Bombay High Court
Shreeji Sra Co-Operative Housing … vs Jimmy Talakchand Savla on 30 April, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:11162
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.41187 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5366 OF 2025
Shreeji SRA Chs (Prop.) ]
(Respondent No.6 in WP (L) No.35416 of ]
2025) a proposed co-operative housing ]
Society, represented by its chief Promoter/ ]
Chairman, having its Registered Office at ]
Ramji Lallu Compound, M. G. Road, ]
Opp: Canara Bank, Kandivali (W), ]
Digitally
Mumbai 400 067. ].. Review Petitioner
signed by
SMITA
SMITA RAJNIKANT
RAJNIKANT JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2026.04.30
v/s.
14:52:09
+0530
1 Jimmy Talakchand Savla ]
(Petitioner No.1 in WP (L) No.35416 ]
of 2025) Aged: 46 years, Indian ]
Inhabitant, Occ: Business, having ]
st
office address at Gala No.1, 1 Floor, ]
Ramji Lallu Compound, ]
Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067. ]
and having residence at A- 701, ]
Madhav Kunj, behind Swaminarayan]
Temple, M. G. Road, Kandivali (W), ]
Mumbai 400 067. ]
2 Rahul Talakchand Savla ]
(Petitioner No. 2 in WP (L) No. 35416 ]
of 2025) Aged: 48 years, Indian ]
Inhabitant, Occ: Business, having ]
office address at Gala No.1,1st Floor, ]
Ramji Lallu Compund, Kandivali (W)]
Mumbai - 400 067 and having ]
residence address at 501-Haridarshan]
"B" CHSL,Bhogilal Faria Road, Near ]
K.E.S. Law College, Kandivali (W), ]
Mumbai - 400 067. ]
Page 1 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
3 The State of Maharashtra ]
(Respondent No.1 in WP (L) No.35416 ]
of 2025) Through the Principle ]
Secretary, Housing Department, ]
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, ]
Mumbai 400 032. ]
4 Apex Grievance Redressal Committee ]
(Respondent No.2 in WP (L)No. 35416 ]
of 2025) A statutory committee ]
constituted under the Maharashtra ]
Slum Areas (I,C&R) Act, 1971, ]
Having office at Slum Rehabilitation ]
Authority, Administrative Building, ]
4th Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
5 Deputy Collector & Competent ]
Authority, SRA ]
(Respondent No.3 in WP(L)No. 35416 ]
of 2025) having office at B-wing, ]
5th Floor, Slum Rehabilitation ]
Authority, Anant Kanekar Marg, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
6 Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), ]
(Respondent No.4 in WP(L)No.35416 ]
of 2025) A statutory committee ]
constituted under the Maharashtra ]
Slum Areas (I,C&R) Act, 1971 ]
Having office at 3rd Floor, B- wing, ]
SRA, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
7 Navkarmik Homes LLP ) ]
(Respondent No. 5 in WP (L) No. ]
35416 of 2025) A limited liability ]
Partnership Through its partner, ]
Having address at A/414, 4th Floor, ]
Cello Express Zone. Off. Western ]
Express Highway, Opp. Oberoi Mall, ]
Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 063 ].. Respondents.
Page 2 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.41188 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.5366 OF 2025
Navkarmik Homes LLP ]
(Respondent No. 5 in WP (L) No. ]
35416 of 2025) A limited liability ]
Partnership Through its partner, ]
Having address at A/414, 4th Floor, ]
Cello Express Zone. Off. Western ]
Express Highway, Opp. Oberoi Mall, ]
Goregaon (East), Mumbai - 400 063 ].. Review Petitioner.
v/s.
1 Jimmy Talakchand Savla ]
(Petitioner No.1 in WP (L) No.35416 ]
of 2025) Aged: 46 years, Indian ]
Inhabitant, Occ: Business, having ]
office address at Gala No.1, 1st Floor, ]
Ramji Lallu Compound, ]
Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067. ]
and having residence at A- 701, ]
Madhav Kunj, behind Swaminarayan]
Temple, M. G. Road, Kandivali (W), ]
Mumbai 400 067. ]
2 Rahul Talakchand Savla ]
(Petitioner No. 2 in WP (L) No. 35416 ]
of 2025) Aged: 48 years, Indian ]
Inhabitant, Occ: Business, having ]
office address at Gala No.1,1st Floor, ]
Ramji Lallu Compund, Kandivali (W)]
Mumbai - 400 067 and having ]
residence address at 501-Haridarshan ]
"B" CHSL,Bhogilal Faria Road, Near ]
K.E.S. Law College, Kandivali (W), ]
Mumbai - 400 067.
Page 3 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
3 The State of Maharashtra ]
(Respondent No.1 in WP (L) No.35416 ]
of 2025) Through the Principle ]
Secretary, Housing Department, ]
Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, ]
Mumbai 400 032.
4 Apex Grievance Redressal Committee]
(Respondent No.2 in WP (L)No. 35416 ]
of 2025) A statutory committee ]
constituted under the Maharashtra ]
Slum Areas (I,C&R) Act, 1971, ]
Having office at Slum Rehabilitation ]
Authority, Administrative Building, ]
4th Floor, Anant Kanekar Marg, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
5 Deputy Collector & Competent ]
Authority, SRA ]
(Respondent No.3 in WP(L)No. 35416 ]
of 2025) having office at B-wing, ]
5th Floor, Slum Rehabilitation ]
Authority, Anant Kanekar Marg, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
6 Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA)]
(Respondent No.4 in WP(L)No.35416 ]
of 2025) A statutory committee ]
constituted under the Maharashtra ]
Slum Areas (I,C&R) Act, 1971 ]
Having office at 3rd Floor, B- wing, ]
SRA, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra(E) ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
7 Shreeji SRA Chs (Prop.) ]
(Respondent No.6 in WP (L) No. ]
35416 of 2025) a proposed co-operative ]
housing Society, represented by its ]
chief Promoter/Chairman, having its ]
Registered Office at Ramji Lallu ]
Compound, M. G. Road, Opp: Canara]
Bank, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067. ].. Respondents.
Page 4 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Vaibhav Charalwar i/b
Adv. Archana Karmokar for the Petitioner in RPW(L)No.41187/2025.
Adv. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Adv. Vikramjit Grewal, Adv. Santosh
Pathak, Adv. Nimish Lotlikar, Adv. Priya Chaturvedi, Adv. Deepesh
Kadam i/b Law Origin for the Petitioner in RPW(L)No.41188/2025.
Adv. Cherag Balsara, a/w Adv. Amit Kanani, and Adv. Khyati Kanani,
i/b Kanani & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in RPW(L)No.41187/2025.
Adv. Ankit Lohia, a/w Adv. Amit Kanani, and Adv. Khyati Kanani i/b
Kanani & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in RPW(L)No.41188/2025.
Adv. Anupama Pawar-AGP for Respondent No.3-State in both the
Petitions.
CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.
RESERVED ON: MARCH 25, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: APRIL 30,2026
JUDGEMENT:
–
1 These Review Petitions have been filed seeking a review of the
Judgement dated 20th November, 2025 passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 35416
of 2025 whereby this Court had passed the following order:-
“104:- For all the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following
order:-
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayers (a) and
(b) which read as under:-
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to call for the
records of the proceedings before the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee (AGRC) in Appeal No. 39 of
2025 and after examining the legality and validity
thereof, quash and set aside the Impugned FinalPage 5 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docOrder dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Respondent
No.2 AGRC;
b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash and set
aside the Notification dated 20.01.2016 issued under
Section 3C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971, declaring the Petitioners’ land bearing CTS No.
1138 as a Slum Rehabilitation Area.”
(b) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(c) It is clarified that, as far as the question regarding CTS
No. 1138 and the structures standing being a censused slum,
and what is the effect of the same, is concerned, this Court has
not gone into the same as it does not fall within the scope of this
Writ Petition.
(d) No order as to costs.”
2 By an Order dated 19th December, 2025, it was decided that these
Review Petitions would be heard finally at the admission stage.
3 In Review Petition (L) no. 41187 of 2025, Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 26 th January, 2026. The Review Petitioners
filed a Rejoinder dated 3rd February, 2026 and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed
an Affidavit in Sur Rejoinder, dated 3rd February, 2026.
4 In Review Petition (L) No. 41188 of 2025, Respondent Nos. 1 and
2 filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 26th January, 2026.
Page 6 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
5 The learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on
various dates and the Judgement was reserved on 25 th March, 2026. All
parties filed their respective Written Submissions by 10 th April, 2026.
SUBMISSION OF PETITIONERS IN REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.41187
OF 2025
6 Dr. Saraf, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Review Petitioners, submitted that the Review Petition had been filed on the
following grounds; (i) that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (original
Petitioners) approached this Court with a false case and deliberately made
various false statements on oath as regards their interest in CTS No. 1138.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no interest in the subject land; (ii) The Court
failed to consider the locus of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the light of the
Order of the Acquisition dated 15th June, 2017 passed under Section 14 of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 (“the Slum Act“), whereby CTS No. 1138 was acquired.
7 In the context of the first ground – namely that Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 had no interest in the subject land, Dr. Saraf submitted that
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had approached this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.
35416 of 2025, claiming to have rights in the property bearing CTS No. 1138
Page 7 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Village Kandivali, Borivali, as sub-lessees in respect of land admeasuring
1600 sq. ft. carpet area with commercial structures admeasuring 1500 sq. ft.
8 Dr. Saraf submitted that, on a reading of the Petition, it is
apparent that the case of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition is that
(i) Husseinhbai Patel became a lessee of land and structures standing on CTS
No. 1138 under the registered Lease Deed dated 20 th November, 1972; (ii)
that the Respondents acquired a sub-lease in respect of the subject property
by a Sub Lease dated 21st January, 2008. The General Power of Attorney was
also executed on 21st January, 2008, authorizing the Respondents to act in all
property related matters; (iii) there was an error in the subject Sub Lease and
CTS No. 1139 was mistakenly mentioned instead of CTS No. 1138 and this
was corrected by Rectification Deed dated 20th June, 2013.
9 Dr. Saraf submitted that it is on the aforesaid basis that the
Respondents claimed to have an interest in CTS No. 1138 as sub-lessees and
filed the Writ Petition. Dr. Saraf submitted that the said statements of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are false. He submitted that this would be apparent
from the following:-
(a) On 20th November, 1972, one Ramji Lallu Dubli executed an Indenture
of Lease in favour of Hussainbhai Alibhai Patel in respect of land
Page 8 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docbearing Survey Nos. 12, 13 and 14, Hissa No. 14, CTS No.1139 Vilage
Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban together with a
structure admeasuring 2500 sq. ft. situated at M. G. Road, Opp: Kala
Hanuman Temple, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400 067;
(b) It can be seen from the schedule to the said Lease Deed that the same is
for Survey Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and CTS No.1139;
(c) In the main body of the Lease Deed, the reference to the property is to
Survey Nos. 12, 13 and 14. As per the ‘Kami Jasta Patrak’ of Survey
No. 12 it is apparent that CTS number relatable to the same is
CTS No. 1139 and not CTS No. 1138;
(d) This Lease Deed was suppressed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the
Respondents made a false statement in the Writ Petition that the Lease
Deed was for the “subject property” , which is defined in paragraph 1 of
the Writ Petition as CTS No. 1138;
(e) The express averment in paragraph 3.2 of the Review Petition, that the
Lease Deed was executed in respect of CTS No. 1139, has not been
controverted in the Affidavit in Reply to the Review Petition. The
response to paragraph 3.2 is in paragraph 23 of the Affidavit in Reply
and there is no denial that the original Lease Deed was in respect of
CTS No. 1139;
Page 9 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
(f) The assertion made in the Affidavit in Rejoinder, that the schedule of
the Lease Deed mentions CTS No. 1139, has also not been disputed by
the Respondents in the Sur Rejoinder.
10 Further, Dr. Saraf submitted that on 10th March, 2007, Mr. Yusuf
Saifuddin Patel, Nishrin Murtuza Nagariya and Sakina Patel, legal heirs of
Saifuddin Hussainbhai Patel, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
Abbas Patel and Zehrabai Patel for acting on their behalf in respect of the
property bearing CTS No. 1139, Kandivali (W), Kandivali Village, Borivali.
11 Dr. Saraf further submitted that, on 21 st January, 2008, the legal
heirs of Hussainbhai Alibhai Patel executed an Indenture of Sub-Lease in
favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of a portion of the said leased
land bearing CTS No. 1139, admeasuring approximately 1600 sq. ft., together
with the structure standing thereon admeasuring 1500 sq. ft. carpet area.
12 Dr.Saraf further submitted that it was the contention of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that there was a typographical error in the Sub-
lease and that CTS No. 1139 was wrongly mentioned instead of CTS No. 1138.
Dr. Saraf submitted that this contention was ex-facie false as the original
Lease Deed itself was for CTS No. 1139. Dr. Saraf submitted that there has
been no correction in the Lease Deed. Therefore, the Sub-Lease could only
Page 10 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
have been in respect of the land in respect of which there was a lease, and,
therefore, mention of CTS No. 1139 in the Sub-lease was correct. This was
further fortified by the Power of Attorney dated 10 th March, 2007 which was
only in respect of CTS No. 1139.
13 Dr. Saraf further submitted that on 21 st January, 2008, after the
execution of the Sub-lease, Mr. Abbas Patel and Mrs. Zehrabai Patel executed
a General Power of Attorney in favour of the Respondents. The Power of
Attorney executed by Abbas Patel and Zehrabai Patel substituted the
Respondents in the earlier Power of Attorney executed on 10 th March, 2007
pursuant to the power of substitution therein. This was specifically in respect
of land bearing Survey Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and bearing CTS No. 1139,
Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, admeasuring 1600 sq. ft. alongwith the structure
standing thereon admeasuring 1500 sq. ft.
14 Dr. Saraf further submitted that the substituted Power of
Attorney also expressly referred to CTS No. 1139 and authorised Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to exercise certain powers in respect of the property at CTS No.
1139.
15 Dr. Saraf further submitted that on 20 th June, 2013, by misusing
the Power of Attorney and claiming that there was a typographical error in
Page 11 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
the Sub-lease, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 executed a Rectification Deed
changing the CTS Number from 1139 to 1138 in the Sub-lease and the Power
of Attorney. Dr. Saraf submitted that this purported Rectification Deed
purports to rectify the Power of Attorney dated 21 st January, 2008 and also
the Sub-lease dated 21st January, 2008. Dr. Saraf submitted that the said
Rectification Deed is ex-facie unlawful and, in any case, cannot confer any
rights in CTS No. 1138 in favour of the Respondents. Dr. Saraf submitted that
it was apparent from the chain of documents starting with the lease deed that
there was no error in the Sub-lease or the Power of Attorney. The Power of
Attorney holders, acting under the Power of Attorney dated 21 st January,
2008 in respect of CTS No. 1139, could never have rectified the Power of
Attorney itself or rectify the Sub-lease Deed under which the Power of
Attorney given. In any case, the mere registration of such a Rectification
Deed confers no power in respect of CTS No. 1138 since the main lease itself
was for CTS No. 1139 and which stood unamended.
16 Dr. Saraf submitted that, from the aforesaid, it is apparent that
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came with an ex-facie false case before this Court
that they were Sub-lessees of CTS No. 1138 and they had rights and interest
in the property.
Page 12 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
17 Dr. Saraf submitted that, in the impugned Judgement, this Court
proceeded on the basis that the averments made by the Respondents in the
Petition are correct.
18 Further, Dr. Saraf submitted that in the PR Card for CTS No.
1138, there is no mention either of Ramji Dubli or of Husseinbhai Patel or
any of his heirs nor of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This also establishes the
fact that the lease was not in respect of CTS No. 1138.
19 Further, Dr.Saraf submitted that it subsequently came to light
that Sub-lease of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was terminated, which was
mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Rejoinder filed by the Review Petitioners.
Accordingly, the Review Petitioners, on 22 nd February, 2026, addressed an e-
mail to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the relevant documents
regarding the termination of the Sub-lease. Pursuant to the same, the
Respondents produced a letter dated 12 th September, 2025 addressed by the
heirs of Saifuddin Patel to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, terminating the Sub-
lease for land bearing CTS No. 1139. Dr. Saraf submitted that thus, till as late
as 2025, the lessors were still clearly taking a stand in consonance with the
Lease Deed that the lease was for CTS No. 1139. Further, Dr. Saraf submitted
that the Respondents, despite being aware of the said correspondence, had
deliberately suppressed the same in the present Writ Petition. The
Page 13 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Respondents deliberately failed to disclose that the documents under which
they were claiming rights had been terminated by the lessors.
20 Dr. Saraf submitted that the Respondents thus came with a false
case of having an interest in CTS No. 1138 under a Lease Deed and a Sub-
Lease Deed. While the Respondents produced other documents, they
deliberately suppressed the Lease Deed. Dr. Saraf submitted that the chain of
documents clearly demonstrate that the Respondents have no interest in CTS
No. 1138. The original Sub-Lease Deed was for CTS No. 1139. Dr. Saraf
submitted that, in any case, the Sub-lease cannot be of a land different from
that covered under the head ‘Lease’. Hence, the Judgement dated 20th
November, 2025, which proceeds on the basis of false assertions of the
Respondents, deserves to be reviewed and recalled.
21 Dr. Saraf submitted that it is settled law that if an Order is
obtained by practising fraud, it is vitiated and can be recalled by the Court.
He submitted that such a Judgement is a nullity. In support of this
submission, Mr. Saraf relied upon the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Others v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2007)
4 SCC 221.
22 Further, in respect of the second ground raised by the Review
Petitioners, Dr. Saraf submitted that this Court failed to consider the locus of
Page 14 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in light of the acquisition of CTS Nos. 1136, 1137 and
1138 on 15th June, 2017 under Section 14 of the Slum Act.
23 In this context, Dr. Saraf referred to Section 14 of the Slum Act
and submitted that it is apparent from a bare perusal of Section 14 (2) of the
Slum Act that, on publication of a Notification in the Official Gazette, the
land vested in the State Government. Thus, on the date of the Petition, there
was no surviving interest of the Petitioners in the land.
24 Dr. Saraf submitted that pursuant to the said vesting the
purported rights of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if any, stood extinguished. The
owner of CTS No. 1138 is now the State of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 approached this Court for an adjudication of their rights as regards
CTS No. 1138. On the date of this Petition, the land owner being the State of
Maharashtra, the Respondents did not have any locus to challenge the Slum
Scheme in any manner. Further, Dr. Saraf submitted that the Respondents
have contended that they have challenged the acquisition Notification and
the same was pending before this Court. He submitted that till the said
Notification is set aside, the Respondents cannot assert any rights in the
property. Dr. Saraf submitted that it was open to the Respondents to have
the present Petition tagged with the Petition where there is a challenge to the
Notification under Section 14 of the Slum Act, which they failed to do.
Page 15 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
25 Dr. Saraf submitted that this contention was expressly raised and
recorded in paragraph 78 of the Judgement dated 20 th November,2025.
Further, this issue remained to be decided by this Court.
26 Dr. Saraf submitted that this aspect of locus had not been
considered by this Court in the Judgement under Review. He submitted that
it is a settled principle of law that an Order passed without considering the
statutory provisions is capable of being reviewed. In this context, Dr. Saraf
referred to the Judgement in Commissioner of Customs v/s. M/s. Canon
India Pvt. Ltd. (2024) INSC 854. Dr. Saraf further submitted that this Court
had not rendered any findings on the effect of Section 14 (2) of the Slum Act
as regards the locus of the Respondents. He submitted that, in these
circumstances, the Order ought to be reviewed and recalled.
27 Finally, Dr. Saraf submitted that this Court in its Review
jurisdiction need not render extensive findings on the merits and demerits of
the grounds raised in Review. He submitted that once it is brought to the
notice of the Court that the Order is passed either without considering vital
facts or binding legal provisions and the same is an error apparent on the face
of the record, the Court may recall the order and consider the matter afresh.
In this context, Dr. Saraf referred to the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Page 16 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Court in the case of Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. v/s. Union of India (2005) 4
SCC 67.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS IN REVIEW PETITION (L)
NO.41188 OF 2025
28 Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Review Petitioners in Review Petition (L) No. 41188 of 2025,
submitted that the non-consideration of a relevant point raised amounts to
an error apparent on the face of the record.
29 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that, in the present case, the
Applicant had specifically raised an issue in the context of the locus of the
original Petitioner to challenge the declaration under Section 3 C of the Slum
Act. He submitted that, by a Notification dated 15 th June, 2017, CTS No. 1138
was acquired by the State Government and, as on that date, the said land
stood vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 14 (2) of the Slum
Act. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that any purported rights which
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed in respect of CTS No. 1138 stood
extinguished and vested in the State Government. Further, Mr.
Khandeparkar submitted that the Notification dated 15 th June, 2017 was
challenged by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2021
wherein this Court, by an Order dated 25 th October, 2022, had not granted
Page 17 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
any relief to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. He submitted that this contention was
specifically raised in the impugned order but has not formed a part of the
deliberation and reasoning contained in the Judgement under the Review.
30 Mr. Khandeparkar further submitted that locus of a party goes to
the very root of the matter, especially in adversarial proceedings. In the
present case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no locus to challenge the
declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Act without obtaining any
favourable order in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2021 wherein the acquisition of
the State Government was under challenge.
31 Mr. Khandeparkar relied upon the Judgements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Indian Charge Chrome Ltd (supra) and Bhavnagar
Municipality, Bhavnagar v/s. State of Gujarat and Others (2004) 12 SCC 669
and submitted that, in these Judgements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
held that where a contention was made but there has been an omission to
consider it, the same amounts to an error apparent on the record and the
only remedy available to such a party was to file an application for review
before the Court that delivered the Judgement.
