Bombay High Court

Smt. Ashalata Prabodh Kolhatkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 December, 2023

Author: Madhav J. Jamdar

Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar

2023:BHC-AS:39923
                                                                                        14. WP 775-2023.doc



      Anand                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2023

                    Smt. Ashalata Prabodh Kolhatkar                                   .Petitioner

                                    Versus

                    The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                   .Respondents

                    Mr. Ajit N. Jakhadi a/w. Mr. Amol Anant Chile, Advocate, for the
                    Petitioner
                    Mr. A. B. Chate, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the
                    Respondent - State
                    Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w. Ms. Ashwini Jadhav,
                    Advocate, for Respondent No. 4
                    Mr. Abhishek Karnik i/b. Ms. Leena Patil, Advocate, for
                    Respondent No. 5
                    Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate, for Respondent No. 6

                                   CORAM           :      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                   DATE            :      22.12.2023

                    ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Jakhadi, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, Mr. Chate, learned Additional GP along with

Ms. Bhende, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent - State,

Mr. Aradwad (Reddy), learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 4, Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 5 and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 6.

2. The Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity

of the Order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Grievance Redressal 1 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

Committee, Thane city in Appeal No. SR-2 of 2019. By the said

Order dated 15.10.2019 the Appeal bearing Appeal/SRA/SR-46 of

2018 fled by the Petitioner against the Order dated 22.11.2018

passed by the Additional Collector and Appellate Authority,

Thane is rejected. By the said Order dated 22.11.2018, Annexure

- II dated 03.06.2017 is confrmed. By the said Annexure - II, the

case of the Petitioner's father-in-law - Mr. Dinkar Shankar

Kolhatkar is considered and he has been held eligible for the non-

residential premises. In the said Annexure-II, it has been

specifcally held that certain slum structures are divided into two

and therefore, such divided structures are ineligible for

additional rehab premises as the same is only single slum

structure. The Petitioner's structure given as Sr. No. 146 has

accordingly is not held eligible. The Additional Collector in the

Order dated 22.11.2018 recorded that Respondent No. 5 - Society

has made complaint regarding the division of slum structures by

certain slum dwellers and accordingly after verifcation, it is

found that about 30 slum structures are divided into two parts

including the structure of the Petitioner's father-in-law.

3. Accordingly, the Appeal has been dismissed by the

Additional Collector. The said Order is challenged before the

Grievance Redressal Committee, Thane city. The Grievance

2 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

Redressal Committee, Thane city while rejecting the claim of the

Petitioner has observed in paragraph 10 as follows:

"10. The suit premise is adjacent to the hut belonging to Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar who is father-in- law of the Appellant. The said Kolhatkar made gift deed in favour of Appellant and transferred Suit premises in the name of Appellant. Therefore, there is every possibility of Appellant residing with her father-in-law Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar and thereby the Appellants name came to be recorded in voting roll for the year 1995 and also Election Card No. MT/10/053/029140 dated 20/11/1994 came to be issued at the address of Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar i. e. room No. 145 which is declared eligible in Annexure-2 issued by Respondent No. 2 Deputy Collector and Competent Authority Thane-1. The documents of possession submitted by Appellant in respect of suit premises are of recent period i. e. after 1/1/2000. The Appellant has submitted Electricity Bill of MSDC dated 13/12/2015 and photo pass No. 28530 dated 03/01/2018 issued by Thane Municipal Corporation. This fact does not prove the existence of suit premises since 1992 as claimed by the Appellant. It appears that to claim the beneft Slum Rehabilitation scheme the Appellant along with other Hut Holders have newly constructed their respective huts by putting partition in the original huts. The occupant of Hut No. 145 Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar is declared eligible in Annexure-2. These facts are noticed by Deputy Collector and Competent Authority at the time of Survey. This makes clear that the Appellant has constructed new room by putting partition in Hut No. 145 to claim the beneft of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme therefore the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority has not included the suit premises in eligible list/Annexure-2. The Additional Collector and Appellate Authority has rightly observed that Appellant has newly constructed suit premises by putting partition/division in the original hut at serial no. 145. The Appellant Authority has passed proper order and interference by this committee is not necessary. For

3 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

the reason as above, the appeal is liable to be rejected. The suit premises is already demolished on 23/01/2019 by the Competent Authority in pursuance of order dated 14/12/2018 passed under section 33-38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and redevelopment) Act, 1971, application for stay fled by the appellant is in fructuous. Therefore the stay application is liable to be rejected with appeal. Hence following order is passed.

ORDER

1. Appeal along with stay application is Dismissed.

2. No Order as to cost."

(Emphasis added)

4. Mr. Jakhadi, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner has relied on several documents. He has produced the

documents pertaining to the Petitioner as well as the documents

of her father-in-law. The said charts giving particulars of the

documents are as follows:

DOCUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER

SR. DATE PARTICULARS Page NO. Nos.

