Bombay High Court
Kisan Hirappa Bansode vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:31109-DB JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14968 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.23816 OF 2025
Shri Kisan Hirappa Bansode ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Chairperson, Grievance Redressal Committee
3. The Addl. Collector (ENC & R)
4. The Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) and
The Competent Authority
5. Ms. Seema Sayappa Bansode
6. Ekta S.R.A. Gruhnirman Sanstha
7. Radius And Deserve Builders LLP ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.23816 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 14968 OF 2024
Seema Sayappa Bansode ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Shri Kisan Hirappa Bansode ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode i/by Sheetal M. Ubale for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Tanaya D. Goswami for the Respondent-SRA & GRC (Through VC).
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30th JUNE 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JULY 2025
Page 1 of 11
Mugdha / Sajakali
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2025 11:00:55 :::
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
JUDGMENT :
(PER ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
1. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:
" a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ of
Certiorari or Writ in the like nature or direction or order, and thereby be
pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders:
i) Dated 08.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. Grievance
Redressal Committee, Mumbai Sub Urban Mumbai in Appeal No.
99/2023 filed U/Sec. 35 (1-A) of the said Act filed by the Petitioner &
further be please to allow the Appeal of Petitioner as prayed by him.
ii) Dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Appellate
Authority U/Sec. 35 of the said Act in Appeal bearing No.
SRA/eligibility/chembur/172/2001 o.w. no. 3930 filed by the Petitioner
& further be please to allow the said Appeal as prayed by the Petitioner.
iii) Dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Competent
Authority Under the said Act in Application bearing no.
Dyd/En/demo/chembur/D-No.-7/Exe-Ekta S.R.A. 167/2021 filed by
the Respondent No. 5 & further be please to dismiss the said application
of Respondent No. 5 with cost.
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ of
Certiorari or Writ in the like nature or direction or order, and thereby be
pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities particularly Respondent No. 2
to 4 to restore as it as earlier the in which the name of Petitioner is listed at Sr.
No. 167 as eligible hutment."
II. Factual Background
2. The facts lie in a narrow compass and are as follows:
2.1 It is the Petitioner's case that the Petitioner, Mr. Kisan Hirappa
Bansode on 8th July 1990 purchased hutment no. 325 ("the said
hutment") from one Mr. Mesu Bhikaji, for a total consideration of Rs.
1,000/- under an agreement for sale dated 8th dated July 1990. It is
not in dispute that the said hutment was thereafter recognized as an
'eligible hutment' within the context of the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme ("the said scheme") under the provisions of 'The Maharashtra
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment Act, 1971'
("Slum Act"). Accordingly, in the year 2010, the Petitioner's name
was included in Annexure II, prepared by Respondent No. 4 in
respect of the said scheme.
2.2 In the year 2012, Respondent No. 5, who is the niece of the
Petitioner, claimed ownership of the said hutment based on an
Agreement for Sale dated 20th September 2007, executed between one
Kate Aruna Appa and Respondent No. 5. Pursuant thereto
Respondent No. 5 submitted an application to Respondent No. 4,
requesting that the Petitioner's name in Annexure II be deleted and
replaced with the name of Respondent No. 5 as being the eligible
slumdweller in respect of the said hutment.
2.3 Since the aforesaid representation made by Respondent No. 5 was not
acted upon, Respondent No. 5 in May 2019 filed Appeal No.
71/2019 ('Appeal No.1') before Respondent No.3/Additional
Collector. In this appeal, Respondent No. 5 sought a declaration that
Respondent No. 5 was the eligible occupant in respect of the said
hutment and to accordingly replace the Petitioner's name appearing in
Annexure II with the name of Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner
contested the First Appeal, primarily on the grounds of inordinate
delay and asserting that the claim of Respondent No. 5 was based on
false and misleading documents.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
2.4 The First Appeal was disposed of by an Order dated 12 th October
2020 by which Respondent No. 3 remanded the matter back to
Respondent No. 4, with a direction to Respondent No. 4 to hear and
decide the Application made by Respondent No. 5. On such
proceedings Respondent No. 4 vide an order dated 13 th August 2021
('the First Order'), declared Respondent No. 5 as the eligible occupant
in respect of the said hutment and consequently directed the name of
Respondent No. 5 be included in Annexure II in respect of the said
hutment in place and stead of the Petitioners name.
