Allowed¶5

Sebastian Augustin Fernandes v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

SRA Flats – Eviction – Regularisation

Bombay HC30 Apr 2026WP/4971/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court writ petitions SRA flats eviction regularisation order Apex Grievance Redressal Committee AGRC complainant respondent No.5 interim order 6 November 2025 order 06 October 2025 liberty to challenge regularisation petitions allowed prayer clauses (a) and (b) disposed of 30 April 2026 Karnik Modak Slum Rehabilitation Authority

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of (contents of the prayer clauses not reproduced in the judgment); liberty kept open to respondent No.5 to challenge the Order of regularisation. ¶5

Sebastian Augustin Fernandes vs the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions filed by occupants of SRA flats, in whose favour an Order of regularisation has been passed, ought to be allowed. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

In the present facts there is already an Order of regularisation and the petitioners are in occupation of the premises.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The Order dated 6th November, 2025 relied on by learned counsel for respondent No.5 is not concerned with the present petitions and is in a different case altogether.

¶3

Key takeaways

The aforesaid Order (dated 6th November, 2025) is an interim Order.ratio¶4
Since the Order of regularisation has already been passed, that Order will have to be challenged by filing appropriate proceedings.ratio¶4
Liberty is kept open to respondent No.5 to challenge the Order of regularisation, if he so desires.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

SRA Flats — Eviction — Regularisation — Twelve writ petitions by occupants of SRA flats, against whom eviction proceedings had been initiated at the instance of complainant-respondent No.5, disposed of by a common order. An Order of regularisation already operated in favour of the petitioners and was not denied by learned counsel for the SRA; the petitioners were accordingly in occupation of the premises. An interim Order dated 6th November, 2025 passed by the Court in a different case, relied upon by respondent No.5, was held not to concern the present petitions. The petitions were allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of; liberty was expressly kept open to respondent No.5 to challenge the Order of regularisation by filing appropriate proceedings, the regularisation remaining subject to any such challenge in accordance with law. (M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.; order dated 30th April, 2026.)

¶1

16-wp 4550-25.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4550 OF 2025 P. V. Surendran … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1166 OF 2026 Allwyn Gilbert Monteiro … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4971 OF 2025 Sebastian Augustin Fernandes … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2026 Vibha Sarvesh Singh … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1147 OF 2026 Santana Adolf Pinto … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents Amk 1/5

¶4

16-wp 4550-25.doc

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4515 OF 2025
Robert Felix Dmello Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.	… Petitioner ... Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 841 OF 2026
Harcharan Singh Harjit Singh Hanjara Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.	… Petitioner ... Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 837 OF 2026
Supriya Ravindra Yerram Versus	… Petitioner
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.	... Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 361 OF 2026
Anthony Augustin Fernandes Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors.	… Petitioner ... Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1158 OF 2026
Rahim Abdul Jalil through POA Holder Atif Rahim Shaikh Versus	… Petitioner
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. Amk	... Respondents *2/5*

¶6

16-wp 4550-25.doc

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2026

¶9

Damodar Annu Poojary … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 910 OF 2026 Supriya Subhash More … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee & Ors. ... Respondents

¶12

¶13

Mr. Chandrakant Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. Anoop Patil for Respondent No.1-AGRC.

¶14

Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w. Ms. Aarushi Yadav for the Respondent-SRA. Mr. Fakhruddin Khan i/b Ajaz Ahmed Ansari for Respondent No.5.

¶15

¶16

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : 30th APRIL, 2026.

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

These petitions involve common questions, hence by consent of parties taken up for final disposal by a common order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶19

Respondent No.5 is the complainant. Respondent No.5 says that the

¶20

petitioners are illegal occupants of the SRA flats. SRA therefore initiated

¶21

Amk 3/5

¶22

16-wp 4550-25.doc

¶23

proceedings for eviction. The case of the petitioners is that now they are in lawful occupation of the premises since there is an Order of regularisation in their favour. This is not denied by learned counsel for the SRA.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent No.5 invited our attention to Order dated 6^th November, 2025 passed by this Court. The Order relied is not concerned with the present petitions and is in a different case altogether. The Order reads thus:-

¶25

“1. In the light of the order dated 06 October, 2025, an action which was required to be taken by the SRA in pursuance thereto and more particularly as observed in paragraph 5 thereof, we are informed by Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of the action of eviction, a regularization order has been passed in favour of the illegal occupants. This has really surprised us. Mr. Sawant intends to place on record an additional affidavit. Let the same be filed within one week from today. Copy of the same be served on the advocate for the SRA.

¶26

We shall hear the parties on such issues on the adjourned date of hearing.

¶27

In the meantime, our order dated 06 October 2025 in regard to the eviction of the illegal occupants in accordance with law as directed needs to be taken forward and complied with. Compliance report be placed on record of this Court on the adjourned date of hearing.

¶28

Stand over to 19 November 2025 (H.O.B.)”

¶29

The aforesaid Order is an interim Order. In the present facts, we find that there is already an Order of regularisation. The petitioners are in occupation of the premises. It is submitted that when the Order was passed by the AGRC, the petitioners were not party to such proceedings. Since the Order of regularisation has already been passed, the said Order will have to be challenged by filing appropriate proceedings. In such view

¶30

Amk 4/5

¶31

16-wp 4550-25.doc

¶32

of the matter, liberty to respondent No.5 to challenge the Order of regularisation, if he so desires is kept open. Obviously, the Order of regularisation is subject to any challenge raised in accordance with law.

¶33

By keeping all contentions of respondent No.5 open to a challenge the Order of regularisation, the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) and disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

5/5

Amk

Sebastian Augustin Fernandes v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sebastian Augustin Fernandes v. the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

New Liberty Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Assistant Municipal Commissioner

Chetan Rama Rupasari Dhodia vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector Mumbai Suburban

Laxman Ramhari Chougule vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Thro. Its Commissioner

Kisan Ganpat Mahadik vs the State of Maharashtra Th. the Housing Dept.

New Liberty Co-Operative Housing Society Limited vs Assistant Municipal Commissioner

Sanjeev Suvarna vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai