Masjid And Madarasa Dawoodullam Jaiyan Aaalauddin Reg Name Jamiat Ahle Hadis Trust Throu. President v. The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader And ORS

28-WP-12012-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12012 OF 2025 Masjid And Madarasa Dawoodullam Jaiyan Aaalauddin Reg Name Jamiat Ahle Hadis Trust Throu. President ...

Petitioner V/s.

The State Of Maharashtra Through Govt Pleader And Ors ...

Respondents ------------------- Mr. Suresh Sabrad with Amey Sawant, Pratik Sabrad, Neha Parte and Eshwaree Kudalkar, for the petitioner.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2025.10.08 10:40:16 +0530 Mr. Abhishek Bhadang, AGP, for the State.

VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Ms. Priyanka Bhadrashete, for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Sneha D. with Anil Mishra, for the respondent no. 4. Ms. Aarushi Yadav I.by Ravleen Sabharwal, for respondent no. 6-AGRC Mr. Santosh Sitap, for the respondent no. 7.

--------------------

CORAM

:

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

DATE :

6TH OCTOBER 2025.

PC:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 28th February 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, whereby the challenge of the applicant to an order passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, came to be varsha

28-WP-12012-2025.doc dismissed by affirming the order dated 12th January 2023. 3.

Evidently, the eligibility of the petitioner came to be determined in the year 2011. Annexure-II prepared on 21st February 2011 indicates that the petitioner was declared ineligible, as the petitioner had not submitted any documents to substantiate its claim. 4.

Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that at that stage the petitioner had not submitted the documents as there was a dispute between the persons who laid proprietary claim over the subject property.

5.

Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP, is justified in canvassing a submission that the order of eviction is an essential consequence of the declaration of the petitioner as ineligible. The petitioner will have to work out its remedies by challenging the order declaring the petitioner as ineligible.

6.

The petition thus stands disposed with liberty to the petitioner to work out its remedies by challenging the order declaring the petitioner ineligible.

7.

The petitioner is at liberty to raise all contentions which are available in law.

8.

In the event such proceeding is instituted, within a period of one week, the Competent Authority shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J) varsha