Bombay High Court
Jyoti Prakash Kamble vs Grievances Redressal Committee And Ors on 16 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:38436
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3410 OF 2020
Jyoti Prakash Kamble
Age - 55 yrs. Occupation - House-wife,
Residing at R/N-286, Prem Nagar,
Irla Bridge, S. V. Road, Near Irla
Petrol Pump, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai - 400 053. .....Petitioner
: Versus :
1. Grievances Redressal Committee
having its office at Old Custom officers
Kala Ghoda, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.
2. Zodiac Developers Pvt. Ltd
Having its registered office at 404,
Dev Plaza, 68, S. V. Road, Andheri
(West), Mumbai - 400 058.
3. The Secretary, SRA
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
3rd Floor, Administrative Building,
Anant Kanetkar Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 400 051,
4. Hanuman Nagar SRA CHS Ltd.
At Irla Bridge, Gulmohar Road,
Off. S. V. Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai - 400 058. ....Respondents
Page No.1 of 18
16 September 2025
::: Uploaded on - 16/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/09/2025 21:40:14 :::
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
Ms. Archana P. Gaikwad, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Pranesh J. Gada, for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Reserved On : 10 SEPTEMBER 2025.
Judgment Pronounced On : 16 SEPTEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
-
1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
learned counsel appearing for rival parties, the petition is taken for hearing
and final disposal.
2) The petition takes exception to the order dated 18 July 2019
passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee allowing the Appeal
preferred by Respondent No.2 and declaring Petitioner ineligible in
Annexure-II prepared for implementation of Slum Scheme in respect of
Hanuman Nagar SRA Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
3) Petitioner claims to be residing with her parents in hutment
bearing No.60 located at CTS Nos. 455, 455/1 to 16, 464 (Part), 1755 and
1756 of Village-Vile Parle, Taluka-Andheri, Hanuman Nagar Gulmohar
Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 058. In Annexure-II dated 1 June
2005, Petitioner was declared eligible at Serial No.2. On the basis of
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
declaration of eligibility in Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005, Petitioner was
allotted Rehab Tenement No.701 in Rehab Building No.5 constructed
towards implementation of slum scheme through lottery conducted by
SRA officials, vide allotment letter dated 28 February 2017. According to
the Petitioner, Respondent No.2-Developer, who implemented the slum
scheme, has inducted outsiders in rehab tenement No.701 and is averse to
induction of the Petitioner in the said tenement. Therefore, Respondent
No.2 filed Appeal before the Additional Collector on 16 December 2017
challenging Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 to the extent of eligibility of the
Petitioner. By letter dated 31 January 2019, Respondent No.2 was
informed by the Additional Collector that the Appeal needs to be decided
by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). Accordingly, Respondent
No.2 was advised vide letter dated 31 January 2019 to prefer Appeal before
the GRC. Respondent No.2 accordingly filed appeal under Section 35(1A)
of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) before the GRC. By impugned
order dated 18 July 2019, the GRC has allowed the Appeal preferred by
Respondent No. 2 and has cancelled Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 in
respect of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Hanuman Nagar CHS.
However, Petitioner is held entitled for joint residential rehabilitation with
her husband in respect of another Annexure-II prepared on 23 January
2003 in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme known as Prem Nagar SRA Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. Aggrieved by order dated 18 July 2019,
Petitioner has filed the present petition.
4) Ms. Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
has submitted that the Appeal preferred by Respondent No.2 before the
GRC was not maintainable and could not have been entertained. That the
Appeal was filed merely against the letter dated 31 January 2019 of
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
Additional Collector, which is not an order. That under the provisions of
Section 35(1) of the Slum Act, Appeal against Annexure-II lies before the
Additional Collector and further Appeal against the decision of the
Additional Collector lies before the GRC under Section 35(1A) of the
Slum Act. That since Additional Collector did not decide anything, direct
Appeal before the GRC was not maintainable. That the Appeal was filed
by Respondent No.2 after enormous delay of 12 long years. That the
Appeal was filed out of malafide intention as Respondent No.2 has no
semblance of locus for challenging determination of eligibility of the
Petitioner. That it had challenged Petitioner's eligibility with a view to
protect illegal allotment of Rehab Tenement No.701 made by it in favour
of the third party. She would submit that mere eligibility of Petitioner's
husband in Prem Nagar SRA CHS cannot be a ground for denying
independent eligibility in the name of the Petitioner in Hanuman Nagar
SRA CHS. That the eligibility vide Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 is
inherited by Petitioner through her father. She would place reliance on
Circular No.152 dated 5 June 2015 recognising right of inheritance in
respect of the slum structures. She would also rely on Government
Resolution dated 11 September 2019. She would accordingly pray for
setting aside the impugned order passed by the GRC.