2. 26.12.1997 Copy of Gas Connection receipt 2-5

3. 31.12.2016 Copy of Electricity Bill 6-9

4. 01.01.1995 Copy of Voter list 10-11

5. 09.01.2018 Based on above Voter List Photo- 12 pass has been issued to the Petitioner

6. 10.05.1994 Copy of old Ration Card 13-14

4 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

7. 1998 Based on above Ration Card New 15-17 Ration Card is issued

INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTS OF FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER

SR. DATE PARTICULARS Page NO. Nos.

2. 25.09.1981 Copy of Gas Connection 19-22

3. 31.12.1988 Copy of Electricity Bill 23-24

4. 01.01.1995 Copy of Voter list 25-26

5. 22.06.2016 Based on above Voter List Photo-pass 27 has been issued to father-in-law of the Petitioner

6. 10.05.1999 Copy of Ration Card (It is replaced 28-30 with old Ration Card)

(Emphasis added)

5. At the outset, it is signifcant to note that the G. R.

dated 17.01.2008 specifes the documents which can be

considered for deciding the eligibility. Clause (6) of the said G. R.

specifcally provides that the ration card be not considered as

evidence for deciding the eligibility. The said G.R. specifes that

inter alia the entries in the Voters list, telephone bill, electricity

bill can be taken into consideration.

6. As far as the documents of father-in-law are

concerned, it is an admitted position that slum structure in his

name i.e. slum structure No.145 has been held eligible. It is the

5 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

complaint of the Society that father-in-law of the Petitioner i.e.

Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar has divided the said slum

structure in two parts and created certain documents to show

that the Petitioner is having an independent slum structure to

get undue advantage of two rehab premises in the said slum

scheme.

7. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner married on

17.02.1992 Mr. Pramod Kolhatkar i. e. son of Mr. Dinkar Shankar

Kolhatkar, original slum dweller. The voter identity card dated

20.11.1994 is issued in favour of the Petitioner showing the

address as 'Bhola Bhaiya Chawl Almeda Road, Nuribaba, Thane'.

Therefore, the said voter identity card is of no assistance to the

Petitioner, as no specifc address is mentioned in the voter

identity card. As far as the gas connection receipt is concerned,

same is dated 26.12.1997 and name of the consumer is

mentioned as that of the Petitioner. However, the address shown

is "Bhola Bhaiya Chawl, Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane - 400

601". Thus, the said Gas connection Receipt is also of no

assistance, as no specifc address is mentioned on it.

8. The main crucial document produced by the

Petitioner is the Application dated 27.12.2016 fled by the

Petitioner for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection

6 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

which shows address as "Room No. 146, Bhola Bhaiya Chawl,

Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Pachpakhadi, Thane (W) - 400

602". The said Application is dated 27.12.2016. Thus, the same

will not show the existence of the slum structure of the Petitioner

since 1992, as claimed by the Petitioner or even before the cut off

date.

9. The reliance is also placed on the photocopy of voters list.

The said voters list is of the year 1995. In the said voters list at

Sr. No. 569 name of the Petitioner's father-in-law i. e. "Kolhatkar

Dinkar Shankar" is shown and from Sr. Nos. 570 to 576, names

of his family members are shown. The said entries are as

follows:-

569 dksYgVdj fnudj 'kadj iq- 50 570 dksYgVdj lqfurk fnudj L=h 45 571 dksYgVdj fxjh"k fnudj iq- 35 572 dksYgVdj izcks/k fnudj iq- 25 573 dksYgVdj fouk fxjh"k L=h 25 574 dksYgVdj vk'kkyrk izcks/k L=h 23 575 dksYgVdj vrqu fnudj iq- 21 576 dksYgVdj lqizHkk fnudj L=h 19

However, the above entries do not show existence of two separate

slum structures. It is an admitted position that on the basis of

said voters list, a photo pass has been issued in favour of the

Petitioner's father-in-law i. e. Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar. The

7 of 9

14. WP 775-2023.doc

Petitioner has also relied on photo pass. However, the said photo

pass has been issued on 09.01.2018. Thus the said photo pass is

not relevant for deciding the existence of separate slum

structure apart from the slum structure of the Petitioner's

father-in-law which has been held eligible.

10. The Petitioner has also relied on a ration card which

is on page Nos. 130 to 134. However as per the above G.R. ration

card is not to be taken into consideration for deciding the

eligibility. In any case, the address as mentioned in the ration

card is "Bhola Bhaiya Estate, Chandanwadi, Opposite Shiv Sena

Shakha". Thus the same does not prove the existence of the

separate slum structure.

11. The main crucial document for deciding the eligibility in

this case is the electricity bill. However, same clearly shows that

the Application for electricity connection was submitted on

27.12.2016. Thus, the same will not show the existence of the

slum structure of the Petitioner since 1992, as claimed by the