7-OSWP-2157-2021+.

DOC

Amol

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 2022
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 2023
Sakshi Shankar Shinde …Petitioner
Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority …Respondent
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2023.07.26
10:16:16 +0530
Mr JS Kini, with Aum J Kini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner
society in WP/2157/2021 and for Respondent No. 4 in
WPL/3329/2022 and WPL/17385/2022.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Manjiri Parasnis & Priyank Shukla,
i/b RD Mishra, for the Petitioner.
Mr VA Gangal, with Divya Parab & Shweta Parab, for the Petitioner
in WPL/17385/2023.
Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, with Jagdish G Aradwad
(Reddy) & Vaibhav Charalwar, for the SRA in all matters.
Mr Sagar Patil, for MCGM.
Mr RD Soni, with Tushar Momaiyah, for the Intervenor.

Page 1 of 5
25th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:20 :::

 7-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Mr VM Thorat, with Suhas Gaikwad, for Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 in

WP/3329/2022.
Mr Ranjeev Carvalho, with Uttam Rane, for the Intervenor in
WP/2157/2021.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for State in WP/2157/2021 &
WPL/17385/2023.
Ms Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for State in WPL/3329/2022.
Mr SK Dhekale, Court Receiver is present.
Ms Manjari Parasnis, for proposed intervenors.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 25th July 2023
PC:-

1. We passed a detailed order on 5th July 2023. That required

the 3rd Respondent Developer, Niraj Ved, doing business in his
proprietorship firm of Shreenath Corporation at 101-102,
Bhaveshwar Market, 1st floor, Near Gandhi Market, MG Road
Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 to take a number of positive
steps, including cancelling certain agreements and to make good on
his promise to deliver possession of other units said to be free.
There was an injunction against the developer. We appointed a
Receiver of certain premises.

2. We are noting only some of this because what has emerged

today is a matter for great concern. At the very beginning of the
hearing, Mr Vakil told us that the 3rd Respondent had discharged
his Advocates. Others who are present before us tell us that the 3rd
Respondent is very much in the corridors of the High Court.

Page 2 of 5
25th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:20 :::

 7-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

3. We issue a bailable warrant in the amount of Rs 15,000/-, and

that is only an initial amount, against the 3rd Respondent, Niraj
Ved, Shreenath Corporation at 101-102, Bhaveshwar Market, 1st
floor, Near Gandhi Market, MG Road Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai
400 077, returnable in this Court on 9th August 2023. The matter is
to be listed first on board on that date.

4. The 3rd Respondent is at liberty to engage new Advocates (or

to persuade the same Advocates to continue), but he will be
produced in Court on that date.

5. There is a Receiver’s report today. It is taken on record.

6. The learned Advocate General appears for SRA. Others who

are affected have also entered appearance or filed Interim
Applications. Mr Soni is one of those, and he says that there are
other projects undertaken by this very developer where the situation
is even more serious, and hundreds of flat purchasers are affected.
There are others similarly placed.

7. We refuse to be silent bystanders to this. Apart from anything

else, we believe that this is a case where SRA is quite significantly
hamstrung by having only limited authority. The SRA and its
officers are caught in the cross-fire between a wholly errant
developer and individual purchasers or allottees. Prima facie, this
developer has not only run riot across several projects but seems
also to have exploited to the hilt identifiable lacunae in SRA
jurisdiction and authority.

Page 3 of 5
25th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:20 :::

 7-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

8. We will undoubtedly need the assistance of the learned

Advocate General and all counsel before us. Our immediate
objective will be, first, to ensure that the SRA has sufficient
authority and powers to deal in these situations effectively, quickly
and efficiently. Second, we will have to deal with the three concerns
in this matter, i.e., those of Mr Kini for the Petitioner, Mr Gangal
and Mr Thorat for two sets of flat purchasers, and Mr
Khandeparkar for others to whom flats were promised and were
agreed to be sold

9. Then there are the questions that have to be answered in

respect of the project at Kurla. Here, Ms Parasnis, Mr Carvalho and
others have claims. We will have to consider those as well.

10. Mr Soni’s case in regard to other projects will also be taken

up, and he mentions in particular a project at Bhandup. Mr Soni
states he will file a separate Writ Petition. Similarly, those who seek
substantive relief in their own name should file separate Petitions
and get these tagged with the present matters. It would not be
possible to give intervenors reliefs in respect of other projects. In
other words, all independent claims against the present 3rd
Respondent, Niraj Ved, and his proprietorship firm, should be by
way of separate petitions and not as interventions in these matters
unless they relate to premises covered by any of the present Writ
Petitions.

11. A copy of the Receiver’s latest report is to be made available

to all Advocates appearing today.

Page 4 of 5
25th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:20 :::

 7-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

12. The SRA Affidavit is already filed.

13. List these matters first on board on 9th August 2023.

14. In the meantime, it is open to all aggrieved parties to file

criminal complaints or FIRs against the 3rd Respondent in whatever
jurisdictional police station is nearest the project. The police
authorities will register all complaints that are filed. What is to be
done thereafter is a matter for State action and we will consider the
submissions of the Learned Advocate-General on the next date.

15. The present possession of the Court Receiver will continue

until the 9th August 2023.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 5 of 5
25th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:20 :::

 P5-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Arun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj CHSL …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ….Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 OF 2022
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL Sakshi Shankar Shinde ...Petitioner
Digitally signed
Versus
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority ….Respondents
Date: 2023.07.07
14:15:54 +0530

Mr SK Dhekale, Court Receiver present.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 7th July 2023
PC:-

Page 1 of 2
7th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:57 :::

 P5-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

1. Not on board. The matter is taken up at the instance of the

Registry.

2. In the order dated 5th July 2023, in paragraph 35 the

reference to “Kurla” shall be corrected to read as “Ghatkopar”.

3. The order dated 5th July 2023 be corrected accordingly.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 2 of 2
7th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:42:57 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

Arun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj CHSL …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022

Rajesh Madhukar Chavan ...Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ….Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 OF 2022

Sakshi Shankar Shinde ...Petitioner

Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority ….Respondents

ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
Mr JS Kini, with Arun Keini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner
SANKPAL
in WP/2157/2021.
Digitally signed by
ARUN Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Anand Pail, Manjiri Parisnis &
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2023.07.07
10:25:45 +0530
Priyank Shukla, i/b RD Mishra, for the Petitioner in
WPL/3329/2022.
Mr VA Gangal, with Divya Parab, for the Petitioner in
WPL/17385/2023.
Mr Sandesh Patil, with Prithviraj S Gole, for Respondent No.2-SRA.