32 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that in paragraph 99 of the
Judgement under Review, it was held that the Order of the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee (AGRC) was contrary to the Circular dated 7 th January,
Page 18 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
2016 and thus this Court had proceeded to set aside the order passed by the
AGRC. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the process in relation to the
declaration under Section 3C of the Slum Act commenced on 23 rd October,
2015, a site visit was conducted on 18 th December, 2015 and a panchanama
was drawn up stating that slum like conditions exist on site and the land is fit
to be declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area. Mr. Khandeparkar referred to
the provisions of Section 3C of the Slum Act and submitted that a bare
perusal of the provisions makes it ex-facie clear that there is no procedure
prescribed in context of declaration of a land as a Slum Rehabilitation Area.
33 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the Notification dated 7 th
January, 2017, for the first time, prescribed the procedure for steps to be
taken for a Section 3C declaration and for the first time introduced new
aspects such as issuance of notice to the owners of the land and recording
their objections, if any. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that this Circular was
not in the context of any earlier prescribed procedure and such a circular/
notification, which for the first time prescribes a procedure that, inter alia,
included an obligation of hearing, was not clarificatory in nature and thus did
not operate retrospectively.
34 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the Notification was issued
after the procedure for declaration under Section 3C had commenced. Mr.
Page 19 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Khandeparkar submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v/s. Tata Communications Ltd. reported in (2022) SCC
Online 1280 that administrative / executive orders of a Circular cannot be
made applicable with retrospective affect, and, hence, the Circular dated 7 th
January, 2016 could never have been made applicable to Section 3C
proceedings being undertaken in the present matter.
35 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the Order dated 23 rd October,
2015 had not been challenged by Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In this context,
Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the Review Petitioner specifically raised a
contention that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had not challenged the Original
Order dated 23rd October, 2015 whereby the process under Section 3C of the
Slum Act was initiated. He further submitted that a public notice had been
issued and the Petitioners had not filed any objections thereto.
36 Mr. Khandeparkar further submitted that the Review Petitioners
had also placed reliance on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kantabai Vasanta Ahir v/s. SRA & Others (2019) 10 SCC 194 to contend that
no notice was required prior to a Section 3C declaration. He submitted that
the Court had not deliberated upon this contention which goes to the root of
the matter.
Page 20 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
37 Further, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that a failure to challenge
the Order dated 23rd October, 2015 as well as the panchanama dated 18 th
December, 2015, in any manner known to law, ought to have been fatal to the
Writ Petition. However, this aspect, though raised and recorded in the Order
under Review, has not formed a part of the consideration and deliberation by
this Court.
38 Further, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that Section 3C, as of the
relevant date, did not contemplate calling for objections from the land
owners. Even the Circular dated 7th January, 2016, and in particular, Clause 5
thereof, states that if no objections are received, the CEO SRA can proceed to
prepare a draft notification with a departmental note which could then be
approved and notified. Thus, even under the Circular which contemplates a
hearing, in a situation wherein no objections are received, the CEO-SRA can
proceed to issue the Notification under Section 3C.
39 Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that, in the present case, it is an
admitted position that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not the owners of the
land. Further, a public notice dated 20 th January, 2016 was issued by the SRA
for providing objections in relation to the Section 3C declaration and nobody,
Page 21 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
i.e. neither the original owner nor Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have raised any
objections to the declaration.
40 Further, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that this Court, in the
Judgement under Review, has set aside the declaration under Section 3C for
a failure to comply with the procedural aspects and not on the merits in
relation to the scope of inquiry of the Section 3C proceedings. Thus, if the
Order is set aside for want of procedural compliances, the matter ought to
have been remanded back to the CEO-SRA to comply with such procedural
compliances.
41 In this context, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that this Court
ought to have remanded the matter back to the CEO-SRA to consider the
panchanama dated 18th December, 2015 and other material to determine
whether, as on 20th January, 2016, Slum like conditions existed or not. He
submitted that presently, since the Review Petitioners had vacated all slum
dwellers, there can be no survey that could be conducted as the entire plot is
vacant and the Review Petitioner is bearing the expenses of the rent of the
slum dwellers.
42 Mr. Khandeparkar further submitted that declarations issued
under Section 3C are a part of the legislative function and the Government,
Page 22 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
whilst exercising legislative function, is not subject to the rules of natural
justice, and as such pre-decisional hearing prior to issuance of Section 3C
declaration was not necessary. In this context, he relied upon the Judgement
in Kantabai Vasanta Ahir (supra).
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IN REVIEW PETITION (L)
NO. 41187 OF 2025
43 Mr. Cherag Balsara, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Review Petition (L) No. 41187 of 2025,
submitted that the Review Petition filed by the Society was fundamentally
non maintainable and constituted an ” appeal in disguise.” Mr. Balsara
submitted that the Society, having chosen not to file any Reply and agreeing
to proceed with the final hearing of the original Writ Petition, cannot now
seek to “awaken” at the review stage to contest judicial conclusions that were
reached in the Judgement dated 20th November, 2025.
44 Mr. Balsara further submitted that the Society’s reliance on
“newly discovered” documents, specifically the 1972 Lease, is hit by a total
lack of “strict proof of diligence”. A bald claim that the document could not
be traced earlier is insufficient to maintain a review, especially where the
Page 23 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
record proves that the Society had documented notice of the Respondents’
right for over 12 years through formal letters and legal notices.
45 Mr. Balsara submitted that the Society had failed to point out
any patent error or satisfy the rigorous standards of Order XL VII Rule 1,
and, therefore, the Review Petition was a gross abuse of process and liable to
be dismissed with costs.
46 Mr. Balsara further submitted that it is the case of Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 that they are lawful sub-lessees of the land bearing CTS
No.1138, admeasuring 1600 sq.ft., carpet area, with two commercial
structures, admeasuring 1500 sq. ft., bearing Nos. ‘A’ and ‘B’, standing
thereon situated at Village Kandivali, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban
District.
47 Mr. Balsara submitted that the land bearing CTS No. 1138
belongs to the owner and subsequently a registered Lease Deed dated 20 th
November, 1972 for 98 years in favour of Hussenbhai Patel and Others, was
executed for land bearing CTS No. 1138, admeasuring 2500 sq. ft., along with
the structures standing thereon.
48 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the Deputy Collector
declared the subject property as a ” slum area” under Section 4 (1) of the
Page 24 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Slum Act by way of a Notification dated 28 th February, 1979. The Special
Tribunal, in an Appeal filed by Hussenbhai Patel & Others, set aside the slum
declaration vide its Order dated 4th August, 1981. The said Order was in
respect of CTS No. 1138. The Tribunal judicially determined that the area
consisted of offices and godowns and not residential slums, and this order
attained finality.
49 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the legal heirs of
Hussenbhai Patel executed a registered Sub-lease and a General Power of
Attorney dated 21st January, 2008 in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Before executing and registering the sub-lease, a public notice dated 22 nd
December, 2007 was issued with respect to CTS No. 1138.
50 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that, due to a typographical
error, the property was initially mentioned as CTS No. 1139 in the Sub-lease
instead of the correct CTS No. 1138. A registered Rectification Deed dated
20th June, 2013 was executed to correct the survey number in the Sub-lease
from CTS No. 1139 to CTS No. 1138.
