saturday
before a Bench not rostered to hear the matter but with dispensation
from the Hon’ble Chief Justice, continued for weeks and months.
We have also set out the circumstances in which one of the
Petitioners, Ansari, was permitted to argue.
Page 69 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
36. Before us Ansari has filed very many things, possibly too
many to count. There is a seven-volume set running into several
thousand pages. It was entirely disordered and without discernible
relevance or connection between the submissions and the
annexures. Then there are applications under the CrPC for perjury
and another application to withdraw one of our earlier orders which
has since become entirely inconsequential since said that we would
be hearing the Petition itself.
37. At this stage we note a few other factors. This is not a case
where nothing at all has happened on site. Given to us across the bar
is list of no less than 103 separate permissions obtained by the
developer for this project. The transit rent expenditure alone till
date is said to be a colossal Rs.40 crores. An aggregate of Rs.1.5
crores is being spent on transit rent per month for payment to those
who have vacated. But we leave aside the expenditure that the
developer claims to have made.
38. Instead, we turn to the most significant and dispositive factor
in this case, a facet we have noted earlier. These 113 Petitioners
include amongst them a vast number who are eligible and are
entitled to rehab accommodation. They have banded together, for
what purpose we cannot determine, but it does not appear to be
bona fide, as we do not know who is behind them, but there is surely
some hand there, to assail the scheme. We do not even know if all
these 130 petitioners know what is being said on their behalf and in
their name. We do not know if they are aware that if they succeed in
this Petition, their eligibility will go. So will the eligibility of all the
832 eligibility persons (even if that includes the 100 or so eligible
Page 70 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Petitioners). For all 130 petitioners seek to assail the very Annexure
II that they themselves propounded for the purposes of their own
self redevelopment. Obviously our conceptualisation of what “self-
redevelopment” means varies widely from the Petitioners.
According to us, it means development by slum dwellers
themselves. According to these Petitioners, it probably means
development by some other developer of their choice. Paying the
price for this extraordinary delay occasioned by these Petitioners are
not just the builder — which we will ignore for the moment — but,
more importantly, the vast number of people who have vacated.
This number is not small. A full 752 eligible persons are now in
transit . Their rehabilitation whether in a residential, commercial or
residential-cum-commercial structures is thrown into jeopardy and
they are forced to remain in transit because, and only because, of
these Petitioners.
39. This is leaving aside the question of locus that is against those
of the Petitioners who are eligible.
40. This is also leaving aside the question of any principle
analogous to estoppel or Order 23 where once there is an
unconditional withdrawal, the same relief cannot be re-agitated over
and over again.
41. To give a visual idea of what it is that is involved, we have
before us a sketch, though not to scale, that shows the scheme. We
have had this scanned and a scanned copy is annexed to this order.
There are three rehab buildings, marked Rehab 1, 2 and 3. There is a
Page 71 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
sale building to the west. There is one PAP of building of 775 PAP
units. There are three sectors marked in red dashed line which show
the areas where the Petitioners’ structures continue to exist. Those
marked in red diagonal lines are the Petitioners who have vacated
and are accepting transit rent. It is clear from this that it is these
Petitioners many of whom as we have noted are eligible are simply
holding up this scheme for no good reason. In our view this is not a
situation that can be allowed to continue.
42. We have given Ansari every conceivable latitude. He refuses
to accept the limitations of what is permissible in a Writ Court. He
refuses to adhere to an elementary discipline. He insists that his
submissions in one large volume after the other must be examined
minutely in detail on merits. So be it. We gave him that opportunity
as well, though we should not have. We were not surprised to find
that there is an attempt at a wholesale misleading even in these
Written Submissions. At pages 1035 to 1037, Ansari took us to
certain serial numbers in the Annexure II (leaving aside his own
irreconcilable and conflicting and contradictory stands in that
regard). He claimed that the whole of Annexure II was bogus. Even
those who are found eligible were bogus entries, he said, a
submission that does not appeal to logic or reason and probably
needs only to be stated to be rejected. We are unable to see how
anybody who has the benefit of an Annexure-II eligibility can come
to Court and say that the benefit is fraudulently given and should be
set aside. The suggestion is absurd. But in the tabulation here,
Ansari claims that persons who are eligible have been found to be so
on the basis of fake documents. He illustrates this by pointing to a
list of gumasta licenses. We asked Mr Lad for MHADA to take
Page 72 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
instructions. Overnight, he analysed the twelve entries in Ansair’s
tabulation selectively plucked from this Annexure II of 872 persons.