Page 1 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

Mr Rubin Vakil, with Manish Doshi, Siddhi Deolekar & Shivam

Trivedi, i/b M/s Vimadalal & Company, for Respondent No. 3 in
WP/2157/2021.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for State in WP/2157/2021 &
WPL/17385/2023.
Mrs Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for State in WPL/3329/2022.
Mr SK Dhekale, Court Receiver present.
Mr Satish Lokhande, CEO, SRA present.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 5th July 2023
PC:-

1. We have before us three Writ Petitions and almost twice as

many parties. This is a classic case of a developer playing fast and
loose with development rights at the cost of those entitled to
reconstructed homes or rehabilitation, third party purchasers,
permanent transit camp units and worse. Over the last few days, we
have also expressed our great dismay and distress at the complete
lack of supervision of the developer and his on-site activities by the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”), the special planning
authority, and particularly its CEO. He is present in Court under
our directions.

2. Pursuant to directions yesterday, we now have a report of the

CEO. We have seen that report and its annexures. It is signed by the
Executive Engineer, N Ward of the SRA. Because there is now
supervision and compliance and because we find this report fairly
satisfactory for the present purposes we do not think it is necessary
to immediately initiate further action against officers of the SRA.

Page 2 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

But we must be mindful that these problems with the SRA are not
isolated instances. Our daily cause list is filled with SRA-related
matters, and we find this happening again and again. Particularly
disturbing is the complete lack of adequate record-keeping by the
SRA of the activities of builders and how rehab properties change
hands and even character without the SRA knowing the slightest
thing about any of this.

3. A sharper observation should not be invited as to how this

could possibly come to pass. We trust our meaning is now
abundantly clear to all concerned.

4. The three Petitions are like this.

(a) Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2021 is by the Kapilkunj

Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (“the society”).

(b) Writ Petition (L) No. 3329 of 2022 is for some

mysterious reason still on a lodging number. It is to be
finally numbered by the next date. The Petitioner here,
represented by Mr Khandeparkar, Rajesh Madhukar
Chavan (“Chavan”) has a registered agreement with
the developer Shreenath Corporation apparently a sole
proprietorship of one Niraj Ved, against whom we
issued a contempt notice yesterday. Not just that but
Chavan has obtained a decree for possession from the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There is a
balance consideration that was due from Chavan to

Page 3 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

Shreenath Corporation and that amount has been

deposited before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum and credited under Complaint No.
274 of 2011. The decree is dated 10th September 2018.

(c) Writ Petition (L) No. 17385 of 2023 is by one Sakshi

Shankar Shinde (“Shinde”) represented by Mr
Gangal. She is among several who were sold premises
by Shreenath Corporation including two premises that
were previously sold under registered agreements to
Mr Khandeparkar’s client, Chavan.

5. This is only the tip of the iceberg. There has been much
difficulty in the project itself and for this reason a very brief
background is now required. We are now dealing with two sites. The
first site is at Ghatkopar (West) at RB Kadam Marg. This was the
principal site of the Development Agreement (“DA”) and it is here
that the Society represented by Mr Kini is based. The development
here was a composite development of rehab and free sale units in a
single structure. Sanction was obtained up to the 7th floor and there
is presently no sanction beyond the 7th floor. To cut a very long
story short, it seems that the developer failed to fulfil its obligations
in completing the structure at Ghatkopar and it was the society
members that had to put in the funds to complete that construction.

6. This puts sharply into focus one fact that we will constantly
bear in mind viz., that we will under no circumstances permit the
developer to derive a benefit at the cost of the Society. By this we

Page 4 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

mean that the developer will get to exercise no rights in respect of

the premises once it is shown that the developer has not fully met its
or his obligations under the Letter of Intent in respect of the rehab
units. It was and is the obligation of the developer to complete the
entire construction and to pay transit rent. This was the
consideration for being able to exercise rights in respect of the free
sale units. If the developer did not fulfil those obligations there is,
quite simply put, in contract law a failure of consideration and the
developer can claim no rights over the free sale units.

7. While on the subject, we note that the failure of the developer

extends also to non-payment of the full amount of transit rent. Mr
Kini appears for the society and he says that there is today a demand
for Rs 80 lakhs in accumulated arrears but the actual figure of the
amount due to the society is probably well in excess of Rs 3 crores.

8. There is a limit beyond which we will not be able to make

immediate orders in regards to the monetary element but we will
endeavour to provide some comfort to the Society members in that
regard.

9. There is in parallel the conflict between the claims by Chavan

and Shinde. To put this more specifically: Chavan has rights over
units or flats Nos. 503 and 504, these being the subject matter of the
registered agreements which have resulted in the Consumer Forum
decree. Chavan was never given possession of these units. These
units were also never constructed or never meant to be Permanent
Transit Camp (“PTC”) tenements. They were constructed as

Page 5 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

regular free sale tenements but, and it is at this point that the story
becomes extremely murky, and may require us to question how SRA
went about things. It is contended that the developer sought to club
this scheme with another scheme at Kurla and said that some of the
tenements at the Ghatkopar scheme would now become Permanent
Transit Camps. Whether this could have been done at all is another
matter that we will address at an appropriate stage. We are
simultaneously told there was no clubbing. But if there was no
clubbing, no tenement in the Ghatkopar building could ever have
been dubbed or dealt with as a PTC tenement.

10. But then there is another twist because what was sold to
Shinde represented by Mr Gangal was not a PTC tenement at all but
was a free sale unit although it was one that was purportedly
converted in the interregnum to a PTC tenement.

11. This incessant pendulum swinging and see-sawing has

resulted in a vast number of people being aggrieved and the
developer literally getting away with doing what he wanted without
the slightest control or supervision by the SRA.

12. Mr Patil for the SRA tells us that criminal proceedings have
been initiated and FIRs filed. That is hardly enough. We do not see
any evidence of the developer having his LoI cancelled, and it is for
this reason that we have asked the CEO of SRA to prepare an
unsigned letter of termination which he has done. It is shown to us.
It will be brought to court on the next occasion also. Because of the
order that we propose to pass today we will not immediately have

Page 6 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

that letter cancelling the LOI issued but it may happen at any time
and without notice. Mr Vakil for the developer had best note this.
The developer is present in Court.

13. Now what is required is protection of various units both at

Ghatkopar and at Kurla. In the report of the SRA of 5th July 2023,
which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification with
today’s date, there is a list of the persons such as Shinde who have
been sold tenements at Ghatkopar and put in possession. The
numbers are 304, 404, 503, 504, 603 and 604. The device used
apparently was to conveniently renumber some of these and to
pretend that they were in some unknown wing A, a structure that
simply does not exist and is purely a figment of the developer’s
evidently quite perfervid imagination.

