Manohar Krishnaji Magdam. vs Mahavir Niwas Tenant And Ors.

CNR No : HCBM010055971991

2026:BHC-AS:45265
WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2848 OF 1991
Manohar Krishnaji Mugdum
since deceased through legal heirs
1a] Mohan Manohar Mugdum
Age: 55 Years, R/o. Ganesh Krupa,
SNEHA
NITIN
CHAVAN
Block No. 105, Near Swagat Hotel, Keshavrao
Khade Marg, Sat Rasta,Mumbai - 400001.
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.11.05
18:23:15 +0530
1b] Mahavir Manohar Mugdum
Age: 50 Years, R/o. Ganesh Krupa,
Block No. 105, Near Swagat Hotel, Keshavrao
Khade Marg, Sat Rasta,Mumbai - 400001.
2] Indumati Manohar Mugdum,
Ganesh Kripa Mahal, Ist Floor, Room No. 105,
K.K. Marg, Sat Rasta, Bombay 400 011. ... Petitioners
Versus
1] Mahavir Niwas Tenants
Association, Mahavir Niwas, Mohili Village,
Sakinaka, Bombay- 400 072.
2] The Deputy Collector (ENC) and Competent
Authority, Kurla II, Topiwala College Building,
Mulud, Bombay- 400080.
2A] Bombay Municipal Corporation
through its Legal Department having its office at
Mahapalika Marg, Bombay – 400001.
3] Smt. Aparna Anil Brahamdande
Varchi Pakhadi, Agaripada, Narayan Niwas,
Room No.2, Kanjur Village Road, Kanujrmarg
(East), Mumbai.
4] Smt. Anita Suryakant Honale
Sneha Chavan 1
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

New Radhika Apartment, Room No.8/B Wing,
Nalasopara (East).
5. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Brihanmumbai
Competent Authority,
Having address at,
New Administrative Building,
Anant Kanekar Marg, D Block BKC,
...Respondents
Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051.

Mr. Drupad Patil a/w Mr. Namit Pansare for the Petitioners.
None for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Suyash S. Sule for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Sandeep Babar, AGP for the Respondent/State.
Ms. Rutuja Shedge i/b Mr. Ravleen Sabharwal for Respondent
No.5/SRA.
Mr. Prashant Thakre, Dy. Collecotr and Mr. Vijay Kharinar, Revenue
Assistant, (ENC/REM) Kurla are present.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 05.11.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioners are challenging the Judgment and order dated 04.06.1991
passed by the President, Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C.&R.) Tribunal,
Mumbai in Appeal No. 94 of 1989, by which the declaration dated
25.05.1989 and notification dated 28.08.1989 issued in the
Government Gazette was confirmed. The declaration is under Section
4(1) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ‘(Slum Act’ for short) and the appeal is filed
under Section 4(3) of the Slum Act.
Sneha Chavan 2
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

BACKGROUND
2. The Petitioners being owners, are only concerned with CTS
No. 52A (Part) admeasuring 2080 sq. mtr. and CTS No. 92 (Part)
admeasuring 933 sq. mtr. situated at Village Mohili, B.S.D. Mumbai
(‘subject matter property’ for short) with structures standing thereon i.e.
6 chawls and tenants therein. By the said declaration, the subject matter
property has been declared as slum area.
3. In the year 1977, previously, a declaration under section
Section 4 of the Slum Act was issued. Thereafter, in March, 1978, a
notification was published in Government Gazette. The Petitioners filed
appeal which was allowed and notification dated 02.03.1978 was set
aside. The tenants / occupants of the chawls (members of Respondent
No. 1-Association) filed complaints in 1986 and 1988. On 01.04.1989,
Show cause Notice issued by Respondent No. 2, which was replied by
the Petitioners on 20.04.1989 informing that if lack of amenities are
pointed out, same will be rectified. On 05.05.1989, second Show cause
Notice was issued, which was also replied by the Petitioners on
23.05.1989. Within 2 days, on 25.05.1989, a declaration under Section
4(1) of the Slum Act was issued. On 17.06.1989, fresh notice was
issued by Competent Authority asking Petitioners to undertake repairs
in 2 months. On 16.08.1989, Petitioners filed reply contending that
repair works was carried out and site may be inspected and time was
sought to construct additional WC. However, on 28.08.1989,
notification was issued declaring subject matter property as Slum Area
by Ld. Deputy Collector. On 02.11.1989, notification was published in
Gazette.
4. The Petitioners filed Appeal No. 94 of 1989 in Maharashtra
Sneha Chavan 3
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

