High Court Addresses Dispute Over Redevelopment Rights in Alphonso D'Souza Case. Consent Terms and Entitlements Under Scrutiny in Redevelopment Dispute.

Sub Category: Bombay High Court

Admin

2026-02-25 04:41:08

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves Alphonso D'Souza and Vanessa D'Souza challenging an order passed by the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee (AGRC) regarding the redevelopment of a property. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention to quash the order and enforce their rights under previous agreements and consent terms. The key issue revolves around the entitlement to specific commercial premises and parking spaces during the redevelopment process. The High Court of Bombay heard the matter and reserved the judgment, with arguments focusing on whether the redevelopment plans align with the agreements. 1. Background of the Case

The petitioners, Alphonso D’Souza and Vanessa D’Souza, approached the High Court of Bombay challenging an order passed by the AGRC. The case primarily involves a dispute regarding the redevelopment of a property where the petitioners claim specific rights under earlier agreements and consent terms.

2. Key Reliefs Sought

The petitioners requested the court:

To quash the AGRC order dated 5th January 2022. To direct the respondent (Slum Rehabilitation Authority) to sanction plans in conformity with the 2012 consent terms and the 2020 development agreement. To restrain any construction contrary to these agreements and prevent third-party rights from being created. 3. Previous Orders and Agreements

The case has a history involving previous developers, consent terms from a suit settled in 2012, and a development agreement signed in 2020. The petitioners claim their entitlement to commercial premises and car parking spaces as agreed upon in these documents.

4. Interim Orders and Arguments

An interim order in April 2022 preserved the petitioners' rights while the case proceeded. The petitioners argued that the AGRC’s order contradicts the High Court's previous orders and that the respondent must abide by the commitments made in the consent terms and the development agreement.

5. Conclusion

The High Court reserved its judgment after hearing detailed arguments from both sides, focusing on whether the redevelopment plans comply with the agreements that protect the petitioners’ entitlements.

Issue of Consideration: ALPHONSO D’SOUZA Ors. Versus APEX GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL COMMITTEE Ors.

Premium Content

The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.

Subscribe Now to access critical case issues

2024 LawText (BOM) (8) 206

WRIT PETITION NO. 779 OF 2023

2024-08-20

M. S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ.

FOR THE PETITIONERS Adv. Nirmay Dave, with Adv. Nandini Singh Modi, Adv. Mohit Advani, Adv. Aditya Khandeparkar, Adv. Mayuri Karekar, Adv. Gaurav Patole, i/b. Khandeparkar Law Office. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 Adv. Mayur Khandeparkar, a/w Adv. Arun Panickar, Adv. Vinay Nair. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2- SRA Adv. Anoop Patil. FOR RESPONDENT NO.1- AGRC Adv. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy).

ALPHONSO D’SOUZA Ors.

APEX GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL COMMITTEE Ors.