14. Now because Mr Khandeparkar’s clients have a decree in

respect of Units 503 and 504, those in possession of units 503 and
504, i.e., one Balkrishna Suranje and one Arvind Nanaware will
need to be translocated to another non-PTC tenement somewhere.

15. We are immediately concerned with these six flats 304, 404,
503, 504, 603 and 604 and we want no vulnerability or prejudice to
those in possession. We do not know what further might be
uncovered in respect of the other flats and it is for this reason to
protect these occupants and to make sure that they are under the
supervision of this Court that we take the liberty of appointing the
Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to take symbolic possession of
these flats. He is only required to notionally visit the flats and make

Page 7 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

a report noting the names of the persons and obtaining copies of

their agreements. He is not to put his board on any of the flats. This
order will continue until further orders of the Court.

16. We asked the CEO, SRA to visit the Kurla project, i.e., the
Suhana CHSL at CTS No. 394/B of village Kurla. There, the
MCGM is the planning authority.

17. The report says that according to the developer he was

undertaking that project as NRJ Developer Private Limited and
claimed that he and his wife were the only directors. That again is if
not a half-truth at best a two-thirds truth because there is a third
director, one Vishawanath Pratap Singh. SRA officers visited the
Suhana CHSL’s site on 4th July 2023. There the developer
proposed to deliver possession of 11 PTC tenements with a total
built up area of 450 sq mtrs in lieu of 18 PTC tenements earlier
proposed in the Kapilkunj CHSL at Ghatkopar. So much for there
being no order permitting clubbing; and yet again, we are forced to
ask how it comes to pass that SRA simply does not know what is
going on.

18. Officers from the Engineering Department of the SRA visited

the site. The authority verified from the official MCGM website that
there was a part Occupancy Certificate issued. SRA officers took
photographs and noted the physical condition of the structures.

19. As to title, the report notes that there are five PTC tenements
Nos. 002, 004, 005, 006 and 007 that Shreenath Corporation sold

Page 8 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

under registered Sale Deeds. Then for tenements nos. 002, 004 and
006 he executed what are called Rectification Deeds and cancelled
the Sale Agreements and those persons were allotted tenements no.
202, 104 and 106. This means that tenements nos. 002, 004 and 006
are available as PTC tenements at Kurla Two further cancellations
were similarly executed for PTC tenements nos. 005 and 007 and
this brings the total tally of available PTC tenements to five.

20. We are now informed that there is one non-PTC tenement in

Suhana CHSL tenement no. 107 of 570 sq ft carpet that is currently
unoccupied and unsold with no clog on title. In addition, the
developer says that he is prepared to effect a cancellation of an
agreement that is executed for a non-PTC tenement no. 206 and will
do so within two weeks from today.

21. Given all this, we require the Court Receiver now to visit the
Suhana CHSL at Kurla and take immediate possession of the five
PTC tenements viz., 002, 004, 006, 005 and 007. He will take
actual physical possession of those tenements. In addition, there are
another six PTC tenements, making in all a total of 11, and the
Court Receiver will take possession of all 11. The SRA officers will
indicate the numbers of the remaining tenements.

22. Further, the Court Receiver will be appointed and will take
possession of non-PTC tenement no. 107. If any person is found in
possession, the Court Receiver must immediately make a report and
that person must give to the Court Receiver copies of any

Page 9 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

documents of title. The Court Receiver is not to dispossess anyone

without an order of the Court.

23. The developer (and his company) is hereby restrained from

dealing with, parting with possession or entering into any
agreements, arrangements of any kind whatsoever in respect of any
premises in Kapilkunj CHSL or Suhana CHSL (PTC or non-PTC)
until further orders of the Court except for the document of
cancellation of non-PTC tenement no. 206.

24. The documents of cancellations of non-PTC tenement no.

107 and the future/proposed cancellation or rectification document
of tenement no. 206 are to be brought to Court by the next date.

25. In the meantime, the Prothonotary and Senior Master is

requested to communicate with the Registrar of the Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum to immediately transfer to this Court on
the Original Side the amount of Rs. 34,51,000/- deposited by
Chavan and others in Complaint No. 274 of 2011, along with all
accrued interest. This amount would have been payable by Mr
Khandeparkar’s clients to the developer to complete the purchase
under the registered agreements for Units 503 and 504 at
Ghatkopar/Kapilkunj and for which there is a decree. This amount
being deposited in Court will be treated as in discharge of the
purchasers’ obligation to the developer. Since the developer has an
obligation to pay transit rent to the society, the amount deposited,
when received, will be distributed to members of the society in part
satisfaction of the Society’s claim for arrears of transit rent. The

Page 10 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

Prothonotary and Senior Master is requested to ensure that the

amount is transferred to this Court within a period of two weeks
since there has been already a significant loss to the society. Since
we are listing the matter at an early date, the amount is not to be
invested.

26. We will await the report of the Receiver to make further

orders. The unsigned termination letter is returned to Mr Patil.

27. In the meantime, we require now a further report from the

engineers of the SRA as to the construction at the Kapilkunj CHSL
and whether it is in conformity with the sanctioned building plans or
not. At this stage, no action is to be taken against the Society until
we have that report because we do not know if any portion is non-
conforming or if the non-conforming portion can be regularised.

28. We also require a report from the SRA as to whether there is

under the current development regime any further development
potential at the Kapilkunj site. If that be so, it may be possible to
make further orders at a later stage for the benefit of all concerned.

29. If there are any structural issues requiring repairs or

immediate interventions either at Kapilkunj CHSL or Suhana
CHSL, the SRA should be at liberty to point this out so that we can
make an appropriate order in that regard.

30. Mr Khandeparkar and Mr Gangal are correct in saying that

some arrangements will need to be made in regard to the non-PTC

Page 11 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

tenements at the Kurla site. We will consider that on the next date
after the Receiver has taken possession of non-PTC tenement Unit
No 107, and after we have got a cancellation of the remaining
tenement because there is a need for two non-PTC tenements of
suitable area and condition to be made available.

31. In respect of unit no. 206 at Kurla, the non-PTC tenement for
which the developer says there will be rectification or cancellation,
the Receiver will take formal notional possession so that this
developer is not even tempted into making yet another agreement in
respect of that very flat.

32. Mr Patil clarifies that the two schemes have not been clubbed.
If anything this makes matters worse for both the SRA and the
developer.

33. Mr Kini says that units no. 702, 703 and 704 in Kapilkunj
CHSL are not in possession of any party but may have been sold not
once but multiple times.

