Bombay High Court
Smt. Draupadi Baburao Kamble vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Government ... on 9 April, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:16454
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.393 OF 2024
Smt. Draupadi Baburao Kamble ]
Aged 65 years, Occ.: Rag Picker, ]
Residing at Room No .30-A, ]
Mahatma Phule Sahakari Grihnirman ]
Sanstha, Free Press Journal Road, ]
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ] ...Petitioner.
V/s
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Through Government Pleader, ]
High Court, Bombay) ]
2. The Chief Executive Officer, ]
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ]
Anant Kanekar Marg, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. ]
3. Mahatma Phule Nagar SRA ]
CHS Ltd., ]
Having its office at C.S. No.1980, ]
Plot No.153-A(Pt.), Free Press ]
Journal Road, Mumbai-400 021. ]
4. M/s. ACE-LINKS, ]
Builders & Developers ]
Shri. Dhanesh Merchant, ]
Having its office at 1401, ]
Continental Tower, Sherli Rajan ]
Bandra (West), Mumbai-400 050. ]
5. Arun Murlidhar Bele, ]
News Reporter, ]
Having his office at-Parighkhadi, ]
Indira Nagar, Survey No.4, ]
Near Dutt Mandir, L.B.S. Marg, ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO 1/7
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.04.09
14:54:09
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2025 22:20:08 :::
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070 ]
Having residence address at ]
Room No.418, Bldg. No.03, ]
Naya Savera, MHADA Colony, ]
Vashinaka, Chembur, ]
Mumbai - 400 074. ] ...Respondents.
Mr. R.A. Yadav for Petitioner.
Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.2-SRA.
Mr. Shanay Shah i/by Adv. Sapna Rachure for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 1st April, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th April, 2025.
JUDGMENT (Per Kamal Khata, J.):
-
1) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the Respondents failure to give
her a flat in the Eastern Suburb as a Project Affected Person ('PAP') and also
failure to give rent thereby violating Circular No.153 of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA').
2) The Petitioner is surviving as a rag picker in Mumbai since her
husband had expired in the year 2013. She claims that, she was
uninterruptedly residing in a structure that was demolished by the
Respondent No.4 in the year 2008. It is her case that, she was mislead by
certain person and removed from occupation of the said hut. The Petitioner
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
admits having received a payment of Rs.5,50,000/- from Respondent No.4
on 3rd March, 2008. Apparently she was declared ineligible in 2007. She
filed an Application before the Competent Authority, seeking the inclusion
of her name in Annexure-II, that was rejected by an Order dated 13 th
January, 2012. Later, she approached the Additional Collector on 20 th June
2014, by filing an Appeal against the Order of SRA bearing Appeal No.1960
of 2016. The Additional Collector passed an Order on 17 th December, 2019
rejecting her Appeal. The Petitioner then challenged the Order of 17 th
December, 2019 before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) under
Section 35(1)(A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance
and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The GRC partially allowed her Appeal, set
aside the Order of the Additional Collector dated 17th December 2019, and
remanded back the matter for passing a fresh Order. She has not received
any communication thereafter. Additionally, the Petitioner has filed various
complaints with the concerned Higher Authorities, as averred in paragraph
No.7 of the Petition. She has now also filed this Petition in September 2023.
3) In this background the Petitioner has prayed for the following
substantive reliefs:-
"(a) The Writ Petition may be admitted under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and rule
be issued;
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct
the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to provide flat in rehab
building under Slum Act and also provide rent from
2008 till possession is given as per Circular 153 of
Slum Act at the place of old Room No. 30-A, Mahatma
Phule Shakari Grihanirman Sanstha, Free Press
Journal Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 021; and
as per Annexure-II, Sr. No. 30, C.T.S. No. 1980 to the
Petitioner;
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be please to direct
the Respondent No. 5 be be directed to handover all
the documents of Petitioner taken in custody from the
Petitioner and also return Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner
taken from online to rehab at the same site, the
assurance was given by the Respondent No.5;
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be please to direct
the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be directed to
compensate to the Petitioner being rag picker and
illegally and forcibly pressurising causing mental and
physical harassment to allot room in Mumbai Western
Suburban District, so lump-sum amount may be
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
awarded for causing mental, physical harassment to
the Petitioner;"
4) Mr. Yadav, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, this
is a straight forward case. According to the Petitioner, she was mislead and
was forced to shift out of her hut in the year 2008. He accordingly only
seeks that, her Appeal for rent from 2008 and possession of a PAP premises
should be heard.
5) Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 submits that,
the Petition suffers from suppression of material facts and documents. He
draws our attention to the Agreement dated 29 th February, 2008 wherein
the Petitioner has relinquished her right, title and interest in the hut as
more particularly stated in Clause 14 of the said Agreement annexed to the
Affidavit of Mr. Danishmand Merchant dated 7 th February, 2025. He submits
that, the entire consideration was paid to the Petitioner and therefore she
has no ground to claim any further rent or a PAP tenement as claimed in
the Petition.
6) Mr. Reddy, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2-SRA also
relies on the Affidavit of Mr. Chandrakant Pawar, the Assistant Registrar,
SRA dated 10th February, 2025. He submits that, the name of the Petitioner
was listed as a non-eligible slum dweller in Annexure-II. Admittedly for
demolition of the structure the developer had paid compensation of
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
Rs.5,50,000/- to the Petitioner on 29 th February, 2008. In addition to the
said amount, the developer had also paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year
2010 only on humanitarian ground to the Petitioner. He submitted that, the
entire Slum Rehabilitation Scheme ('SR Scheme') and the rehab building
was completed in the year 2015 and full Occupation Certificate ('OC') was
issued on 14th July, 2015. He therefore submits that, there is no liability
towards the Petitioner who was then non-eligible slum dweller having
surrendered her hut to the Respondent No.4.
6.1) However, the Petitioner was held eligible only on 29 th
November, 2022 i.e. 7 years since the project has been completed.
Therefore, they are unable to grant her any accommodation in that project.
He submitted that, she would be treated as a PAP and would be allotted a
tenement either in Mumbai City or Suburban District as and when
available. The insistence of the Petitioner to be allotted tenement on the
subject property is however not feasible. He however offers that, once the
Petitioner indicates her choice of tenement from list of tenements available
they would put her in possession within a period of 4 weeks.
6.2) The statement made on behalf of Respondent No.2 is accepted
as an undertaking given to this Court.
7) In view of the solemn statement made on instructions by
Mr. Reddy, for allotting a PAP tenement from the available tenements to the
sns 48-aswp-393-2024-J.doc
Petitioner within 4 weeks of her making a choice, the Petition is disposed
off.
8) The Petition is partly allowed in the above terms.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
