Lila Aeroshi Waghela vs Apex Grievance Redressal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

Lila Aeroshi Waghela vs Apex Grievance Redressal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Restoration of possession of Flat No. A-502 to the petitioner within 10 days (the flat stated to be lying vacant); liberty to the SRA and the developer to take lawful action against respondent no. 10's alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502 and to deal with that flat in accordance with law once its possession is recovered; all contentions regarding respondent no. 10 expressly kept open; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a certified eligible slum dweller who had been put in possession of Flat No. A-502 in the slum rehabilitation scheme, was wrongly evicted solely on account of the alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502 by her son (respondent no. 10), and whether her possession of Flat No. A-502 should be restored. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner was an eligible slum dweller, a position on which there was no dispute whatsoever.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent no. 10 (the petitioner's son) does not possess any authority of the petitioner/original allottee in respect of his occupation of Flat No. B-502; action should have been initiated against him and not against the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The Court declined to decide whether Flat No. A-502 forms part of the rehabilitation component or the sale component, leaving it open to the concerned developer and the SRA to take an appropriate position on respondent no. 10's illegal occupation.obiter¶para 3
In the interest of justice, the petitioner's possession of Flat No. A-502 is to be restored, with liberty to the SRA and the developer to act against the alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502; if possession of Flat No. B-502 is recovered in accordance with law, the SRA may deal with it in accordance with law.ratio¶para 4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ELIGIBLE SLUM DWELLER - EVICTION FROM REHABILITATION FLAT ON ACCOUNT OF SON'S OCCUPATION OF ANOTHER FLAT - POSSESSION RESTORED WITHIN 10 DAYS - LIBERTY TO SRA/DEVELOPER AGAINST ILLEGAL OCCUPATION - COMPONENT STATUS AND RIGHTS OF RESPONDENT KEPT OPEN. The petitioner, shown at Serial No. 33 in Annexure-II as certified by the Competent Authority, had been put in possession of Flat No. A-502 in a slum rehabilitation scheme but was evicted on 3 December 2022 pursuant to an order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, on the sole ground that her son (respondent no. 10) was occupying rehabilitation Flat No. B-502. Holding that the petitioner was an undisputed eligible slum dweller and that respondent no. 10 possessed no authority of the allottee for occupying Flat No. B-502, so that action ought to have been initiated against him rather than against the petitioner, the Division Bench (G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.) directed restoration of the petitioner's possession of Flat No. A-502 within 10 days, with liberty to the SRA and the developer to act against the alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502 and to deal with that flat in accordance with law once its possession is recovered. The Court declined to examine whether Flat No. A-502 formed part of the rehabilitation or the sale component, and expressly kept open all contentions regarding any legal rights of respondent no. 10. Petition disposed of; no order as to costs.

15-WP-4093-2024 (OS)CORRECTED.DOC

2026:BHC-OS:3419-DB

Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 4093 OF 2024

Lila Aeroshi Waghela (since deceased) Aerasi Ghusa Waghela ...Petitioner Versus

Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Ashwin S. Tripathi for the petitioner. Mr. Milind More for respondent no. 1-AGRC. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for respondent nos. 2 to 6/SRA. Mr. Prayag Joshi for respondent no. 9.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 28 JANUARY 2026

P.C.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by

the petitioner-Lila Aeroshi Waghela, who has passed away during the pendency of this petition. Her husband, being her legal heir, has now been brought on record as the petitioner.

The case of the petitioner is that in respect of the slum scheme in question, the petitioner claimed to be an eligible slum dweller, and her name appears in Annexure-II as certified by the Competent Authority at Serial No. 33, a copy of which is annexed at Page 61 (Exhibit B) of the petition. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner was put in possession of Flat No. A-502, however, the petitioner was illegally evicted on the ground that respondent no. 10/her son was occupying a rehabilitation flat, being Flat No. B-502. The petitioner contended

Page 1 of 3 28 January 2026

15-WP-4093-2024 (OS)CORRECTED.DOC

that she has no connection with the alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502 by her son, and that, if such occupation of her son was illegal, action ought to have been taken against her son and not against the petitioner. However, under an order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, the petitioner came to be evicted on 3 December, 2022.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner was an eligible slum dweller on which there is no dispute whatsoever. As categorically contended before us, respondent no. 10/son does not possess any authority of the petitioner/original allottee in respect of his occupation of Flat no. B-502. In fact action should have been initiated against him. We do not intend to delve on the issue as to whether Flat No. A-502 forms part of the rehabilitation component or whether it is a sale component or vice-versa qua Flat No. A-502. It is, however, open to the concerned developer as well as the SRA to take an appropriate position in respect of any illegal occupation by respondent no. 10, who is stated to be ineligible.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner’s possession of Flat No. A-502 be restored, with liberty to the SRA and the developer to take action against the alleged illegal occupation of Flat no. B-502. In the event, the possession of Flat No. B-502 is recovered in accordance with law, it shall be open to the SRA to deal with the same in accordance with law.

The petitioner be put in possession of Flat No. A-502 within 10 days

Page 2 of 3 28 January 2026

15-WP-4093-2024 (OS)CORRECTED.DOC

from today, which is stated to be lying vacant. This shall, however, be subject to the action required to be taken in respect of the alleged illegal occupation of Flat No. B-502, as observed hereinabove.

We have not expressed any opinion on any legal rights, if any, that may be asserted in favour of respondent no. 10. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Corrected as per the speaking to minutes of the order dated 5 February, 2026

Page 3 of 3 28 January 2026

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 05/02/2026 15:27:27