34. It seems that for tenements nos. 702 to 704 this developer did
what he is evidently so good at doing. He sold the same premises to
multiple people. Some began to complain. The developer filed for
anticipatory bail, quite correctly anticipating that there would be
criminal complaints against him. He was asked to deposit an amount
of Rs 3.24 crores which he has done and on that deposit being made,
that set of complainants withdrew their complaints. But we do not
believe the developer can be so sanguine as to imagine that there are

Page 12 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

no other complainants because only he knows how many duplicate,

triplicate and quadruplicate agreements he has entered into with
various parties with the same premises. If the developer is advised
to move for anticipatory bail in any future proceedings this order
may be shown to that Court as well.

35. The Receiver will stand appointed of these premises Nos 702
to 704 at Kurla as well because there are bound to be rival claimants
for these flats also. If any of the parties require to make any
applications these are to be made in this Court and not by way of
proceedings in any other Court.

36. The Kapilkunj CHSL will lodge its Writ Petition with the
Court Receiver and will pay the initial amount of Rs.5000/- towards
the charges of the Court Receiver.

37. Mr Patil submits that the society should cooperate with the
SRA. We find that submission utterly extraordinary. Mr Kini for the
Society points out that the Society wrote half a dozen letters to the
SRA and met with no response. The Society is not obstructing the
SRA. The cooperation required is the other way around. Given the
way SRA has conducted itself, we expect the SRA to cooperate with
the society, Mr Gangal’s clients and Mr Khandeparkar’s clients. We
trust our meaning is clear because officers of the SRA are above all
public servants and the emphasis is on the second word. They are not
satraps in fiefdoms, and it is about time they stopped conducting
themselves as such. That includes the CEO of the SRA.

Page 13 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC
This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 07/07/2023

38. The CEO of the SRA and its Executive Engineers are to be
personally present in Court on the next date.

39. List these matters high on board on 25th July 2023.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 14 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:07 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

Arun

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj CHSL …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022

Rajesh Madhukar Chavan ...Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ….Respondents

WITH
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 OF 2022
SANKPAL

Digitally signed
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Sakshi Shankar Shinde ...Petitioner
Date: 2023.07.07
14:15:54 +0530 Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority ….Respondents

Mr JS Kini, with Arun Keini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner
in WP/2157/2021.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Anand Pail, Manjiri Parisnis &
Priyank Shukla, i/b RD Mishra, for the Petitioner in
WPL/3329/2022.
Mr VA Gangal, with Divya Parab, for the Petitioner in
WPL/17385/2023.
Mr Sandesh Patil, with Prithviraj S Gole, for Respondent No.2-SRA.

Page 1 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

Mr Rubin Vakil, with Manish Doshi, Siddhi Deolekar & Shivam

Trivedi, i/b M/s Vimadalal & Company, for Respondent No. 3 in
WP/2157/2021.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for State in WP/2157/2021 &
WPL/17385/2023.
Mrs Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for State in WPL/3329/2022.
Mr SK Dhekale, Court Receiver present.
Mr Satish Lokhande, CEO, SRA present.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 5th July 2023
PC:-

1. We have before us three Writ Petitions and almost twice as

many parties. This is a classic case of a developer playing fast and
loose with development rights at the cost of those entitled to
reconstructed homes or rehabilitation, third party purchasers,
permanent transit camp units and worse. Over the last few days, we
have also expressed our great dismay and distress at the complete
lack of supervision of the developer and his on-site activities by the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”), the special planning
authority, and particularly its CEO. He is present in Court under
our directions.

2. Pursuant to directions yesterday, we now have a report of the

CEO. We have seen that report and its annexures. It is signed by the
Executive Engineer, N Ward of the SRA. Because there is now
supervision and compliance and because we find this report fairly
satisfactory for the present purposes we do not think it is necessary
to immediately initiate further action against officers of the SRA.

Page 2 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

But we must be mindful that these problems with the SRA are not
isolated instances. Our daily cause list is filled with SRA-related
matters, and we find this happening again and again. Particularly
disturbing is the complete lack of adequate record-keeping by the
SRA of the activities of builders and how rehab properties change
hands and even character without the SRA knowing the slightest
thing about any of this.

3. A sharper observation should not be invited as to how this

could possibly come to pass. We trust our meaning is now
abundantly clear to all concerned.

4. The three Petitions are like this.

(a) Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2021 is by the Kapilkunj

Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (“the society”).

(b) Writ Petition (L) No. 3329 of 2022 is for some

mysterious reason still on a lodging number. It is to be
finally numbered by the next date. The Petitioner here,
represented by Mr Khandeparkar, Rajesh Madhukar
Chavan (“Chavan”) has a registered agreement with
the developer Shreenath Corporation apparently a sole
proprietorship of one Niraj Ved, against whom we
issued a contempt notice yesterday. Not just that but
Chavan has obtained a decree for possession from the
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. There is a
balance consideration that was due from Chavan to

Page 3 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

Shreenath Corporation and that amount has been

deposited before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum and credited under Complaint No.
274 of 2011. The decree is dated 10th September 2018.

(c) Writ Petition (L) No. 17385 of 2023 is by one Sakshi

Shankar Shinde (“Shinde”) represented by Mr
Gangal. She is among several who were sold premises
by Shreenath Corporation including two premises that
were previously sold under registered agreements to
Mr Khandeparkar’s client, Chavan.

5. This is only the tip of the iceberg. There has been much
difficulty in the project itself and for this reason a very brief
background is now required. We are now dealing with two sites. The
first site is at Ghatkopar (West) at RB Kadam Marg. This was the
principal site of the Development Agreement (“DA”) and it is here
that the Society represented by Mr Kini is based. The development
here was a composite development of rehab and free sale units in a
single structure. Sanction was obtained up to the 7th floor and there
is presently no sanction beyond the 7th floor. To cut a very long
story short, it seems that the developer failed to fulfil its obligations
in completing the structure at Ghatkopar and it was the society
members that had to put in the funds to complete that construction.

6. This puts sharply into focus one fact that we will constantly
bear in mind viz., that we will under no circumstances permit the
developer to derive a benefit at the cost of the Society. By this we

Page 4 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

mean that the developer will get to exercise no rights in respect of

the premises once it is shown that the developer has not fully met its
or his obligations under the Letter of Intent in respect of the rehab
units. It was and is the obligation of the developer to complete the
entire construction and to pay transit rent. This was the
consideration for being able to exercise rights in respect of the free
sale units. If the developer did not fulfil those obligations there is,
quite simply put, in contract law a failure of consideration and the
developer can claim no rights over the free sale units.

7. While on the subject, we note that the failure of the developer

extends also to non-payment of the full amount of transit rent. Mr
Kini appears for the society and he says that there is today a demand
for Rs 80 lakhs in accumulated arrears but the actual figure of the
amount due to the society is probably well in excess of Rs 3 crores.

8. There is a limit beyond which we will not be able to make

immediate orders in regards to the monetary element but we will
endeavour to provide some comfort to the Society members in that
regard.