51 Mr. Balsara submitted that it is the case of Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 that, throughout in all their correspondences and RTI applications and
Page 25 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
pleadings before all the lower authorities and in this Court, that their rights
of Sub-lease have been on CTS No. 1138 and the structures standing thereon.
52 Mr. Balsara submitted that the Review Petitioner submitted a
proposal on 21st August, 2012 to the SRA to acquire the larger property that
included CTS Nos. 1136, 1137 and 1138 assuming that the same is a Slum
Rehabilitation Area and intentionally suppressing the Order dated 4 th August,
1981 passed by a Special Tribunal in 1981 whereby CTS No. 1138 was no more
a slum area.
53 Mr. Balsara further submitted that the internal SRA notes of 23 rd
October, 2025 (which the SRA and Society claims to be the order) shows that
CEO/SRA directed to ” formally declare 3C also” for the subject land. A site
inspection was conducted on 18 th December, 2015 nearly two months after
the declaration was signed. This has been considered and observed by this
Court as the “mockery of the whole process” in paragraph 98 of the Order
dated 20th November, 2025.
54 Mr. Balsara submitted that SRA issued a formal Section 3C(1)
Notification dated 20th January, 2016, declaring CTS No. 1138 as a “Slum
Rehabilitation Area” without passing a reasoned order or hearing
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The State Government issued a Gazette
Page 26 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Notification dated 15th June, 2017 under Section 14 (1) of the Slum Act,
purporting to acquire the land.
55 Mr. Balsara submitted that over the years after the declaration,
the Dy. Collector’s office again informed Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 via RTI
response dated 14th December, 2017 that there were “no records” of a slum
declaration for CTS No. 1138.
56 Mr. Balsara submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ
Petition No. 1409 of 2021 on 15th March, 2021 to delete their structure from
the SRA notice dated 10 th November, 2020, still unaware that the 2016
Section 3C Notification or 2017 Section 14(1) Acquisition Notification existed.
This Writ Petition was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 after giving notice on
8th January, 2021 to the Society wherein it was clearly mentioned about the
1972 lease, which is completely within the knowledge of the Society since
2013. During the hearing of Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2021 on 25 th October,
2024, the Developer produced the 2016 and 2017 Notifications. This was for
the first time that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 became aware of their existence.
57 Mr. Balsara submitted that the said Writ Petition No. 1409 of
2021 seeking to challenge the Notification dated 15 th June, 2017 regarding
acquisition of land, including CTS No. 1138, is pending for hearing. Mr.
Page 27 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Balsara also submitted that the notification/ order under Section 3C of the
Slum Act preceded the acquisition under Section 14 of the Slum Act.
58 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the Dy. Collector passed an
Eviction Order dated 4th March, 2025 under Sections 33/38 of the Slum Act
against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, assuming that CTS No. 1138 is a slum and
did not consider their own RTI responses and also do not consider the 1981
Order and the then pending challenge to the Section 3C Notification in the
Appeal before the AGRC.
59 Mr. Balsara submitted that the AGRC dismissed Respondent
Nos.1 & 2’s Appeal vide its Order dated 4 th November, 2025 against the
Section 3C Notification solely on the ground of 8 years delay. This Court, in
its Order dated 20th November, 2025, has observed that the delay was only
for 110 days. Mr. Balsara further submitted that this Court delivered the
Judgement dated 20th November, 2025, quashing the AGRC Order dated 4 th
November, 2025 and Section 3C(1) Notification in so far as it relates to CTS
No. 1138.
60 In response to the submissions that the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme is at an extremely advanced stage, with 169 out of 171 eligible
members having already vacated their structures and handed over
Page 28 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
possession for redevelopment, Mr. Balsara submitted that in the Judgement
dated 20th November, 2025, this Court had already expressly considered and
rejected this specific argument. The Court had held that a scheme reaching
at the advanced stage does not grant the State or a Developer the license to
act in a manner that is illegal and contrary to the mandatory provisions of
Section 3C of the Slum Act. Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the
Judgement quashed the Section 3C (1) Notification exclusively in so far as it
related to CTS No.1138. The Rehabilitation of the other 165 members
residing on CTS Nos. 1136 and 1137 remains legally unaffected. Mr. Balsara
submitted that the Developer is free to proceed with the Scheme on the vast
majority of the land ( approximately 2858.4 sq. mtrs.) that is not under
dispute.
61 Mr. Balsara further submitted that the Developer’s own
Intimation of Approval (IOA) dated 26 th July, 2024 explicitly mandates that
the permit “gives no right to build upon land which is not your property”.
Since the quashing of Section 3C Notification restored CTS No. 1138 as
private property, the Developer has no legal authority to interfere with the
Respondent’s structures.
62 In respect of the argument that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 lack the
standing to challenge the slum declaration, Mr. Balsara submitted that the
Page 29 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Society introduced the Original Lease deed dated 22 nd November, 1972 in its
Affidavit in Rejoinder, asserting that the lease was originally granted only for
a structure on Survey No. 1139 and not CTS No. 1138. He submitted that it
was the contention of the Petitioners that the Rectification Deed of 2013 was
a “malafide attempt” to shift the description of the leased land to CTS No.
1138 to illegally obstruct the Scheme.
63 In the context of this submission, Mr. Balsara submitted that
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2’s interest in the subject property is rooted in a
registered Sub-Lease Deed dated 21st January, 2008 and a subsequent
registered Rectification Deed dated 20th June, 2013. Mr. Balsara submitted
that, under the law, these registered instruments carry a statutory
presumption of validity. Mr. Balsara submitted that the Review Petitioner’s
attempt to question the Respondent’s locus standi by introducing a fresh title
dispute is legally misplaced. Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the Review
Petitioner cannot now use a Review Petition to introduce unverified
photocopies of a 1972 Lease Deed or revenue records to bypass the
established findings of procedural breach resulting in a mockery of process.
Mr. Balsara submitted that, in any case, the Review Petitioner was very much
aware of the Lease Deed of 1972 which is evident from the letters dated 26 th
September, 2013, 13th June, 2018 and 8th January, 2021, all annexed to the
Writ Petition.
Page 30 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
64 In the context of the reliance of the Review Petitioner on the
Kami Jasta Patrak (“KJP”), Mr. Balsara submitted that it is a settled position
of law that revenue records such as the KJP or the Property Card are
maintained primarily for fiscal and tax purposes.
65 Further, in this context, Mr. Balsara submitted that the
Respondents’ interest in CTS No. 1138 is firmly established through a
registered Sub Lease Deed and a subsequent registered Rectification Deed.
These registered instruments carry a statutory presumption of validity that
cannot be discarded based on the mere absence of a name in a revenue
extract like the KJP.
66 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that contentions regarding the
KJP is not “new matters” discovered for this Review. The Developer
previously raised this exact point in its Affidavit in Reply filed during
proceedings of Appeal No 39 of 2025 before the AGRC.