Slum Tribunal, Bombay. Another Appeal bearing No. 93 of 1989 was
filed by other co-owners concerned with other chawls.
5. On 04.06.1991, Petitioners’ appeal was dismissed. The
Petitioners filed present writ petition.
6. On 08.07.1991, this Court accepted a statement made on
behalf of the Petitioners that necessary repairs and provision of
amenities will be made to the satisfaction of Respondent. Learned
Additional Government Pleader gave no objection and ad-interim relief
was granted to impugned order.
7. On 30.03.1992, this Court admitted the petition and issued
Rule. Interim stay was granted to the impugned order. The Petitioners
were directed to carry out certain repairs failing which the stay was to
stand vacated. The said directions mainly included repairs of 8 existing
WCs, repairs to drainage and sewerage and construction of additional 2
WCs on appropriate sanction being provided by Municipal Corporation.
8. On 10.05.1993, Petitioners’ Civil Engineer informed the
Competent Authority, Deputy Collector that the work of additional 2
WCs is completed. On 28.10.1993, letter was addressed to the office of
Addl. Government Pleader stating that the Order of this Hon’ble Court
is duly complied with.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted as
under.
9.1. That impugned order was passed by relying upon report of
Commissioner wherein a finding was recorded that 10 WCs are
Sneha Chavan 4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

essential however on-site inspection, 8 WCs were found. That alleged
lack of amenities for which the declaration was granted, was only about
sufficient number of WCs and certain repairs and water supply.
9.2. That the Authorities did not consider the case put up by
Petitioners and that Authorities did not grant sufficient time to comply
with directions.
9.3. That this Court was pleased to stay the effect of impugned
declaration and notification and by Order dated 30.03.1992 this Court
admitted the petition and earlier interim stay was continued and the
Petitioners were directed to carry out certain repairs and additions.
9.4. That the Petitioners have complied with the said Order and as
such till date the impugned declaration issued under Section 4 of the
said Act, has remained stayed.
9.5 That section 4(2) of the said Act provides for subjective
satisfaction of the Competent Authority and by complying with the
Order of this Hon'ble Court and the subsequent confirmations by the
concerned Officers, the Petitioners have provided habitable conditions
for living to the tenants.
9.6. Relying on various documents produced on record, it is submitted
that such repairs have been carried out and therefore Petitioners have
duly provided habitable conditions and there is no reason to sustain
such declaration under Section 4 of the said Act.
9.7. That the Petitioners had sought permission from the Municipal
Corporation, in respect of construction of 2 additional WCs and said fact
was informed to the Competent Authority vide Reply dated 16.08.1989
to Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.1989. That without considering the
said fact, the Notification was issued on 28.08.1989 i.e., immediately
within 12 days. That the Petitioners were not provided with sufficient
time.
Sneha Chavan 5
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

9.8. That this Hon'ble Court issued appropriate directions vide Order
dated 30.03.1992 whereby repairs were directed to be carried out and
the Municipal Corporation was directed to grant permission within two
weeks from the date of the Order. That Petitioners were directed to
carry out various repairs within specific time but subsequently they
were relieved of the time limit.
9.9. That under order of this Court, the Petitioners can not proceed
with the suit filed in the Small Causes Court against some of the
tenants; however, despite of this Court, directing the tenants to deposit
the rent, the Petitioners are not in receipt of such rent from 2006-07.
Therefore, the plight of the Petitioners is that the Petitioners can not
proceed against the tenants who are enjoying habitable conditions
without paying rent.
9.10. That impugned Declaration has resulted into gross prejudice to
the Petitioners as they are unable to reap rewards of their property
9.11 That the said Act is enacted in order to make better provision for
improvement and clearance of slum area and their redevelopment and
for the protection of occupiers from eviction and therefore, where such
land cannot be classified as ‘slum area’, the question of providing the
benefits of the Act may not arise. That such land can be of private
ownership and be developed accordingly and there is no embargo on
the Competent Authority to carry out the said exercise again.
9.12. He submitted that at the time of filing this petition, there were
about 75 tenants but now sub-tenants might have been inducted
illegally.
9.13. That the Respondent/Tenants/Association was directed to pay
dues and arrears of rent, water tax and assessment tax to the Petitioners
and/or to deposit the same in the Court.
9.14. Mr. Patil submitted on instructions that the tenants had deposited
Sneha Chavan 6
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

the rent and other charges till 2006 in the Court, which are partially
withdrawn by the Petitioners; however, Respondent-Tenants have not
deposited rent/taxes etc. as directed by this Court after 2006.
9.15. He invited the court's attention to various orders passed in the
petition namely orders dated 27.06.1991, 30.03.1992, 14.07.1992,
15.03.1996, 02.04.1996 and Certificate issued by Civil Engineer,
certifying that the work of construction of 2WC was completed,
certificate of the Architect, indicating that Petitioners have completed
construction of repairs to old blocks as per instructions of the Executive
Engineer of slum.
9.16. He submitted that therefore, since the slum declaration was
stayed by this Court and the Petitioner has carried out necessary repairs
making available the amenities and further considering the fact that as
on today everyone in this slum has his own WC and the interim order
passed by this Court has been complied with the slum declaration needs
to be set aside.
9.15. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the petition.
10. According to office note, as per recent notice issued by this
court on 07.05.2026, the Respondent No. 1 is duly served as per bailiff
report. Despite such service, nobody appeared for Respondent No. 1.
Also nobody appeared for Respondent No. 2A i.e. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai.It appears that neither the Tenants'
Association nor the Municipal Authority are interested in opposing the
petition.
11. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
submitted that they are in fact legal heirs of original Petitioner No. 1,
Sneha Chavan 7
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

