The Court also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and SRA to conduct an inquiry into how the Trust headed by Dr. Khoja was allowed to run a school for 150 students in a slum structure without verifying permissions or fire safety NOCs. shorten this to 140 characters
In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by Dr. Mumtaz H. Khoja against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and Pioneer India Developers Pvt. Ltd., imposing a cost of ₹5 lakh on her and initiating contempt proceedings for deliberately suppressing material facts and misleading the court.
The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata delivered the judgment on October 16, 2025, in Review Petition No. 18 of 2025, observing that the petitioner had tried to obtain multiple benefits under a slum rehabilitation scheme by concealing key information and presenting false claims.
📝 Background: Petition on Rehab Allotment and Arrears of Rent
Dr. Khoja had initially filed Writ Petition No. 773 of 2023, seeking directions to the SRA and the developer to:
- Allot her a rehabilitation residential tenement under the relevant slum scheme, based on her eligibility as reflected in Annexure-II.
- Grant her arrears of rent for temporary transit accommodation from 2009 onwards.
She claimed that despite repeated requests, no rehab tenement was allotted to her even though allotment to other eligible slum dwellers had started.
The High Court dismissed her writ petition in February 2024. Later, the Supreme Court, on August 23, 2024, granted her liberty to file a Review Petition, which led to the current proceedings.
🏢 Petitioner’s Argument: “Room G3 Was Wrongly Shown as My Transit Accommodation”
Through her counsel, Advocate Aseem Naphade, the petitioner argued that the developer had made false claims in its affidavit, stating that temporary accommodation had been provided to her in Room G3, Building A/1/4.
According to her, Room G3 was allotted not to her but to a Trust (Maulana Azad Social & Cultural Association Sanskar Urdu High School), which appeared separately in Annexure-II for a non-residential structure.
She maintained that she had a separate residential entitlement, and that the authorities failed to verify these claims earlier. She also argued that she was entitled to both a residential and a commercial tenement.
🧱 Respondents’ Stand: “She Suppressed Facts and Occupied Three Structures”
The developer and SRA presented a very different picture. Their counsels argued that Dr. Khoja had suppressed material facts:
- She had control over three separate structures in the slum — one residential, one clinic, and one school — totalling over 2,200 sq. ft..
- She had already been allotted:
- Room G3
- Room G6
- Temporary premises in Building D1
- A commercial shop (No. 46) as far back as 2006.
Despite this, she did not vacate one of the rooms, filed multiple petitions, and presented herself as a helpless senior citizen.
⚖️ Court’s Findings: “Clear Suppression, Misrepresentation and Abuse of Process”
The High Court, after reviewing documents from the SRA, the developer, and the petitioner, made strong observations:
- Deliberate Suppression:
- She concealed her occupation of multiple premises and filed two separate petitions to appear as two different entities — herself and the Trust — when she was actually the Chairperson of the Trust.
- False Narrative:
- She claimed to live at the mercy of her parents, but records showed she was a practicing doctor, occupying significant property in a prime location.
- Fabricated Evidence:
- The court described some documents, such as receipts issued to unnamed individuals for “poultry songs,” as bogus and concocted.
- No Grounds for Review:
- She introduced new facts and documents at the review stage, which the court found impermissible. No error apparent on the earlier judgment was found.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008), reiterating that litigants invoking Article 226 jurisdiction must be truthful and disclose all material facts. Any suppression or manipulation can lead to dismissal and contempt.
🧾 Orders Passed: Heavy Cost, Recovery, and Contempt Notice
The Court dismissed the Review Petition with costs of ₹5 lakh, to be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks.
If she fails to pay, the Collector, Mumbai, has been directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue, attach and sell her properties, and transfer the recovered amount to the fund.
Additionally, the Court has issued a show cause notice asking Dr. Khoja to explain why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against her for misleading the court. The notice is returnable on November 13, 2025.
🏫 BMC and SRA Ordered to Probe How School Was Run in Slum
The Court also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and SRA to conduct an inquiry into how the Trust headed by Dr. Khoja was allowed to run a school for 150 students in a slum structure without verifying permissions or fire safety NOCs.
The bench expressed concern that such unauthorised activities jeopardised the safety of children and indicated lapses in regulatory oversight.