Mr Lad pointed out today that what Ansari claims to be a gumasta
license is not a gumasta license at all but is a copy of a Form A, an
application for Shops And Establishment license, a completely
different thing; and what has been annexed is a blank Shops and
Establishments certificate with some reference number written in
hand. The Petitioners say this they got this under the RTI Act.
Perhaps so, but what of it? How does this establish the Petitioners’
case that the entirety of the Annexure II is fraudulent? It does not
even establish that one entry is fraudulent, let alone all the others.
43. On any conceptualisation of a balance of convenience or
adopting any standard of proportionality, when one is looking at a
document that has 872 entries to say that one or two may be
erroneous is not enough. A crucial link in the chain is missing.
44. Ansari’s entire presentation is on the basis that the eligibility
has been determined only on the basis of a false gumasta license.
This is not even prima facie demonstrated.
45. The submission goes on in this vein and then refers to electric
metres at page 1037 and some discrepancies in names at pages 1038
to 1040.
46. What we do not know is first whether any of the Petitioners
feature in these tables so as to achieve a sought of self-goal. If they
do not, then the matter is even worse because what the Petitioners
Page 73 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
are in fact doing is attacking the eligibility of others , trying to have
them declared ineligible, and doing so without joining those persons
as respondents to the Petition. This is unacceptable. We would not
have allowed any builder to make any such attempt without joining
the individual concerned. We see no reason why these 130
individuals should have any higher or better right.
47. We return to a consideration of the prayers again. Obviously
on this analysis, prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) cannot be granted. Once
these prayers fail, nothing at all remains in the Petition.
48. Apart from the factual narrative completely obliterating any
such claim on the part of the Petitioners, we are not at all satisfied
about the bona fides of Ansari himself. Ms Thorat for some of the
Respondents points out that there are two FIRS and an MECR
against Ansari. FIR No 511 of 2018 dated 12th November 2018 filed
at the Oshiwara Police Station is under sections 307, 326, 324, 323,
421, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, among others. FIR
No. 102 of 2010dated 4th April 2010, filed at the DN Nagar Police
Station is under Sections 324, 504, 506, 34 and 160 of the IPC.
MERC No. 6 of 2015, dated 28th February 2015 at the Amboli
Police Station is under Sections 34, 384, 387, 499 etc of the IPC.
Ansari has been externed from Oshiwara jurisdiction because of
these. Co-accused in FIR 511 of 2018 are Wahab Ansari, Petitioner
No. 61 and Shamshad Khan, Petitioner No. 35.
49. We do not need to say anything further in the matter.
Page 74 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
50. Ansari asks to us a make a reference and pronounce on an
MMRDA order that, according to him, was issued fraudulently and
in haste within one day. Even if it was issued in one day, this will not
invalidate the order nor will it paper over the very many other acts
of palpable wrongness and attempted dishonesty including an
obvious attempt to mislead bench after bench after bench of this
Court by making the same application on repeated occasions
suppressing material from one bench or to other and putting
forward an entirely false claim.
51. We believe there are some among the petitioners who have
been actively misled by Ansari and a few others. We hope and trust
that at least because of this order the Petitioners who are eligible will
see the error of their ways.
52. The Petition is thoroughly misconceived and it is very
possibly mischievous. It is rejected.
53. All previous interim or ad-interim orders stand vacated
forthwith.
54. All IAs filed by the Petitioners are infructuous and are
disposed of accordingly.
55. Ansari applies for a continuation of the stay. The request is
rejected. The balance of convenience is not with these Petitioners. It
is emphatically with their fellow slum dwellers who are adversely
affected by these stay orders by these Petitioners.
Page 75 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
56. In the factual narrative we had mentioned the pendency of
other Writ Petitions. These are Writ Petition (L) No. 2512 of 2019
and Writ Petition No. 2244 of 2019. They will be placed by the
Registry before the roster Benches when so permitted by those
benches along with a copy of this order.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 76 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::
Ghass Compound Indl Assn & Ors v SRA & Ors
OSWPL9433-2021+J-GHASS-COMPOUND.doc
Page 77 of 77
9th March 2022
::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 01:39:05 :::