5) Mr. Gada, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.2-Developer would oppose the petition submitting that the Petitioner
has raised bogus claim in respect of the slum structure in Hanuman Nagar
SRA CHS, where she has never resided. That Petitioner has always resided
with her husband in slum structure located at Prem Nagar SRA CHS for
which her husband is already held eligible. That the GRC has already
appreciated the position that husband and wife staying together cannot be
declared eligible in respect of two independent slum structures. Mr. Gada
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
would then take me through the entire trail of occupation of slum
structures by family members of the Petitioner. He would submit that the
concerned slum structure was originally occupied by the father and after
his death, his son (Petitioner's brother) was the occupant of the said
structure. That after the death of her brother, sister of the Petitioner has
sold the said slum structure to a third party. This is how rights in respect of
the family qua the slum structure occupied by the father came to an end
and therefore there is no question of Petitioner inheriting any right in
respect of the slum structure occupied by her father. That the case involves
raising of multiple claims by family members in respect of numerous
structures. That therefore Petitioner's claim qua Hanuman Nagar SRA
CHS has been rightly rejected by the GRC after noticing eligibility of her
husband in respect of a separate slum scheme.
6) So far as locus of Respondent No.2 is concerned, Mr. Gada
would submit that Section 35 of the Slum Act uses the expression 'any
person aggrieved' and therefore Respondent No.2 had the necessary locus
to challenge Petitioner's eligibility. That if Petitioner is declared eligible,
Respondent No.2 would be liable to pay the rent, as well as accommodate
her in rehab building. That there is no vacant structure in rehab building
for accommodation of the Petitioner as all rehab tenements are occupied
by eligible slum dwellers. That Respondent No.2 is therefore an aggrieved
person by declaration of Petitioner's eligibility and had locus to file
Appeal. He would also rely upon the provisions of Development Control
and Promotion Regulations, 2034 in support of his contention that only
one eligibility can be sustained in a slum scheme. He would accordingly
pray for dismissal of the petition.
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
7) I have also heard Mr. Y. D. Patil, the learned AGP appearing
for Respondent-State and Mr. Nishigandh Patil, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.3-SRA.
8) Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is seen that Petitioner was held eligible
in Annexure-II prepared on 1 June 2005 for implementation of slum
scheme in Hanuman Nagar SRA CHS. No other person has challenged the
eligibility of the Petitioner vide Annexure-II prepared on 1 June 2005. It
appears that Respondent No.2, who is a Developer appointed to
implement SR scheme, has constructed rehab tenements for rehabilitation
of eligible slum dwellers. A developer selected by the society of slum
dwellers and appointed by the SRA is a mere licensee not having any title
in land taken up for implementation of slum scheme. Such developer is
given right to sell tenements in the sale component building to recoup
expenses towards rehabilitation of slum dwellers and for earning profits
from the scheme. Section 13(2) confers right on the CEO/SRA to
terminate the appointment of a developer if conditions of the Letter of
Intent (LoI) are breached. Thus a developer implementing a slum scheme
has limited rights in the project, unlike redevelopment of building
undertaken by the co-operative society owning the land.
9) The developer impetrating the slum scheme is incentivized by
grant of FSI depending on the number of slum dwellers to be rehabilitated.
Therefore, though the developer needs to bear the expenditure towards
payment of transit rent and for construction of rehab tenements, he is
incentivized for rehabilitation of each eligible slum dweller. Thus the LoI
must have been issued and FSI must have been sanctioned to Respondent
No.2 by taking into consideration number of eligible slum dwellers in the
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
Scheme for rehabilitation. Respondent No.2 thus got the LoI issued and
got the plans sanctioned, after acquiescing the position that Petitioner was
held eligible in Annexure-II prepared on 1 June 2005. After completion of
construction of rehab tenement, lottery was conducted by SRA officials on
28 February 2017 in which Petitioner was allotted Rehab Tenement
No.701 in Rehab Building No.5. The Allotment Letter dated 28 February
2017 was issued in the name of the Petitioner.
