MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has issued a show-cause notice for contempt of court to a doctor accused of hiding information while applying for a rehabilitation tenement in a Santacruz (W) slum redevelopment project.
“Such conduct amounts to abuse of process and, if left unchecked, would undermine the court’s responsibility to ensure justice,” stated Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata on Thursday, rejecting Mumtaz Khoja’s review petition and imposing a cost of Rs 5 lakh. Additionally, they instructed the BMC and SRA to investigate how a trust led by Khoja was allowed to operate a school with 150 students in the slum.
In 2022, Khoja petitioned the HC to compel the SRA to allocate her a rehabilitation tenement in exchange for her residential structure and to settle rent arrears dating back to 2009. By February 2024, the HC dismissed her petition after Pioneer India Developers reported that she had been provided with temporary alternative accommodation. Khoja’s attorney, Aseem Naphade, claimed the HC’s ruling ignored the fact that the accommodation was given to the trust and that Khoja was entitled to both residential and commercial allocations. Naphade alleged that the developer conflated her residential rights with those of the trust, with both parties having filed separate petitions.
Advocates for the SRA and the developer claimed Khoja received two rooms for temporary accommodation, but failed to return one, despite the trust being assigned temporary housing in another building.
Affirming the HC’s observations from February 2024, the judges remarked that Khoja “indeed suppressed material facts”. While she presented herself as a senior citizen dependent on her parents to garner sympathy, records revealed that she is a practicing doctor. She possessed “not merely one, but three separate structures,” illegally occupying over 2,200 sq ft of carpet area in the slum, which she admitted to using as a residence, clinic, and school.
The judges noted that these details were omitted from her original petition, and she intentionally filed two separate petitions “while in substance claiming multiple entitlements.” Even after receiving benefits from four premises—three temporary units and a shop—she chose “with malicious intent” to withhold critical information, including her failure to return one room.
The judges emphasized the urgent need for state authorities to thoroughly review and revise the process for verifying documents submitted by individuals claiming eligibility in slum schemes. They ordered the payment of Rs 5 lakh to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks. Should she fail to comply, the collector has been instructed to recover the costs as arrears of land revenue, with the authority to attach and sell her properties to cover it.