9. There is in parallel the conflict between the claims by Chavan

and Shinde. To put this more specifically: Chavan has rights over
units or flats Nos. 503 and 504, these being the subject matter of the
registered agreements which have resulted in the Consumer Forum
decree. Chavan was never given possession of these units. These
units were also never constructed or never meant to be Permanent
Transit Camp (“PTC”) tenements. They were constructed as

Page 5 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

regular free sale tenements but, and it is at this point that the story
becomes extremely murky, and may require us to question how SRA
went about things. It is contended that the developer sought to club
this scheme with another scheme at Kurla and said that some of the
tenements at the Ghatkopar scheme would now become Permanent
Transit Camps. Whether this could have been done at all is another
matter that we will address at an appropriate stage. We are
simultaneously told there was no clubbing. But if there was no
clubbing, no tenement in the Ghatkopar building could ever have
been dubbed or dealt with as a PTC tenement.

10. But then there is another twist because what was sold to
Shinde represented by Mr Gangal was not a PTC tenement at all but
was a free sale unit although it was one that was purportedly
converted in the interregnum to a PTC tenement.

11. This incessant pendulum swinging and see-sawing has

resulted in a vast number of people being aggrieved and the
developer literally getting away with doing what he wanted without
the slightest control or supervision by the SRA.

12. Mr Patil for the SRA tells us that criminal proceedings have
been initiated and FIRs filed. That is hardly enough. We do not see
any evidence of the developer having his LoI cancelled, and it is for
this reason that we have asked the CEO of SRA to prepare an
unsigned letter of termination which he has done. It is shown to us.
It will be brought to court on the next occasion also. Because of the
order that we propose to pass today we will not immediately have

Page 6 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

that letter cancelling the LOI issued but it may happen at any time
and without notice. Mr Vakil for the developer had best note this.
The developer is present in Court.

13. Now what is required is protection of various units both at

Ghatkopar and at Kurla. In the report of the SRA of 5th July 2023,
which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification with
today’s date, there is a list of the persons such as Shinde who have
been sold tenements at Ghatkopar and put in possession. The
numbers are 304, 404, 503, 504, 603 and 604. The device used
apparently was to conveniently renumber some of these and to
pretend that they were in some unknown wing A, a structure that
simply does not exist and is purely a figment of the developer’s
evidently quite perfervid imagination.

14. Now because Mr Khandeparkar’s clients have a decree in

respect of Units 503 and 504, those in possession of units 503 and
504, i.e., one Balkrishna Suranje and one Arvind Nanaware will
need to be translocated to another non-PTC tenement somewhere.

15. We are immediately concerned with these six flats 304, 404,
503, 504, 603 and 604 and we want no vulnerability or prejudice to
those in possession. We do not know what further might be
uncovered in respect of the other flats and it is for this reason to
protect these occupants and to make sure that they are under the
supervision of this Court that we take the liberty of appointing the
Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to take symbolic possession of
these flats. He is only required to notionally visit the flats and make

Page 7 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

a report noting the names of the persons and obtaining copies of

their agreements. He is not to put his board on any of the flats. This
order will continue until further orders of the Court.

16. We asked the CEO, SRA to visit the Kurla project, i.e., the
Suhana CHSL at CTS No. 394/B of village Kurla. There, the
MCGM is the planning authority.

17. The report says that according to the developer he was

undertaking that project as NRJ Developer Private Limited and
claimed that he and his wife were the only directors. That again is if
not a half-truth at best a two-thirds truth because there is a third
director, one Vishawanath Pratap Singh. SRA officers visited the
Suhana CHSL’s site on 4th July 2023. There the developer
proposed to deliver possession of 11 PTC tenements with a total
built up area of 450 sq mtrs in lieu of 18 PTC tenements earlier
proposed in the Kapilkunj CHSL at Ghatkopar. So much for there
being no order permitting clubbing; and yet again, we are forced to
ask how it comes to pass that SRA simply does not know what is
going on.

18. Officers from the Engineering Department of the SRA visited

the site. The authority verified from the official MCGM website that
there was a part Occupancy Certificate issued. SRA officers took
photographs and noted the physical condition of the structures.

19. As to title, the report notes that there are five PTC tenements
Nos. 002, 004, 005, 006 and 007 that Shreenath Corporation sold

Page 8 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

under registered Sale Deeds. Then for tenements nos. 002, 004 and
006 he executed what are called Rectification Deeds and cancelled
the Sale Agreements and those persons were allotted tenements no.
202, 104 and 106. This means that tenements nos. 002, 004 and 006
are available as PTC tenements at Kurla Two further cancellations
were similarly executed for PTC tenements nos. 005 and 007 and
this brings the total tally of available PTC tenements to five.

20. We are now informed that there is one non-PTC tenement in

Suhana CHSL tenement no. 107 of 570 sq ft carpet that is currently
unoccupied and unsold with no clog on title. In addition, the
developer says that he is prepared to effect a cancellation of an
agreement that is executed for a non-PTC tenement no. 206 and will
do so within two weeks from today.

21. Given all this, we require the Court Receiver now to visit the
Suhana CHSL at Kurla and take immediate possession of the five
PTC tenements viz., 002, 004, 006, 005 and 007. He will take
actual physical possession of those tenements. In addition, there are
another six PTC tenements, making in all a total of 11, and the
Court Receiver will take possession of all 11. The SRA officers will
indicate the numbers of the remaining tenements.

22. Further, the Court Receiver will be appointed and will take
possession of non-PTC tenement no. 107. If any person is found in
possession, the Court Receiver must immediately make a report and
that person must give to the Court Receiver copies of any

Page 9 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

documents of title. The Court Receiver is not to dispossess anyone

without an order of the Court.

23. The developer (and his company) is hereby restrained from

dealing with, parting with possession or entering into any
agreements, arrangements of any kind whatsoever in respect of any
premises in Kapilkunj CHSL or Suhana CHSL (PTC or non-PTC)
until further orders of the Court except for the document of
cancellation of non-PTC tenement no. 206.

24. The documents of cancellations of non-PTC tenement no.

107 and the future/proposed cancellation or rectification document
of tenement no. 206 are to be brought to Court by the next date.

25. In the meantime, the Prothonotary and Senior Master is

requested to communicate with the Registrar of the Consumer
Dispute Redressal Forum to immediately transfer to this Court on
the Original Side the amount of Rs. 34,51,000/- deposited by
Chavan and others in Complaint No. 274 of 2011, along with all
accrued interest. This amount would have been payable by Mr
Khandeparkar’s clients to the developer to complete the purchase
under the registered agreements for Units 503 and 504 at
Ghatkopar/Kapilkunj and for which there is a decree. This amount
being deposited in Court will be treated as in discharge of the
purchasers’ obligation to the developer. Since the developer has an
obligation to pay transit rent to the society, the amount deposited,
when received, will be distributed to members of the society in part
satisfaction of the Society’s claim for arrears of transit rent. The

Page 10 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

Prothonotary and Senior Master is requested to ensure that the

amount is transferred to this Court within a period of two weeks
since there has been already a significant loss to the society. Since
we are listing the matter at an early date, the amount is not to be
invested.