67 In the context of the arguments of the Review Petitioner that any
rights that the Respondents may have had were extinguished when the State
Government acquired the land via a Gazette Notification on 15 th June, 2017,
Mr. Balsara submitted that the validity and the legality of the Section 14 (1)
Notification dated 15th June, 2017 is the subject matter of a direct challenge in
Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2021, which is currently pending adjudication
Page 31 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
before the Division Bench of this Court. Since, the acquisition itself is sub-
judice, the Review Petitioner cannot claim any “finality” or ” extinguishment
of rights” to defeat the rights of the Respondents. Further, Mr. Balsara
submitted that the power to acquire the land under Section 14 is strictly
consequential to a valid declaration under Section 3C. Mr. Balsara submitted
that this Court has judicially determined that the Section 3C Notification was
void. Mr. Balsara submitted that it is a settled principle of law that once the
foundation (section 3C Declaration)is removed, the consequential acquisition
and vesting under Section 14 must also fall.
68 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the Respondents continued
to be in settled physical possession of the commercial structures, a fact
recognized by the Developer’s own issuance of eviction notices and the
subsequent judicial protection granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its
Order dated 19th June, 2025 and extended vide Orders dated 22 nd July 2025
and 13th October, 2025 and further continued by this Court.
69 In the context of the submissions of the Review Petitioner that
the Respondents suppressed the termination notice dated 12 th September,
2025 which purportedly ended their Sub-lease, Mr. Balsara submitted that,
assuming without admitting that the Sub-lease was terminated by the
termination notice dated 12th September, 2025, the right of Respondent Nos.
Page 32 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
1 and 2 does not stand extinguished and these Respondents would be entitled
to continue in possession of private land under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act.
70 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that far from “suppressing” the
notice, the Respondents have filed a Civil Suit, being Civil Suit No. 680 of
2026, on 24th February, 2026, before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi, which
is currently pending and, therefore, the termination is sub-judice.
71 Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that the alleged breach cited in
the notice, of non-payment of monthly rent of Rs.60, was cured by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by tendering cheques for Rs.32,000/- on 15 th
September, 2025. The Sub-Lessor has received these cheques but failed to
deposit them, proving that the “termination” is a manufactured litigation
tactic. Further, Mr. Balsara submitted that it is legally inconceivable how the
Review Petitioner came into possession of private legal notices exchanged
between the Respondents and their landlords. Mr. Balsara submitted that
the same is conclusive evidence of a collusive and clandestine nexus between
the Sub-Lessors, the Developer, and the Society to mislead this Court.
72 Mr. Balsara further submitted that under Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, Review is strictly limited to the records as they
Page 33 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
stood on the date of the Judgement. Introducing fresh tenancy disputes that
are already the subject matter of a pending Civil Suit is a gross jurisdictional
overreach.
73 Further, Mr. Balsara relied upon the following judgements to
submit that the present Review Petition is a gross abuse of the process of law
and falls entirely outside the narrow confines of review jurisdiction:
(a) Kamlesh Verma v/s. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320
(b) Priyanka Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Tata Capital Financial
Services Ltd. (2021) SCC Online Bom, 1595
(c) Kantabai Vasant Ahir v/s. SRA (2019) 10 SCC 194.
74 Mr. Balsara, submitted that, for all these reasons, the Review
Petition ought to be dismissed.
SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2 IN REVIEW PETITION (L)
NO. 41188 OF 2025
75 Mr. Ankit Lohia, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Writ Petition (L) No. 41188 of 2025 reiterated the
submissions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition (L) No. 41187 of
2025, as demonstrated by the Written Submissions filed by Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 in Writ Petition (L) No. 41188 of 2025.
Page 34 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
76 The first point to be considered is regarding the Lease Deed
dated 20th November, 1972. In the context of their rights in CTS No.1138,
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated the following in the Writ Petition:-
“12. On 20.11.1972, one Husseinbhai Patel became the lessee
of the Structures admeasuring approximately 3,264 sq.ft.
standing on the Subject Property under a registered Lease
Deed having a term of 98 years.
13. On 28.02.1979, the Subject Property was declared as a
slum by the Dy. Collector under Section 4(1) of the Slum Act.
A copy of the Notification dated 28.02.1979 is annexed
hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘B’.
14. An Appeal was filed by the son of Husseinbhai Patel under
Section 4(3) of the Slum Act. By an order dated 04.08.1981,
the Special Tribunal allowed the Appeal and set aside the
declaration of the Subject Property as a slum area. In the
order, the Tribunal observed that there are no persons residing
on the Subject Property (insofar as it relates to the
Structures) and that there are godowns and offices in the
area. Hence, there was no justification for making the
Declaration. This 1981 Order was never challenged and has
attained finality. A copy of the order 04.08.1981 is annexed
hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘C’.
15. On 21.01.2008, the Petitioners acquired a sub-lease in
the Subject Property by way of a registered Deed. A period of
45 years is yet to lapse under the original Lease Deed.
However, due to inadvertence, the City Survey Number (CTS)
of the subject property was mistakenly mentioned as CTS No.
1139 instead of the correct CTS No. 1138. A copy of the sub-
lease deed dated 21.01.2008 is hereto annexed and marked
as Exhibit ‘D’.
Page 35 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
16. The Petitioners have a valid legal interest in the Subject
Property CTS No. 1138, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, through
a registered Sub-Lease Deed dated 21.01.2008 from the
lawful lessees. The original lease was executed on 20.11.1972.
A General Power of Attorney (POA) was also executed and
registered on 21.01.2008, authorizing the Petitioners to act
on behalf of the lessors in all property-related matters. A copy
of the general POA dated 21.01.2008 is hereto annexed and
marked as Exhibit ‘E’.
17. Subsequently, typographical error was rectified through a
registered Rectification Deed dated 20.06.2013, wherein the
correct CTS No. 1138 was duly substituted. A copy of the
Rectification Deed dated 20.06.2013 is annexed hereto and
marked as Exhibit ‘F’.”
77 A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs shows that Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 did not produce the Lease Deed dated 20 th November, 1972
which showed that the Lease was in respect of CTS No. 1139 nor was the said
fact that the Lease was in respect of CTS No. 1139 disclosed in the Writ
Petition.
78 On account of the same, this Court proceeded on the basis that
the Lease Deed was in respect of CTS No. 1138 and that the mistake was only
in respect of the Sub-lease, which was subsequently rectified.
79 In Rejoinder, the Review Petitioner has produced the Lease Deed
dated 20th November, 1972 which shows that the lease is in respect of the CTS
No. 1139. In the light of the production of this material, there arises a doubt
Page 36 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:47 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have any interest in CTS No. 1138, and,
therefore, have any locus to file a Writ Petition in respect of CTS No. 1138.
80 In my view, for this reason, the Judgement dated 20 th November,
2025 will have to be recalled in order to consider whether Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 have any interest in CTS No. 1138.
81 It is the contention of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Review
Petitioner could have produced the said Lease Deed dated 20 th November,
1972, if they had exercised due diligence and, therefore, the Review Petitioner
could not now produce the said Lease Deed and seek review of this
Judgement.
82 I am unable to accept this argument of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 .
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed original Writ Petition seeking reliefs in
respect of a Section 3C Notification in respect of CTS No. 1138. Therefore,
the onus was on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to prove that they had a right in
CTS No. 1138. In these circumstances, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have
produced the Lease Deed dated 20th November, 1972 which showed that it
was in respect of CTS No. 1139. Having not done so, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
cannot now object to the production of the said Lease Deed by the Review
Petitioners in order to show that the original Lease Deed was in respect of
CTS No. 1139, which was never rectified. In my view, since the Respondents
Page 37 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
did not produce the said Lease Deed dated 20th November, 1972, that can
certainly be a ground for recalling the Order dated 20th November, 2025.