2.5 The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said Order, filed Appeal No.
172/2021 ('Appeal No.2') again before Respondent No. 3 and
impugned the First Order on several grounds, including that
Respondent No. 4 had completely overlooked the crucial
documentary evidence available on record and that Respondent No. 5
had failed to produce any material to substantiate the Respondent's
claim qua the said hutment. Appeal No.2 set out that Respondent
No. 5 was claiming ownership on the basis of false and misleading
documents, and that Respondent No. 4 had the Petitioner's name had
been included in Annexure II only after due verification and scrutiny
of all relevant facts.
2.6 However, by an order dated 13 th October 2022 (the 'Second Order'),
Respondent No. 3 dismissed the Appeal No.2 filed by the Petitioner
and upheld the First Impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 4.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
Aggrieved by the Second Order, the Petitioner approached
Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Grievance Committee by way of an Appeal
under Section 35 of the Slum Act.
2.7 The Appeal No.2 was however disposed off by Respondent No. 2,
vide an order dated 8th August 2024 (referred to as the 'Third Order'),
by which Respondent No. 2 upheld the First and Second Orders.
2.8 It is thus, that the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
impugning the Orders dated 13th August 2021, 13th October 2022,
and 8th August 2024 (collectively referred to as 'Impugned Orders').
III. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
3. At the outset, Mr. Bansode, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, submitted that the Impugned Orders were passed by adopting a
mechanical approach, without adequately appreciating the voluminous evidence
on record, and absence of any application of mind, and crucially, without
providing sufficient, cogent reasons.
4. Mr. Bansode then took pains to point out that the claim of Respondent
No. 5 to the said hutment was based on an Agreement for Sale which was dated
20th September 2007, and was executed between Respondent No. 5 and one
Aruna Appa Kate, in respect of hutment no. 213 and not the said hutment, i.e.
hutment no. 325. He pointed out that the name of the Petitioner had been
included in Annexure II on the basis that the Petitioner was in occupation of
hutment no. 325. He thus submitted that Respondent No. 5 was in no manner
connected with hutment no. 325.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
5. Mr. Bansode then further pointed out that when Respondent No. 5 in the
year 2012 made the initial application to Respondent No. 4 claiming inclusion of
her name in Annexure II, Respondent No. 5 had failed to mention that she had
allegedly purchased the said hutment same from a third party. Mr. Bansode also
pointed out that at the time of the alleged execution of the agreement of sale
dated 20th September 2007, Respondent No. 5 was only a student aged 20 with
no discernible source of income. He further stressed that Respondent No. 5 had
failed to explain the source of funds used for the alleged purchase of the said
hutment, which formed the very basis of her claim for inclusion in Annexure II.
6. Mr. Bansode further submitted that the Respondents adopted a hyper-
technical approach, thereby overlooking a wealth of documentary evidence on
record that conclusively proved the Petitioner's continuous occupation and
ownership of the said hutment. He pointed out that this evidence included, but
was not limited to, (i) the agreement for sale deed 8 th dated July 1990, (ii) the
Petitioner's Aadhar Card bearing the same address as the said hutment, (iii) the
agreement executed by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 (the builder),
wherein the builder paid the Petitioner monthly rent from 23 rd January 2013,
until December 16, 2017, for vacating the said hutment during re-development,
(iv) bank statements of the Petitioner proving the receipt of monthly rent from
Respondent No. 7, and (v) the notice of Special General Meeting dated 8 th
December 2014, from Respondent No. 6 society, which was duly served upon
the Petitioner.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
7. Mr. Bansode then submitted that the original Annexure II, which
included the Petitioner's name as an 'eligible tenant', was initially granted by
Respondent No. 4, after following a meticulous process of due verification and
scrutiny of all the relevant documents as presented. Therefore, Mr. Bansode
contended that Respondent No. 4 had abused its power and gravely erred in
reversing its own prior order without providing any adequate or justifiable
reasons for doing so.
8. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Bansode further argued that there has
been an inordinate and unexplained delay by Respondent No. 5 in approaching
Respondent No. 3 by way of the First Appeal. He pointed out that the
Petitioner's name was included in Annexure II in 2010, whereas Respondent No.
5 filed the First Appeal only in 2019, amounting to a delay of almost 9 years. He
thus submitted that the First Appeal filed by Respondent No. 5 ought to have
been dismissed outright solely on the grounds of this egregious and unexplained
delay.
9. Based on these submissions, Mr. Bansode concluded that the Impugned
Orders are perverse and bad in law, and he accordingly prayed that they be
quashed and set aside.
IV. Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents
10. Ms. Goswami, appearing on behalf of the Respondent authorities, sought
to justify the Impugned Orders, asserting that they were well-reasoned and in no
manner were the same either perverse or illegal.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
11. She submitted that Respondent No. 4 had passed the First Order after
meticulously scrutinizing the documents submitted by Respondent No. 5.