26. We will await the report of the Receiver to make further

orders. The unsigned termination letter is returned to Mr Patil.

27. In the meantime, we require now a further report from the

engineers of the SRA as to the construction at the Kapilkunj CHSL
and whether it is in conformity with the sanctioned building plans or
not. At this stage, no action is to be taken against the Society until
we have that report because we do not know if any portion is non-
conforming or if the non-conforming portion can be regularised.

28. We also require a report from the SRA as to whether there is

under the current development regime any further development
potential at the Kapilkunj site. If that be so, it may be possible to
make further orders at a later stage for the benefit of all concerned.

29. If there are any structural issues requiring repairs or

immediate interventions either at Kapilkunj CHSL or Suhana
CHSL, the SRA should be at liberty to point this out so that we can
make an appropriate order in that regard.

30. Mr Khandeparkar and Mr Gangal are correct in saying that

some arrangements will need to be made in regard to the non-PTC

Page 11 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

tenements at the Kurla site. We will consider that on the next date
after the Receiver has taken possession of non-PTC tenement Unit
No 107, and after we have got a cancellation of the remaining
tenement because there is a need for two non-PTC tenements of
suitable area and condition to be made available.

31. In respect of unit no. 206 at Kurla, the non-PTC tenement for
which the developer says there will be rectification or cancellation,
the Receiver will take formal notional possession so that this
developer is not even tempted into making yet another agreement in
respect of that very flat.

32. Mr Patil clarifies that the two schemes have not been clubbed.
If anything this makes matters worse for both the SRA and the
developer.

33. Mr Kini says that units no. 702, 703 and 704 in Kapilkunj
CHSL are not in possession of any party but may have been sold not
once but multiple times.

34. It seems that for tenements nos. 702 to 704 this developer did
what he is evidently so good at doing. He sold the same premises to
multiple people. Some began to complain. The developer filed for
anticipatory bail, quite correctly anticipating that there would be
criminal complaints against him. He was asked to deposit an amount
of Rs 3.24 crores which he has done and on that deposit being made,
that set of complainants withdrew their complaints. But we do not
believe the developer can be so sanguine as to imagine that there are

Page 12 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

no other complainants because only he knows how many duplicate,

triplicate and quadruplicate agreements he has entered into with
various parties with the same premises. If the developer is advised
to move for anticipatory bail in any future proceedings this order
may be shown to that Court as well.

35. The Receiver will stand appointed of these premises Nos 702
to 704 at Ghatkopar as well because there are bound to be rival
claimants for these flats also. If any of the parties require to make
any applications these are to be made in this Court and not by way of
proceedings in any other Court.

36. The Kapilkunj CHSL will lodge its Writ Petition with the
Court Receiver and will pay the initial amount of Rs.5000/- towards
the charges of the Court Receiver.

37. Mr Patil submits that the society should cooperate with the
SRA. We find that submission utterly extraordinary. Mr Kini for the
Society points out that the Society wrote half a dozen letters to the
SRA and met with no response. The Society is not obstructing the
SRA. The cooperation required is the other way around. Given the
way SRA has conducted itself, we expect the SRA to cooperate with
the society, Mr Gangal’s clients and Mr Khandeparkar’s clients. We
trust our meaning is clear because officers of the SRA are above all
public servants and the emphasis is on the second word. They are not
satraps in fiefdoms, and it is about time they stopped conducting
themselves as such. That includes the CEO of the SRA.

Page 13 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 904-OSWP-2157-2021+-MODIFIED.DOC

38. The CEO of the SRA and its Executive Engineers are to be
personally present in Court on the next date.

39. List these matters high on board on 25th July 2023.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Note: This order is modified by an order dated 7th July 2023. Corrections are shown in bold
and italics.

Page 14 of 14
5th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:16 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Gaikwad RD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 OF 2023
Sakshi Shankar Shinde …Petitioner
Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority …Respondent

Mr JS Kini, with Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner in

WP/2157/2021.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Manjiri Parasnis, Priyank Shukla &
Anand Pai, i/b RD Mishra, for the Petitioner in
WPL/3329/2022.
Mr VA Gangal, with Divya Parab & Shweta Parab, for the Petitioner
in WPL/17385/2023.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State in
WP/2157/2021.
Mr Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State in
WPL/3329/2022.

Page 1 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:23 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Mr Sandesh D Patil, with Prithviraj S Gole, for Respondent No.2-

SRA in all Writ Petitions.
Mr Satish Lokhande, CEO, SRA-Respondent No.2 is present in
person.

CORAM G. S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 4th July 2023
PC:-

1. The Developer is in breach of the undertakings given to this

Court and accepted in our order of 28th June 2023.

2. There are several additional complications and we have

required the personal attendance of the CEO. We are most unhappy
with the manner in which this project has been supervised and
handled by the SRA and particularly the CEO. We are constrained
to observe this because the result is that there are at least three or
more groups of parties whose interests are adversely affected simply
because the Developer has been allowed to run amok without proper
control or supervision. We will deal with those issues later.

3. For the present, we require the CEO to attend Court

tomorrow again with all relevant files and to take instructions and
obtain details as indicated in the discussion in Court today. The
CEO will also prepare a letter of termination of the Developer’s
Letter of Intent but keep it unsigned, pending further orders of this
Court.

Page 2 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:23 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

4. Specifically, the CEO will find out how many residential

tenements are presently available in what we will call the sister site
at Kurla, i.e., Suhana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, and to
which title is clear and without any third-party rights or clog on title.
Individual tenements must be identified. We will also then consider
Mr Kini’s submissions on behalf of the Society that one or more of
the Suhana tenements have been encumbered because he has been
able to obtain Index II records in that regard.

5. In the meantime, issue notice to Niraj Ved, Proprietor of

Shreenath Corporation, 101-102, Bhaveshwar Market, 1st Floor,
Near Gandhi Market, MG Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077
and residential address at 501, Shreeji Tower, 5th Floor, Rajwadi,
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai under Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High
Court Contempt of Court Rules returnable in six weeks specifically
in regard to the breach of the undertakings in our order of 28th June
2023.