10) When the occasion for taking over possession of Rehab
Tenement No.701 arrived, Respondent No.2 thought of challenging
Petitioner's eligibility vide Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005. It is Petitioner's
allegation that a such a challenge was raised by Respondent No.2 because
possession of Rehab Tenement No.701 has been handed over by
Respondent No.2 to a third party possibly by sale thereof. The allegation is
denied by Respondent No. 2. Be that as it may. It is not necessary to go
into that factual dispute. Respondent No.2 filed an Appeal dated
16 December 2017 before the Additional Collector
(Encroachment/Removal), Western Suburban-cum-Appellate Authority
challenging Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005. It appears that in addition to
the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 also questioned eligibility of total
25 persons by filing Appeals. By letter dated 31 January 2019, the
Additional Collector returned all the 25 Appeals intimating the Petitioner
that Annexure-II in respect of Hanuman Nagar SRA CHS was issued by
Secretary, SRA and that therefore guidance of Housing Department was
sought about jurisdiction of Appellate Authority. By letter dated
11 January 2019, the Desk Officer Government of Maharashtra clarified
that in cases where Annexure-II is issued by the Secretary, SRA, Appeals
can be decided by GRC. Appeals were accordingly returned to Respondent
No.2 with liberty to present the same before the GRC. This is how
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
Respondent No.2 preferred Appeal before the GRC challenging
Petitioner's eligibility under Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005.
11) As a matter of fact, the statutory scheme of the Slum Act is
such that a person aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or
given by Competent Authority can file appeal before the Appellate
Authority, not below the rank of Additional Collector. Sub-section (1) of
Section 35 has been amended w.e.f. 26 April 2018 and the same provides
thus :-
35. Appeals
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, any person
aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the
Competent Authority, may appeal to the Appellate Authority, who
shall be a person holding a post not below the rank of Additional
Collector, in respect of the areas of Municipal Corporations and "A"
Class Municipal Councils, and not below the rank of Deputy
Collector, in respect of areas of other Municipal Councils, to be
notified by the State Government, within a period of thirty days from
the date of issue of such notice, order or direction.;
12) Under sub-section (1A) of Section 35, a person aggrieved by
order passed by the Appellate Authority under sub-section (1), can file
Appeal before the GRC. Sub-section (1A) of Section 35 of the Slum Act
reads thus :-
(1A) Any person,-
(a) aggrieved by any notice, order or direction issued or given by the
Appellate Authority under sub-section (1), may file an appeal within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such notice, order or
direction, before the Grievance Redressal Committee;
(b) aggrieved by any notice, direction, circular, decision, order,
permission or approval issued or given by the Chief Executive Officer
of Slum Rehabilitation Authority or any Officer to whom the powers
are delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, may file an appeal
within thirty days of receipt of such notice, direction, circular,
decision, order, permission or approval, before the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee.
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
13) Thus, the Appeal against Annexure-II ought to have been
decided by the Additional Collector in view of provisions of Section 35(1)
of the Slum Act. However, on account of letter dated 31 January 2019 of
the Additional Collector, Respondent No.2 filed direct Appeal before the
GRC under Section 35(1A) of the Slum Act. Perusal of the Appeal Memo
preferred by the Respondent No.2 before the GRC would indicate that the
same was filed under the provisions of Section 35(1A) of the Slum Act.
The Appeal Memo treated Additional Collector's letter dated 31 January
2019 as the impugned order. Respondent No.2 thus represented before the
GRC that the Additional Collector passed 'order dated 31 January 2019'
which was impugned in the Appeal filed under Section 35(1A) of the Slum
Act. However, letter dated 31 January 2019 is not a decision which could
have been challenged before the GRC. It is however not necessary to delve
deeper into this aspect.