Furthermore, she contended that Respondent No. 4 had recorded clear reasons
for replacing the Petitioner's name in Annexure II with that of Respondent No.
5. She highlighted that the First Order explicitly held that the Petitioner was
ineligible to avail of the benefit under the Slum Act because (i) the Petitioner had
already availed the benefit of the Gharkul Scheme of the Government at his
native place in Village Dhuldev in Satara District; and (ii) Respondent No. 5 had
submitted independent evidence to prove that Respondent No. 5's mother was
an 'eligible tenant' under the provisions of the Slum Act. Thus, she maintained
that the Impugned Orders were speaking orders and were indeed well-reasoned.
12. She then submitted that the First Order had been affirmed and upheld by
Respondent Nos. 3 and 2, through the Second and Third Orders, respectively.
Therefore, she argued that the Impugned Orders warranted no intervention by
this Court.
V. Rejoinder Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
13. In response to the Respondents' submissions, Mr. Bansode clarified that
while it was undisputed that the Petitioner owned some agricultural land in
Satara, he had demonstrably moved to Bombay (as it then was) in 1980, along
with his brother (who is the father of Respondent No. 5), specifically to earn his
livelihood. He asserted that the Petitioner has been continuously living in
Mumbai ever since and had been working as a labourer, having purchased the
said hutment with his hard earned money from such work.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
14. He then pointed out that Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 4 had
also given different reasons for replacing the Petitioner's name with that of
Respondent No. 5. He contended that while Respondent No. 4 allowed the
name of Respondent No. 5 to be included in Annexure II primarily on the basis
that the Petitioner had obtained benefit under the Gharkul Scheme, Respondent
No. 3 had dismissed the Petitioner's appeal against the First Order on the
premise that the Petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence of his
continuous possession of the said hutment. Mr. Bansode emphatically reiterated
that observation of Respondent No. 3 regarding the Petitioner's occupation of
the said hutment was already on record, which clearly established the Petitioner's
continuous possession of the said hutment and which was the very basis on
which the Petitioners name had been included in Annexure II.
VI. Conclusion
14. Having carefully heard the learned counsel for all Parties and having
perused the Impugned Orders we have no hesitation in holding that the Writ
Petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:
A. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner's name was originally
included in Annexure II as a tenant eligible to claim benefit under
the provisions of the Slum Act in respect of the said hutment.
This inclusion was not a mere formality but was after a due and
rigorous scrutiny of all relevant documents by the Competent
Authority (Respondent No. 4) itself.
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
B. A plain reading of the First Order makes clear that the same is ex-
facie unsustainable and demonstrably flawed. Though the First
Order cursorily mentions that the Petitioner had availed of the
benefit of another housing scheme (Gharkul Scheme) in Satara or
that Respondent No. 5's mother was an 'eligible tenant', it fails to
provide a single clear, specific, and legally sound reason for
suddenly holding the Petitioner ineligible. Crucially, the order
does not set out any specific provision of law which was allegedly
violated by the initial inclusion of the Petitioner's name in
Annexure II. In our considered view, it was incumbent upon
Respondent No. 4 to provide detailed and justifiable reasons for
revoking the Petitioner's status as an 'eligible slumdweller',
especially given its own prior determination. However,
Respondent No. 4 has not even so much as attempted to do so.
This glaring omission renders the decision patently arbitrary,
illegal, and perverse.
C. Accordingly, the Second and Third Orders which merely upheld
the First Order, are also similarly illegal and fundamentally flawed
since they rest entirely on the basis of the First Order. The same
are also bereft of any independent reasons to justify how (i) the
Petitioner having been held eligible would how suddenly become
ineligible and (ii) the basis on which Respondent No. 5 would be
eligible in respect of the said hutment to have her name included
Mugdha / Sajakali
JUDGEMENT-WP 14968-24.DOC
in Annexure II. Thus, these Orders would have to be set aside as
being wholly arbitrary, illegal and perverse.
D. Given the lack of clear reasoning and the apparent
inconsistencies, we are compelled to set aside all the Impugned
Orders. We accordingly remand the matter to Respondent No. 4
to decide the Application afresh. In doing so, Respondent No. 4
must consider all the material on record, and based thereon
decide the Application filed by Respondent No. 5 after dealing
with all the material and providing comprehensive, explicit, clear
and legally sound reasons for any decision that Respondent No. 4
will take.
15. In view of the above, the present Writ Petition is accordingly disposed
of. No costs.
16. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Interim Application does not
survive and is accordingly disposed of.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Mugdha / Sajakali