83 Further, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not produced the letter
dated 12th September, 2025 of their landlord terminating the said Sub-lease.
The Writ Petition was filed after the said letter was addressed to the
Respondents. However, despite the same, the Respondents did not disclose
the said letter in the Writ Petition. This letter of termination dated 12 th
September, 2025 also creates a doubt whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
any interest in CTS No. 1138 and, therefore, had any locus to file a Writ
Petition in respect of CTS No. 1138. For this reason also, the Judgement
dated 20th November, 2025 will have to be recalled in order to consider
whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have any interest in CTS No. 1138. In this
context, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have made the following submissions in
their Written Submissions:-
“i. Assuming without admitting that the said lease
wasn’t terminated vide the Termination notice dated
12.09.2025, the rights of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2
do not stand extinguished in totality and these
Respondents would be entitled to continue in
possession of private land under section 106 of the
Transfer of Property Act.
ii. Far from “suppressing” the notice, the Respondents
have actively and formally challenged its legality by
filing a Civil Suit (Civil Suit No. 680 of 2026) on
24.02.2026 before the Hon’ble City Civil Court at
Dindoshi. This Suit is currently pending adjudication,
Page 38 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docand the private termination is thus sub-judice and
cannot be treated as a concluded fact by this Court.
Case Status of the said Suit obtained from the official
e-courts website is enclosed herewith as Annexure –
2.
iii. At the time the purported notice was issued, the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 possession was already
judicially protected by a Status Quo order granted by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.07.2025,
specifically regarding CTS No. 1138. Any private
contractual notice is subordinate to the judicial
mandate protecting the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
settled possession.
iv. The alleged breach cited in the notice non-payment
of a trivial monthly rent of ₹60 was cured by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendering cheques for
₹32,000/-on 15.09.2025. The Sub-Lessor (Mr. Yusuf
Saifuddin Patel) has received these cheques but failed
to deposit them, proving that the “termination” is a
manufactured litigation tactic.
v. It is legally inconceivable how the Review Petitioner
(a “Society of Slum Dwellers”) came into possession of
private legal notices exchanged between the
Respondents and their landlords. This unauthorized
production of documents is conclusive evidence of a
collusive and clandestine nexus between the Sub-
Lessors, the Developer, and the Society to mislead this
Hon’ble Court.
vi. On the date the Writ Petition was decided i.e.,
20.11.2025, the Respondents held a valid and
subsisting interest via a registered Sub-Lease and a
registered Rectification Deed. These instruments
carry a statutory presumption of validity until set
aside by a competent Civil Court, not a Review
Petition.
vii. Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, a review is
strictly limited to the record as it stood on the date of
Page 39 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docthe judgment. Introducing fresh tenancy disputes that
are already the subject of a pending Civil Suit is a
gross jurisdictional overreach.”
84 In my view, if Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had disclosed the said
letter dated 12th September, 2025, terminating the said Sub-Lease, then it
would have been open to them to make the above mentioned submissions. As
held by me hereinabove, the non-disclosure of the letter dated 12 th
September, 2025, terminating the Sub-lease, itself requires a recall of the
Order dated 20th November,2025.
85 As far as these submissions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which
are set out hereinabove are concerned, the same will have to be considered
when this Writ Petition is considered afresh by this Court. In order not to
prejudice Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 when the Writ Petition is being
considered afresh, I am not dealing with the said submissions of the
Respondents. As stated hereinabove, the failure of the Respondents to
disclose the said termination notice dated 12 th September, 2025 itself would
require recall of the said Order dated 20th November, 2025.
86 There is one more ground on which the Judgement dated 20 th
November, 2025 is required to be reviewed. Land bearing CTS Nos. 1136,
1137 and 1138 was acquired on 15 th June, 2017 under Section 14 of the Slum
Act.
Page 40 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
87 Section 14 of the Slum Act reads as under:-
“14. Power of State Government to acquire land.-(1)
Where on any representation from the Competent
Authority it appears to the State Government that, in
order to enable the Authority [to execute any work of
improvement or to redevelop any slum area or any
structure in such area, it is necessary that such area, or
any land] within adjoining or surrounded by any such
area should be acquired, the State Government may
acquire the land by publishing in the Official Gazette, a
notice to the effect that the State Government has
decided to acquire the land in pursuance of this
section:
[Provided that, before publishing such notice,
the State Government, or as the case may be, the
[Competent Authority] may call upon by notice the
owner of, or any other person who, in its or his
opinion may be interested in, such land to show cause
in writing why the land should not be acquired with
reasons therefore, to the [Competent Authority] within
the period specified in the notice; and the [Competent
Authority] shall, with all reasonable dispatch, forward
any objections so submitted together with his report in
respect thereof to the State Government and on
considering the report and the objections, if any, the
State Government may pass such order as it deems
fit].
[(1A) The acquisition of land for any purpose
mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a
public purpose.](2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the
Official Gazette the land shall on and from the date on
which the notice is so published vest absolutely in the
State Government free from all encumbrances.”
Page 41 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
88 It is clear from a perusal of Section 14 that, on publication of the
Notification in the Official Gazette, the land vested in the State Government
free from all encumbrances.
89 It is the submission of the Review Petitioners that, on the
publication of the Notification under Section 14 in the Official Gazette, the
land vested in the State Government. Thus, on the date of the Petition, there
was no surviving interest of the Petitioners in the land.
90 It is further the case of the Review Petitioners that, on this
account, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not have any locus to file the Writ
Petition, especially considering that the acquisition order had been passed on
15th June, 2017 and the same had not been set aside till date.
91 It is the case of the Review Petitioners that this aspect of locus
has not been considered by this Court in the Judgement dated 20 th
November, 2025 and, hence, the Judgement dated 20 th November, 2025
ought to be recalled.
92 The Review Petitioners have also submitted that it is a settled
principle of law that an Order passed without considering a statutory
provision is capable of being reviewed. In this context, the Review
Petitioners have relied on paragraphs 62 to 68 of the Judgement of the
Page 42 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which read as
under:-
“62. In the case of Tinkari Sen v. Dulal Chandra Das
reported in 1966 SCC OnLine Cal 103, the Calcutta High
Court held that if the court overlooks or fails to consider
a legal provision that grants it the authority to act in a
specific manner, this may amount to an error analogous
to one apparent on the face of the record. Such an
oversight would fall within the scope of Order XLVII,
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which allows
for reviews. Relevant parts are extracted below:
“18. Consider, in this context, Sir Hari
Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter, AIR 1949 FC
106. Mr. Chittatosh Mookerjee refers me to
Mukherjee, J. (as his Lordship then was),
observed, Kania C.J. Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri and
Mahajan, JJ. (as their Lordships then were)
agreeing:
“That a decision is erroneous in law
is certainly no ground for ordering review. If
the Court has decided a point and decided it
erroneously, the error could not be one
apparent on the face of the record or even
analogous to it “When, however, the Court
disposes of a case without adverting to or
applying its mind to a provision of law which
gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way
that may amount to an error analogous to one
apparent on the face of the record sufficient to
bring the case within the purview of Order 47,
rule 1 of the CPC.