14) The Appeal under Section 35(1) of the Slum Act can be filed
within a period of 30 days from the date of impugned notice, order or
direction. Annexure-II was prepared on 1 June 2005 declaring Petitioner as
eligible. Therefore, Appeal under Section 35(1) of the Slum Act ought to
have been filed within 30 days from 1 June 2005. Respondent No.2 has not
produced copy of Appeal filed before the Additional Collector and
therefore it is not known whether Respondent No.2 filed an Application
for condonation of delay before the Additional Collector. The Appeal filed
before the Additional Collector was grossly time barred. The same was
filed on 16 December 2017 challenging Petitioner's eligibility decided on
1 June 2005. The Appeal was thus filed after expiry of more than 12 and
half years. The Additional Collector did not decide the Appeal and
therefore there was no occasion for deciding the issue of limitation. The
Appeals were merely returned for being filed before the GRC. Respondent
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
No.2 accordingly filed Appeal under Section 35(1A) of the Slum Act by
representing that letter dated 31 January 2019 of the Additional Collector
was a decision which could be challenged under Section 35(1A) of the
Slum Act. Alongwith his Appeal filed before the GRC, Respondent No.2
filed Application for condonation of delay. In that application, Respondent
No.2 pleaded that the Appeal was filed against the 'impugned order' dated
31 January 2019. Since the Appeal filed before the GRC was also beyond
the period of 30 days from 31 January 2019, Respondent No.2 filed
application for condonation of delay raising following pleadings :-
GROUNDS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY
a. That the Respondent No.1 is erroneously shown as eligible slum
dweller ie at serial no. 2 without voter list number as per Annexure II
dated 01/06/2005 issued by The Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, having their office at Administrative Building, Anant
Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051. That the Respondent
No.2 has disposed the said appeal vide impugned order dated
31/01/2019 passed by Respondent No.3 without giving any sufficient
and proper reason.
b. The Appellant states that the Directors of the Company were not
available due to certain unforeseen circumstances therefore there was
delay of ___ days in filing the said appeal.
c. That there will be no harm caused to the Respondents if the delay is
condoned, however if the said delay is not condoned, irreparable
damage and injury will be caused to the Appellant.
15) Respondent No.2 thus misled the GRC to believe that it had
filed Appeal against 'decision' dated 31 January 2019 whereas it was a
mere communication issued by the Additional Collector returning the
Appeal to Respondent No.2 for presentation before the GRC. Thus, what
was filed by Respondent No.2 before the GRC was Appeal against
Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005. It was therefore incumbent upon
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
Respondent No.2 to explain the delay of 14 long years in challenging
Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 while filing Appeal before the GRC. To get
over this conundrum, Respondent No.2 misled the GRC to believe that the
Appeal was filed against the Additional Collector's 'impugned order' dated
31 January 2019.
16) The GRC however considered the Appeal against
Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 and proceeded to decide the issue of
condonation of delay by recording following findings :-
4. Upon hearing rival submissions of appellant and respondent No.2,
and after perusal of the appellant's application seeking condonation of
delay, it is seen that the appellant is challenging the eligibility of
respondent No.1 as declared in decision dated 01.06.2005 of the
Hon'ble Secretary, SRA. As per the appellant, the respondent No.1
was never staying in the area of the said scheme and she had not
produced documentary evidence of voter list before Secretary, SRA
hence the eligibility is wrongly obtained by her, and that her husband
Mr. Prakash Vitthal Kambale is made eligible for residential
rehabilitation at sr. No.287 of the annexure-II dated 23.01.2003 of the
S. R. scheme known as Prem Nagar SRA Co-operative Housing
Society Limited which is being implemented adjacent to the S. R.
Scheme known as Hanuman Nagar SRA Co-operative Housing
Society Limited hence wife has wrongly obtained independent
residential rehabilitation. The Committee was of the view that the
matters, wherein it is alleged that eligibility is wrongly obtained or
that the eligibility is obtained by deceit or by playing fraud upon State,
cannot be ignored or cannot be given a blind eye on the ground that
matter is brought to the notice of the Authority after several years,
and that such matters can be treated as corrective proceedings and
delay can be condoned in such cases in the larger interest to uphold
the rule of law and to curb the practice of playing fraud upon State in
the rehabilitation scheme. It was further considered that the
committee is duly empowered by the Rules enacted under this Act, to
condone delay in filing appeal under section 35(1A) when sufficient
cause is shown. It is well settled that there cannot be any for strait-
jacket formula for deciding the application condonation of delay.
Considering the allegations of the appellant, the Committee was of
the opinion that sufficient cause is made out to condone said delay.
Hence delay was condoned.
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
17) The GRC thus proceeded to condone the delay in filing
Appeal against Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005 in absence of any prayer to
that effect on the part of Respondent No.2. As observed above,
Respondent No.2 prayed for condonation of delay in filing Appeal against
communication dated 31 January 2019. He never pleaded in his
application that the delay was of 14 years computed from the date of
issuance of Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005. Thus GRC has condoned the
delay of more than 14 long years in absence of any pleadings or prayers in
the Application for condonation of delay.