who were not available at the time of filing application for bringing
legal heirs. He submitted that being legal heirs of Petitioner, they are
supporting the submissions advanced by Mr. Patil on behalf of the
Petitioners.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
12. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
13. Perusal of impugned order shows that following aspects were
considered :
13.1. Claim of the Petitioners about ownership has been verified by the
Tribunal on the basis of sale deed, property card extracts, and NA Order
produced on record by the Appellants.
13.2. That On 25.05.1989, the Ld. Collector inspected the site with
Head Surveyor and 8 WCs were found broken, 9 WCs were found
choked up, septic tank and gutters were found overflowing; water was
found inadequate.
13.3. That earlier also the Petitioners had volunteered to provide
additional amenities in the earlier Appeal. However, since the previous
Order, many years had passed and in changed circumstances, the
property appeared to have further deteriorated.
13.4. It is recorded that Petitioners admitted the defects however
requested for grant of time to carry out necessary improvements and
provide basic amenities. Accordingly 2 months’ time was provided.
According to the Tribunal, instead of carrying out repairs in the said 2
months, the Petitioners filed cases of eviction against 144 tenants.
13.5. A commissioner was appointed who submitted report.
Commissioner’s finding in respect of Petitioners Chawl was that there
were only 8 WCs when there should be 10 Wcs and there was shortage
of 2 WCs. 2 WCs were found broken. The area had 13 water taps
Sneha Chavan 8
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

however the water supply was very low. The area was crowded.
13.6. The Petitioners sought time for providing amenities and also
wanted directions to provide the amenities to the tenants.
13.7. Ultimately it was concluded that declaration of slum is justified
and that is how impugned order came to be passed.
14. In these cicumstances, the petition was filed. On 08.07.1991,
this Court accepted a statement made on behalf of the Petitioners that
necessary repairs and provision of amenities will be made to the
satisfaction of Respondent. Learned Additional Government Pleader
gave no objection and ad-interim relief was granted to impugned order.
Thereafter, on 30.03.1992, petition was admitted and following order
was passed :
“. Rule. Interim stay to continue. The Petitioners are directed to :-
(a) carry out the repairs of existing 8 W.Cs on the suit property as to
make them fit for use:
(b) carry out repairs to the cabin of the electric meter,
(c) carry out repairs of the drainage and sewerage pertaining to the
suit property:
(2) The learned Advocate for the petitioners states that the petitioners
shall not proceed with the suits filed in the Small Causes Court at
Bombay against some of the members of respondent No.1 and
accordingly I direct.
(3) The respondent No.2A i.e. Bombay Municipal Corporation is
directed to grant the necessary permission within a period of 2 weeks
of the petitioners making an application in respect of the repairs to be
carried out to the drainage and sewerage pertaining to the suit
property;
(4)All the repairs indicated above will be carried out by the petitioners
within six weeks from today. The work of repairs will be supervised by
the officers of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development
Sneha Chavan 9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

Authority and the officer from the Government that is to be appointed
by the Deputy Collector, Kurla(2) at Mulund and the Competent
Authority. The Competent Authority will certify that the repairs were
carried out properly and upto its satisfaction.
(5) In case the petitioners fail to carry out the necessary repairs as
indicated above, then the stay to stand vacated.
(6) The petitioners shall also go on paying the salary of the sweeper
employed by the respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month
from April 1992.
(7) The respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount of
Rs.9,800/- deposited by the petitioners in this Court towards the
arrears of salary of the sweeper.
(8) The petitioners are directed to construct two additional W. Cs on
the suit land within ten weeks from the date on which the
sanction/permission by the Bombay Municipal Corporation is
intimated to the petitioners. The Bombay Municipal Corporation i.e.
respondent No.2A is directed to grant the said permission as early as
possible and within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the
application to that effect from the petitioners.
(9) The respondent No.1 is directed to co-operate with the
petitioners in carrying out the repairs.
(10) These directions are given with a view to see that the tenants
are not required to live as subnormal human beings. It is necessary to
have proper facilities for the purpose of human existence and living.
11. Certified copy expedited.”
15. Hence there is substance in the submission of the Petitioners
that vide order dated 30.03.1992, the Municipal Corporation was
directed to grant permission within two weeks from the date of the
Order and Petitioners were directed to carry out various repairs within
specific time. Tenant’s Association was directed to co-operate with
Sneha Chavan 10
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

