Narendra Uttam Kirtikar vs Slum Redevelopment Authority And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7724 Bom

                                                                                  9-wp-2379-2019.doc




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2019
                                                     WITH
                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2856 OF 2021
                                                      IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2019
                                                     WITH
                                        NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 392 OF 2019
                                                      IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2019

                     Narendra Uttam Kirtikar                           ...Petitioner
                           V/s.
                     Slum Redevelopment Authority and Ors.             ...Respondents
        Digitally

                                                        ----
        signed by
        MAMTA
MAMTA   AMAR
AMAR    KALE
KALE    Date:
        2022.08.06
        12:08:48
        +0530        Ms. Rumana Bagdadi i/b. Sumedha Rao, for the Petitioner.
                     Mr. Anoop Patil, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 6.

                                                        ----

                                                       CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

DATE : 3 AUGUST 2022

P.C.

. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 16 August 2018 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 28 March 2018 passed by the Additional Collector (E & R) in Appeal No.645/2017 and 646/2017. Appeal No.645/2017 was filed by the Petitioner

Mamta Kale page 1 of 3 9-wp-2379-2019.doc

Narendra Kirtikar while Appeal No.646/2017 was filed by one Smt. Varsha Narendra Kirtikar. By the said common judgment, Appeal No.646/2017 filed by Varsha Kirtikar came to be partly allowed and the Appeal No.645/2017 filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed.

2. The issue is about the eligibility of the Petitioner to have a permanent alternate accommodation, both in respect of residential and commercial unit. During the survey, it was found that the Petitioner was having two structures namely Hut No.30 and Hut No.31 respectively for residential and commercial use. It is an admitted position that both these huts were having a common wall in between. As per Annexure II, the Petitioner has been held eligible for getting one structure (residential / commercial) in respect of Hut No.31. The Competent Authority has placed reliance on Regulation No.33(10) of Development Control Regulations (DCR) 1991 and a Government Resolution dated 14 May 1998 which interalia contemplate eligibility of separate residential and commercial structures provided there is no common wall in existence. In other words, if there is a common wall between the two structures, namely Hut No.30 and Hut No.31 in this case, the Petitioner is not eligible to get separate accommodation for residential and commercial purpose. In that view of the matter, the Competent Authority has directed that there would be an eligibility of a single structure (residential plus commercial) which is in accordance with the provisions of

Mamta Kale page 2 of 3 9-wp-2379-2019.doc

the DCR 1991 and the Government Resolution dated 14 May 1998. In view of the fact that it is not in dispute that there is a common wall between Hut No.30 and 31, no case for interference is made out in the impugned order. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending civil application and notice of motion are also disposed of.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

Mamta Kale                                        page 3 of 3