[Emphasis supplied]
63. In Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D. H. Mehta
reported in (1971) 3 SCC 189, this Court allowed the
review on the ground that its attention was notPage 43 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docgiven to a particular provision of the statute. The
relevant observations read as follows:
“15. The learned counsel for the
respondent State urges that this is not a case
fit for review because it is only a case of
mistaken judgment. But we are unable to
agree with this submission because at the time
of the arguments our attention was not drawn
specifically to sub-section 23-C(2) and the
light it throws on the interpretation of sub-
section (1).
16. In the result the review petition is
partly allowed and the judgment of this Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 1969 modified to
the extent that the sentence of six months’
rigorous imprisonment imposed on
Girdharilal is set aside. The sentence of fine of
Rs 2000 shall, however, stand.”
[Emphasis supplied]
64. In M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v.
Lt. Governor of Delhi reported in (1980) 2 SCC 167, the
scope of the power of review was explained by this Court
wherein it was held that:
“8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to
seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court
merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. The normal principle is that a
judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so: Sajjan Singh
v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1965 SC 845: (1965) 1
SCR 933, 948: (1965) 1 SCJ 377]. For instance, if
the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material
statutory provision during the original hearing, the
Court will review its judgment: G.L. Gupta v. D.N.
Mehta [(1971) 3 SCC 189: 1971 SCC (Cri) 279: (1971)
Page 44 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc3 SCR 748, 750]. The Court may also reopen its
judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it
is necessary to pass an order do full and effective
justice: O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi
[(1971) 3 SCC 5: (1971) 2 SCR 11, 27]. …..
[Emphasis supplied]
65. This Court in Yashwant Sinha v. CBI reported in
(2020) 2 SCC 338, has observed that if a relevant law
has been ignored while arriving at a decision, it would
make the decision amenable to review. The relevant
observations read as follows:
“78. The view of this Court, in Girdhari
Lal Gupta [Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta,
(1971) 3 SCC 189: 1971 SCC (Cri) 279: AIR 1971 SC
2162: (1971) 3 SCR 748] as also in Deo Narain
Singh [Deo Narain Singh v. Daddan Singh, 1986
Supp SCC 530], has been noticed to be that if the
relevant law is ignored or an inapplicable law
forms the foundation for the judgment, it would
provide a ground for review. If a court is oblivious
to the relevant statutory provisions, the judgment
would, in fact, be per incuriam. No doubt, the
concept of per incuriam is apposite in the context
of its value as the precedent but as between the
parties, certainly it would be open to urge that a
judgment rendered, in ignorance of the applicable
law, must be reviewed. The judgment, in such a
case, becomes open to review as it would betray a
clear error in the decision.”
[Emphasis supplied]
66. In Sow Chandra Kant and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib
reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court held:
“1. Mr Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners,
has argued at length all the points which were urged at
the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus
making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts
Page 45 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.docto a re-hearing. May be, we were not right is refusing
special leave in the first round; but, once an order has
been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be
subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly
entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step
and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has
crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition,
through different counsel, of old and overruled
arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered
ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import
are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for
compliance with these factors is the rationale behind
the insistence of counsel’s certificate which should not
be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither
fairness to the Court which decided nor awareness of
the precious public time lost what with a huge backlog
of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for
counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of
review and fight over again the same battle which has
been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are
sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of
judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that
this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent
phenomenon of repeat performance with the review
label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then
has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on
points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel now
urges and then pressed, our order refusing special
leave was capable of a different course. The present
stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier
order which has the normal feature of finality.”
[Emphasis supplied]
67. Thus, the decisions referred to above make it
abundantly clear that when a court disposes of a case
without due regard to a provision of law or when its
attention was not invited to a provision of law, it may
amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the
face of record sufficient to bring the case within the
purview of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. In other words, if a court is oblivious to
the relevant statutory provisions, the judgment would in
fact be per incuriam. In such circumstances, a judgment
Page 46 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
rendered in ignorance of the applicable law must be
reviewed.
68. From here onwards, our endeavour is to
ascertain whether the relevant provisions of law
including the notifications issued by the Board from
time to time were brought to the notice of the Court
while deciding Canon India (supra).”
93 In my view, the Review Petitioners are right in submitting that
the Judgement dated 20th November, 2025 ought to be recalled as the Court
has not considered the issue as to whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have lost
their rights, if any, in respect of CTS No. 1138, on account of the Section 14
Notification by which the same was acquired and vested in the State
Government free from all encumbrances.
94 In these circumstances, in my view, the Judgement dated 20 th
November, 2025 is required to be recalled by this Court on this ground also.
95 In this context, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted that the
validity and legality of the Section 14(1) Notification dated 15 th June, 2017 is
the subject matter of a direct challenge in Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2021,
which is currently pending for adjudication before the Division Bench of this
Court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted that since the acquisition
itself is sub-judice, the Review Petitioner cannot claim any finality or rights to
defeat Respondent Nos. 1 and 2’s standing. As far as this submission is
Page 47 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
concerned, in my view, the mere filing of the said Writ Petition challenging
the said Section 14 Notification, does not, in any manner, stay the operation
of the said Notification and the effect and the provisions of Section 14 (2)
and, therefore, the said submission of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not
sustainable.
96 Further, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also submitted that the
power to acquire the land under Section 14 is strictly consequential of a valid
declaration under Section 3C. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have further
submitted that since this Court has determined that the said Section 3C is not
valid, the consequential acquisition and vesting under Section 14 cannot also
falls. I do not intend to deal with this submission as any opinion expressed by
me would prejudice the rights of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 when this Writ
Petition is decided afresh. Hence, I am not dealing with this submission of
the Respondents.
97 In these circumstances, as held by me hereinabove, the
Judgement dated 20th November, 2025 will have to be recalled as, in the said
Judgement, the Court has not considered the effect of Section 14(1)
Notification on the rights of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Page 48 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
98 For all the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to recall the
Judgement dated 20th November, 2025 and place the Writ Petition afresh for
admission.
99 Further, in a Review, the Court need not render extensive
findings on the merits and demerits of the grounds raised in the Review.
Once it is brought to the notice of the Court that the Order is passed without
considering binding legal provisions or that there has been a failure to
disclose the material facts, the Court may recall the Order and consider the
matter afresh.
100 Since, in my view, on the aforesaid grounds, the Judgement
dated 20th November, 2025 is liable to be recalled, I am not considering the
other submissions made by the Review Petitioners and the response thereto
by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
101 Since the Judgement dated 20 th November, 2025 is recalled and
the Writ Petition is placed for being considered afresh, the status quo granted
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its Order dated 22 nd July, 2025 will also
have to be continued till the next date of hearing of the Writ Petition.
Page 49 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::
rpl-41187-41188-2025.doc
ORDER
102 In the light of the aforesaid discussion and for the aforesaid
reasons, the following Orders are passed:-
(a) The Judgement dated 20th November, 2025 is recalled;
(b) Writ Petition No. 5366 of 2025 to be placed before the appropriate
bench for admission;
(c) Writ Petition No. 5366 of 2025 to be considered uninfluenced by the
observations in this Judgement and in the Judgement dated 20 th
November,2025;
(d) The Status-quo granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Order
dated 22nd July, 2025 shall continue till the next date of hearing of the
Writ Petition;
(e) The Review Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms;
(f) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]
Page 50 of 50
30th APRIL, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
::: Uploaded on – 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 01/05/2026 04:58:48 :::