Tarabai Harishchandra Mhatre vs the State of Mahrashtra through Its Principal Secretary — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Tarabai Harishchandra Mhatre vs the State of Mahrashtra through Its Principal Secretary — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to file an Appeal before the AGRC against the declaration dated 27 July 2021; if filed within three weeks, the Appeal is to be heard and decided on its own merits; no opinion expressed on merits and all contentions of the parties expressly kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners, asserting rights as tenants under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, were denied an opportunity of hearing, alleged to be a mandatory requirement, before the order declaring the land a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3(C)(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

It would be appropriate for the Petitioners to approach the AGRC to agitate their grievances against the declaration dated 27 July 2021 issued under Section 3(C)(1) of the said Act.

Key takeaways

If the Appeal is filed before the AGRC within three weeks from the date of the order, it shall be heard and decided on its own merits.ratio¶22
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, and all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tenants asserting rights under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 filed a writ petition challenging the declaration of their land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3(C)(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, made by Order dated 27 July 2021 of the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, alleging denial of the mandatory opportunity of hearing. Counsel for the Petitioners conceded that sub-section (2) of Section 3(C) provides a statutory remedy of Appeal against an order under sub-section (1) before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). The Division Bench (G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ.) disposed of the petition, holding it appropriate for the Petitioners to approach the AGRC, with a direction that if the Appeal is filed within three weeks it shall be heard and decided on its own merits. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits and expressly kept all contentions of the parties open.

5-WP-311-26.DOC

JYOTI RAJESH MANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.01.19 11:02:06 +0530

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2026

Tarabai Harishchandra Mhatre &Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Mahrashtra Through Its Principal Secretary & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. S.G.Kudle i/b.Mr. Santosh B. Sitap, for Petitioners.

Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for Respondent No.1.– State. Ms. P.H.Kantharia, for Respondent No.2-SRA. Ms. Pushpa Yadav, for Respondent No.3-BMC.

Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh, Mr. Aniesh Jadhav, a/w. Viveka Truman, Hamza Mir i/b. Lexicon Law Partners, for Respondent No.5.

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

DATE: 17 JANUARY 2026

P.C.

The Petitioners assert their rights as tenants of the land in question under

the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. They are aggrieved by the declaration of the said land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3(C)(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act’), by an Order dated 27 July 2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

The Petitioners have raised several grievances, including the grievance that

Page 1 of 2

Mane

5-WP-311-26.DOC

they were not granted an opportunity of hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under law before passing any order under Section 3(C)(1) of the said Act.

Though a substantive challenge to the said declaration is raised, Mr. Kudle, learned counsel for the Petitioners, has fairly conceded that sub-section (2) of Section 3(C) of the said Act provides a statutory remedy of Appeal against an order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 3(C) before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC).

In view thereof, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to approach the AGRC to agitate their grievances against the declaration dated 27 July 2021 issued under Section 3(C)(1) of the said Act. If such an Appeal is filed before the AGRC within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be heard and decided on its own merits.

We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions.

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 2 of 2

Mane