6. The contemnor is present in Court.

7. List the matter on 5th July 2023 at 2:30 pm.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Digitally signed
by RAJU
DATTATRAYA
RAJU GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
Date:
GAIKWAD 2023.07.05
12:16:32
+0530

Page 3 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:43:23 :::

 2-OSWP-2157-2021 WITH OSWPL-3329-2022.DOC

Gitalaxmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

Mr JS Kini, with Aum Kini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the

Petitioner in WP/2157/2021 and for Respondent No. 4 in
WP/3329/2022.
Mr Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, i/b Divya Parab, for the
Petitioner in WPL/17385/2023.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Manjiri Parasnis, Priyank Shukla &
Akkshay H Kumar, for the Applicant.
Mr SB Gore, AGP, for the Respondent-State in WP/2157/2021.
Mrs Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent-State in
WPL/3329/2022.
Mr Rubin Vakil, with Manish Doshi & Heena T., i/b Vimadalal &
Co, for Respondent No. 3 in WP/2157/2021 & for
Respondent No. 5 in WP/3329/2022.

CORAM G. S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 28th June 2023

Page 1 of 3
28th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:35 :::

 908-OSIWPL-7333-2023 WITH OSIWPL-11715-2023.DOC

Gitalaxmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7333 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11715 OF 2023
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7333 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021
Sakshi Shankar Shinde & Ors ...Applicants
In the matter between
Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3384 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan ...Applicant
In the matter between
Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

Page 1 of 5
20th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:07 :::

 908-OSIWPL-7333-2023 WITH OSIWPL-11715-2023.DOC

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021
Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

Mr Nitin Gaware, i/b Mohan B Gawade, for the Applicants in

IA(L)/7333/2023 & WP(L)/3329/2022.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Priyank Shukla & Manjiri Phansikar,
i/b RD Misra, for the Applicants & Petitioner in
WP(L)/3329/2022.
Mr JS Kini, with Aum Kini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the
Petitioner in WP/2157/2021.
Mr Prithviraj S Gole, i/b Sandesh D Patil, for Respondent No. 2-
SRA.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr Rubin Vakil, with Manish Doshi & Heena T, i/b Vimadalal &
Co, for Respondent No. 3.

CORAM G. S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 20th June 2023
PC:-

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7333 OF 2023:

1. This is filed by individuals who have independent reliefs

against the Developer and possibly the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority (“SRA”). There is no question of them intervening in the
Writ Petition filed by the society. It is inconceivable that by
“intervening” and “participating” these persons can seek
substantive relief against either the SRA or the Developer. They

Page 2 of 5
20th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:07 :::

 908-OSIWPL-7333-2023 WITH OSIWPL-11715-2023.DOC

must file their own Petition. The Interim Application is dismissed.

This is however without prejudice to their rights and contentions
which may be taken up in a properly instituted separate Writ
Petition. The Interim Application is to be finally numbered for
statistical purposes.

2. The Applicants say that their possession must be protected.

There is no prayer for such a relief. An interventionist is, we are
supposed to believe, entitled to substantive injunctive relief against
the Developer and the SRA without there being a prayer, without
there being a substantive proceeding and just on a statement made
across the bar. These Applicants are, apparently, facing eviction
proceedings under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995. Those must
continue. We say this because to our question as to who put them in
possession, the only answer we get from the Developer, the SRA
and everybody else is “not I”. While we dictate this, we are now told
that the Developer put these persons into possession. We do not
understand how that could be because these are not free sale units at
all. They are what are called ‘Permanent Transit Camps’ (“PTC”).
A proposal to allow these units to be converted to free sale units has
not yet been approved and yet the Developer has entered into
multiple registered agreements for these units, taken consideration,
and parted with possession.

3. What the Applicants have done in regard to the Developer is

unclear and is not stated. To protect ‘possession’ as it is called in
these circumstances, is simply not possible.

Page 3 of 5
20th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:07 :::

 908-OSIWPL-7333-2023 WITH OSIWPL-11715-2023.DOC

4. In view of dismissal of Interim Application (L) No. 7333 of

2023, Interim Application (L) No. 11715 of 2023 pending therein
shall also stand disposed of.

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 3384 OF 2022:

5. This Interim Application is identical. It also seeks

impleadment and participation. The Applicants have already filed
Writ Petition (L) No. 3329 of 2022. Unfortunately, it is not on
board. We do not see how the Applicants can seek intervention in
someone else’s Writ Petition and also file (correctly) their own Writ
Petition. The Interim Application is thus dismissed but again
without prejudice to all the rights and contentions that are taken in
the Writ Petition.

6. The Applicants who claim the same premises as the

Applicants in the previous Interim Application have a registered
agreement of 2012. At that time this was a municipal project with an
Intimation of Disapproval. The Developer then converted it to an
SRA project, changed the structure to a PTC and sold it to later
purchasers in 2018. The present Applicants hold a decree in respect
of these premises from the Consumer Forum. That will obviously be
taken up in Writ Petition (L) No. 3329 of 2022.

WRIT PETITIONS

7. Writ Petition (L) No. 3329 of 2022 will be tagged along with
Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2021 subject to removal of office
objections and final numbering.

Page 4 of 5
20th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:07 :::

 908-OSIWPL-7333-2023 WITH OSIWPL-11715-2023.DOC

8. List both Writ Petitions on 28th June 2023 high on board.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 5 of 5
20th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:07 :::

 923-OSWP-2157-2021.DOC

Shiv

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. …Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO 3384 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2157 OF 2021

Rajesh Madhukar Chavan … Appilcant

Versus
Kapilkunj Cooperative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Mr J S Kini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa for the Petitioner.

Mr L T Satelkar, AGP for the State/Respondent No 1
Mr Prithiraj Gole, i/b Sandesh D Patil for Respondent No 2.
Mr Simil Purohit, with Mr Rubin Vakil, Mr Manish Doshi i/b
Vimadalal & Company for Respondent No 3.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 11th February 2022
PC:-

1. Without prejudice to all the rights and contentions of the

Petitioners, we direct the SRA to immediately and urgently carry

Page 1 of 2
11th February 2022

::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:59 :::

 923-OSWP-2157-2021.DOC

out an inspection of the alternative PTC or Permanent Transit

Camp at Kurla constructed by the Developer. This is on Mr
Purohit’s representation for the Developer that if the SRA clears the
PTC structure then the existing structure can be regularised. The
grievances of the Petitioner society at least in regard to completion
of the project may be sufficiently addressed and the Developer will
be able to exit the project. We have not addressed any questions of
financial liability so far.

2. There is an Affidavit from SRA simply opposing the Petition.

But that is not enough. An Affidavit of the SRA which shows that
the SRA has carried out an inspection and annexing to that Affidavit
a copy of the SRA’s report following that inspection is required.
That inspection is to be carried out by 18th February 2022 and the
Affidavit is to be filed by the SRA by 25th February 2022.