Petitioners. Nothing has been pointed out to the Court to indicate that
Petitioners have failed to carry out necessary repairs.
16. Record shows that Respondent No. 1-Tenant Association has
paid rent amounts in the Court on many occasions.
17. At the time of final hearing, on 21.07.2026, learned counsel
for the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.3 & 4 made submissions, but
nobody appeared for the Respondents i.e. Municipal Corporation,
Tenants Association and Competent Authority for slum. Therefore,
Advocate for the Petitioner was directed to file short submissions.
18. While going through the record, it was seen that the
concerned Competent authority for slum at the relevant time (when the
petition was filed), was the Deputy Collector (Encroachment). However,
thereafter, separate authority viz. Slum Rehabilitation Authority has
been established. The Petitioner was directed to give notice to
concerned office of Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
19. The Petitioners has filed additional affidavit affirmed on
04.08.2026 placing on record various communications addressed to the
Authority/Government Pleader.
20. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) was impleaded as party
Respondent No. 5 and Advocate for SRA appeared. Respondent No.
5/SRA thereafter filed affidavit-in-reply affirmed on 19.08.2026. In the
said affidavit, the deponent - the Executive Engineer (L Ward) with SRA
initially dealt with factual aspects such as proceedings undertaken by
the Petitioners and description of the subject matter property. Then he
Sneha Chavan 11
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

has clearly stated that SRA is constituted only in the year 1995 and
prior thereto the powers and functions relating to declaration of areas
as slum areas and other matters contemplated under provisions of the
Slum Act, were being exercised by concerned Competent Authority
including Additional Collector (Encroachment/Removal). It is further
stated that the proceedings and declaration in question were
undertaken by the authority competent to do so at the relevant time
when Respondent No. 5 had no role in the said proceedings. It is further
stated that subject matter land was never declared as slum under
Section 3C of the said Act. It is further submitted that no proceedings or
action whatsoever were initiated or undertaken by the Engineering
Department of Respondent No. 5 in respect of subject matter property. It
is further stated that Respondent No. 5/SRA has no role or involvement
in any such declaration or proceedings concerning the subject matter
property. Along with the said affidavit-in-reply, Respondent No. 5 has
produced a copy of letter dated 17.08.2026 addressed to its Chief Legal
Consultant stating that in respect of subject matter property, no action
has been initiated by office of Respondent No. 5 for declaring slum and
no slum scheme seems to have been accepted by Respondent No. 5 as
per documents available in the Engineering Department.
21. Thereafter, on 03.09.2026 the learned AGP stated on
instructions from the officers present in the Court (Deputy Collector and
Revenue Assistant (Encroachment/Removal) Kurla) that due to interim
stay granted by this Court, the Department of Deputy Collector
Encroachment (Respondent No. 2) has not taken any further steps in
respect of subject matter property. Therefore, it is clear that due to the
stay granted by this Court, the relevant department at that time, has not
taken any steps and Respondent No. 5/SRA has come into operation
Sneha Chavan 12
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

thereafter in 1995 who has taken stand that the said office has also not
taken any action about slum declaration.
22. The Petitioners have filed additional affidavit affirmed on
04.08.2026 and produced a letter addressed by Civil Engineer to the
Competent Authority giving details of the fact that work of construction
of 2 WCs is complete. They have produced letter by the Ld. Collector to
Manohar Mugdum wherein it has come on record that the said work of
repairs as well as construction of additional WCs was carried out. A
Letter addressed by Executive Engineer whereby the details of repair
work and construction work are culled out and the fact that said work is
completed is produced on record. This additional affidavit of the
Petitioners has remained uncontroverted.
23. Thus the slum declaration has remained in abeyance and as
such, the subject matter land has not been treated as slum for last about
34 years.
24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking
overall view of the matter and further considering that Petitioners had
undertaken work of improvements long ago under directions of this
Court and no further action under the Slum Act is taken by any
authority, the impugned declaration and subsequent notification is
required to be quashed and set aside.
25. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (b) and (c), which read as under:
“(b) that the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. and R) Tribunal Bombay, in
Sneha Chavan 13
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43

WP-2848-1991 (J) C1.doc

Appeal No.94 of 1989 confirming the declaration dated 25-5-
1989 and the notification dated 28-8-1989 be quashed and
set aside.
(c) that the impugned declaration issued by the respondent
No.2 dated 25-8-1989 and the notification dated 28-3-1989
be quashed and set aside;”
26. Additionally, the Petitioners are permitted to withdraw all rent
amounts paid in this Court alongwith accrued interest if any.
27. Writ Petition is disposed of and Rule is made absolute in above
terms. No order as to costs.
28. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally
signed QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 14
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 18:36:43
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)