Disposed¶29

Tanveer Mazhar Khan v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025WP/3055/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Slum rehabilitation; Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAG); transit rent; demolition of slum structure; eligible slum dweller; consent disposal without adjudication; Article 226 Constitution of India; Bombay High Court; Respondent No.2 AGRC; Notice dated 4.7.2023; restraint on Respondent No.3; no costs; Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2024; Interim Application (St.) No. 39874 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner within 15 days on similar terms as other slum dwellers; petitioner to be paid transit rent as offered to other slum dwellers, with all contentions regarding insufficiency or entitlement to enhanced transit rent kept open; petition disposed of without costs. ¶29

Tanveer Mazhar Khan vs State of Maharashtra Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.5 was required to comply with the directions contained in the impugned Order dated 16th June, 2023 passed by Respondent No.2, and whether the Notice dated 4.7.2023 should be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Respondent Nos.4 and 5 were directed to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner within 15 days, the agreement to be on similar terms as entered with the other slum dwellers.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

As the parties had taken a fair stand, the Court did not take the petition forward for adjudication (including on the opposition set up by the respondents) and disposed of it in terms of the orders set out.

¶25

Key takeaways

The petitioner was to be paid transit rent as being offered to other slum dwellers; however, all contentions of the parties that the transit rent is insufficient or that the petitioner would be entitled to an enhanced amount of transit rent were expressly kept open.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ., disposed of Writ Petition No. 3055 of 2024 (Tanveer Mazhar Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) on 18 December 2025 on consent, without adjudicating the merits. Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition sought compliance by Respondent No.5 with the impugned Order dated 16th June, 2023 passed by Respondent No.2, quashing of the Notice dated 4.7.2023, its stay, and restraint on Respondent No.3 from acting against the petitioner's slum structure. Before adjudication, Respondent No.5 undertook, the petitioner being eligible, to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner and to pay transit rent from the date of possession/demolition, which the petitioner accepted. The Court directed respondent Nos.4 and 5 to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement within 15 days on similar terms as other slum dwellers, ordered payment of transit rent as offered to other slum dwellers, expressly kept open all contentions regarding insufficiency of or entitlement to enhanced transit rent, and closed the petition with no costs.

¶1

Digitally signed by KAWRE KAWREKIRAN KIRAN KALYAN KALYAN Date:2025.12.20 16:06:11 +0530

¶2

910-WP-3055-2024.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3055 OF 2024

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION (St.) NO. 39874 OF 2025

¶8

Tanveer Mazhar Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Mathew Nedumpara a/w Sweta D. i/b Nedumpara & Nedumpara for Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. Milind More for Respondent No.2 / AGRC. Mr. J. G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.3.

¶12

Mr. Rohan Sawant a/w Viraj Jadhav i/b Chinmay Acharya for Respondent No.5.

¶13

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶14

DATE: 18 DECEMBER 2025

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

¶17

“a). That a writ of Certiorari, writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued calling for the records and proceedings from the office of the Respondent No. 2 and as per impugned Order dated 16th June, 2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 the Respondent No. 5 be directed to comply the directions and the Notice dated 4.7.2023 be quashed and set aside;

¶18

b). That a writ of Certiorari, writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to Respondent No. 3 and before complying the directions of the Respondent No. 2 by the Respondent No. 5 till than the Notice dated 4.7.2023 be stayed and the Respondent No. 3 be stopped from taking any action against the slum structure of the Petitioner;”

¶19

Before we could take up the proceedings for adjudication including on the opposition as set up on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for respondent No.5, on instructions submits that the petitioner being eligible, his

¶20

Page 1 of 2 18 December 2025

¶21

Kiran Kawre

¶22

910-WP-3055-2024.DOC

¶23

clients are ready and willing to enter into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner, as also the transit rent which is paid to other slum dwellers can also be paid to the petitioner from the date the possession of the structure of the petitioner / demolition had taken place.

¶24

Mr. Nadumpara, on instructions, would accept such contentions as urged on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶25

In our opinion, the parties have taken a fair stand. The petition therefore ought not to be taken forward and can be conveniently disposed of in terms of the following orders:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) Let a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement with the petitioner be entered by respondent Nos.4 and 5 within a period of 15 days from today. Needless to observe that the agreement would be on similar terms as entered with the other slum dwellers.

¶28

(ii) The petitioner shall also be paid transit rent as being offered to other slum dwellers. However, in regard to any contention of the petitioner that the same is insufficient or the petitioner would be entitled to an enhanced amount of transit rent, we keep open all contentions of the parties.

¶29

The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶30

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶31

Page 2 of 2 18 December 2025

¶32

Kiran Kawre

Tanveer Mazhar Khan v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer Mazhar Khan v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gupta Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs Shree Sai Commercial Premises Coop. Society Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Sukdeo Madan Kadu vs State of Maharashtra

Devebbroto S. Dey vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. G. P. and Ors.

Madan Mohan Lal Chhabra vs State of Maharashtra

Prakash Ramesh Salgaonkar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Dept. of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Reenu Rohit Gupta vs the Competent Authority Deputy Collector(Nsel)and Anr.