3. The Affidavit in Reply of the Developer is permitted to be

filed in the registry by 25th February 2022. No other parties will file
affidavit until further orders of the Court.

4. List the Petition on 1st March 2022.

5. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy

of this order.

(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 2 of 2
11th February 2022

::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:59 :::

 38-OSWP-2157-2021.DOC

Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj CHSL …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

Mr JS Kini, i/b Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner.

Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for the State.
Ms Shilpa Redkar, for MCGM.

CORAM G.S. Patel &

Madhav J. Jamdar, JJ.
DATED: 12th January 2022
PC:-

1. The 1st and 2nd Respondents waive service. Issue notice to

SHEPHALI
SANJAY the remaining Respondents. In addition to service through Court,
MORMARE

Digitally signed private service is permitted.

by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2022.01.13
11:30:02 +0530

2. We will require an Affidavit in Reply from the SRA

specifically in view of the statement that the Petitioner society has
cancelled the power of attorney granted to the 3rd Respondent
developer. If that be so, SRA will need to explain whether it is
entertaining any applications made by the 3rd Respondent ostensibly
as the constituted attorney of the Petitioner society.

Page 1 of 2
12th January 2022

::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:48 :::

 38-OSWP-2157-2021.DOC

3. The Affidavit of the SRA is to be filed and served by 28th

January 2022.

4. We list the Petition on 8th February 2022.

5. Until then, the SRA will not pass any orders on any
application made to it by the 3rd Respondent. It will however ensure
that a copy of all applications made by the 3rd Respondent,
including any pending application which may have been made in the
3rd Respondent’s own name or in the name of the Petitioner as the
constituted attorney of the Petitioner, will be given to the Petitioner
and its Advocate without fail.

6. All concerned will act on production of a digitally signed copy

of this order.

(Madhav J. Jamdar, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Page 2 of 2
12th January 2022

::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:46:48 :::

 2-OSWP-2157-2021 WITH OSWPL-3329-2022.DOC

PC:-

1. It is clear that the developer, 3rd Respondent Shreenath

Construction has taken money from both Mr Khandeparkar’s client
for two flats and Mr Godbole’s client for six flats. The consideration
paid by Mr Godbole’s client is Rs. 3,51,11,000/- in the aggregate and
that by Mr Khandeparkar’s clients is Rs. 71,63,000/-.

2. In addition, there is a claim by Mr Kini for the society for

unpaid arrears of transit rent roughly estimated at Rs. 80 lakhs for
the past period.

3. Under no circumstances, will we permit a developer to sell

the same flats to different people regardless of their categorization
or the nature of the scheme or whether it has changed. Both Mr
Khandeparkar’s clients and Mr Godbole’s clients have registered
agreements (the former being earlier in time).

4. We will also not permit the developer to say or even be heard

to say that since the society is in possession, therefore it has no
obligation to pay accumulated arrears of transit rent.

5. All three amounts are required to be deposited in the Court

by 4.30 p.m. on Monday, i.e., 3rd July 2023. We are making it clear
that if the entire amount is not deposited by that date, we will order
the cancellation and termination forthwith of the developer’s
Development Agreement, Letter of Intent or the NOC, as the case
may be.

Page 2 of 3
28th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:35 :::

 2-OSWP-2157-2021 WITH OSWPL-3329-2022.DOC

6. The matter is to be listed first on the Supplementary Board on

Tuesday, i.e., 4th July 2023.

7. All the Affidavits and Compilations are to be filed in the

Registry.

8. The proprietor of Shreenath Construction is personally

present in the Court.

9. No coercive steps to be taken against any of the occupants or

the Society members until next date.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2023.06.30
14:12:15 +0530

Page 3 of 3
28th June 2023

::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:35 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Gaikwad RD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2021

Kapilkunj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd …Petitioner

Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3329 OF 2022
Rajesh Madhukar Chavan …Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17385 OF 2023
Sakshi Shankar Shinde …Petitioner
Versus
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority …Respondent

Mr JS Kini, with Sapna Krishnappa, for the Petitioner in

WP/2157/2021.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Manjiri Parasnis, Priyank Shukla &
Anand Pai, i/b RD Mishra, for the Petitioner in
WPL/3329/2022.
Mr VA Gangal, with Divya Parab & Shweta Parab, for the Petitioner
in WPL/17385/2023.
Mr LT Satelkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State in
WP/2157/2021.
Mr Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for Respondent No.1-State in
WPL/3329/2022.

Page 1 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:41 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

Mr Sandesh D Patil, with Prithviraj S Gole, for Respondent No.2-

SRA in all Writ Petitions.
Mr Satish Lokhande, CEO, SRA-Respondent No.2 is present in
person.

CORAM G. S. Patel &

Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 4th July 2023
PC:-

1. The Developer is in breach of the undertakings given to this

Court and accepted in our order of 28th June 2023.

2. There are several additional complications and we have

required the personal attendance of the CEO. We are most unhappy
with the manner in which this project has been supervised and
handled by the SRA and particularly the CEO. We are constrained
to observe this because the result is that there are at least three or
more groups of parties whose interests are adversely affected simply
because the Developer has been allowed to run amok without proper
control or supervision. We will deal with those issues later.

3. For the present, we require the CEO to attend Court

tomorrow again with all relevant files and to take instructions and
obtain details as indicated in the discussion in Court today. The
CEO will also prepare a letter of termination of the Developer’s
Letter of Intent but keep it unsigned, pending further orders of this
Court.

Page 2 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:41 :::

 901-OSWP-2157-2021+.DOC

4. Specifically, the CEO will find out how many residential

tenements are presently available in what we will call the sister site
at Kurla, i.e., Suhana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, and to
which title is clear and without any third-party rights or clog on title.
Individual tenements must be identified. We will also then consider
Mr Kini’s submissions on behalf of the Society that one or more of
the Suhana tenements have been encumbered because he has been
able to obtain Index II records in that regard.

5. In the meantime, issue notice to Niraj Ved, Proprietor of

Shreenath Corporation, 101-102, Bhaveshwar Market, 1st Floor,
Near Gandhi Market, MG Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077
and residential address at 501, Shreeji Tower, 5th Floor, Rajwadi,
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai under Rule 9(1) of the Bombay High
Court Contempt of Court Rules returnable in six weeks specifically
in regard to the breach of the undertakings in our order of 28th June
2023.

6. The contemnor is present in Court.

7. List the matter on 5th July 2023 at 2:30 pm.

(Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)

Digitally signed
by RAJU
DATTATRAYA
RAJU GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
Date:
GAIKWAD 2023.07.05
12:16:32
+0530

Page 3 of 3
4th July 2023

::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2023 17:47:41 :::