18) Even otherwise, the manner in which inordinate delay of 14
years is condoned by GRC does not appeal to this Court. Perusal of
findings recorded by GRC in para-4 of the order indicates that the GRC
has recorded contention of Respondent No.2 that Petitioner was never
residing in any slum structure in Hanuman Nagar SRA CHS and that her
husband is declared eligible in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for Prem
Nagar SRA CHS. The GRC thereafter proceeded to hold that where
eligibility is erroneously secured by deceit or fraud, the Committee cannot
turn blind eye on the ground that the matter is brought to the notice of the
authorities after several years. While recording this finding, the GRC has
ignored the position that there is no finding of fraud recorded in the entire
order. Maybe that Petitioner's contention with regard to eligibility is not
accepted by the GRC. The same however would not ipso-facto mean that
Petitioner had secured eligibility by playing fraud or deceit. Thus, there is
no finding of fraud or deceit on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, GRC
has completely erred in condoning delay by assuming that there could be
fraud or deceit involved in the present case. Merely because power is
conferred on GRC to condone the delay does not mean that it can
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
condone inordinate delay of 14 long years as per its own whims and
fancies, in absence of sufficient cause made out by Respondent No.2. As
observed above, Respondent No.2 did not plead any cause for condonation
of delay of 14 years. It vaguely pleaded in the Application that the
directors of the Company were not available due to unforeseen
circumstances, which caused delay in filing the Appeal. Non-availability of
directors for few days cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of 14
long years in filing the Appeal. Thus, GRC has grossly erred in condoning
inordinate delay of 14 long years in filing the Appeal. The Appeal
preferred by Respondent No.2 ought to have been rejected on the ground
of delay.
19) Coming to the issue of second Respondent's locus to file
Appeal questioning eligibility of the Petitioner, no doubt Section 35(1) of
the Slum Act uses the expression 'any person aggrieved' and in that sense
technically a Developer implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme can be
an aggrieved party as the Developer becomes liable to pay rent and to
induct the eligible slum dweller in rehab tenement. Usually, Developers
appointed to implement Slum Rehabilitation Scheme do not get involved
in disputes relating to eligibility. As a matter of fact, Developers are often
accused of artificially increasing number of eligible slum dwellers while
implementing Slum Scheme, higher number of eligible slum dwellers
enures to their benefit as the sale component increases with increase in
number of rehab tenements. This is a reason why in usual course,
Developers do not question eligibility of any slum dwellers and the dispute
relating to eligibility usually arises between two contesting slum dwellers.
In the present case, Respondent No.2 has chosen to question the eligibility
of Petitioner when no other family member or other person has questioned
her eligibility.
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
20) However, what must be borne in mind is the fact that
Petitioner No.2 was held eligible in Annexure-II prepared on 1 June 2005.
Respondent No.2 acquired knowledge of her eligibility on 1 June 2005. It
maintained silence for over 12 years and did not question her eligibility
until it filed Appeal before the Additional Collector on 16 December 2017.
Respondent No.2 thus acquiesced in Petitioner's eligibility. As observed
above, its plans were sanctioned and FSI was allotted after taking into
consideration Petitioner's eligibility. It has constructed the rehab tenement
for the purpose of accommodating Petitioner, whose eligibility was
sustained for over 12 years. In such circumstances, Respondent No.2
cannot be permitted to take a volte-face and question eligibility of the
Petitioner having not questioned the same for over 12 years and having
implemented the slum scheme on a premise of her eligibility. The locus of
Respondent No.2 needs to be considered in the light of the above position
as well. Therefore, Respondent No.2 was not justified in questioning
Petitioner's eligibility by filing Appeals before the Additional Collector and
GRC.
21) Coming to the merits of GRC's decision, it appears that the
GRC was mainly swayed by the fact that Petitioner's husband is held
eligible in respect of a separate slum scheme at Prem Nagar SRA CHS.
GRC has held in para-7 of the order as under :-
7. After considering the documents of respondent No.1 and appellant,
it is seen that it is a case of breach of the basic rules of residential
rehabilitation of the spouse as incorporated in clause III of DCR 33
(10) of Development Control Regulation, 1991. The respondent No.1
has kept a complete mum about her husband's eligibility declared in
this scheme. Considering said basic rule as applicable to the spouses,
there is no defence avaliable to her, which seems to be the reason of
her silence on that aspect. No document is capable of overturning said
basic rule applicable to the spouses. Once her husband is held eligible
for residential rehabilitation, she is not entitled for independent
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
residential eligibility in any scheme as she is automatically entitled for
joint residential rehabilitation with her husband viz. Mr. Prakash
Vitthal Kamble. Provision of transit accommodation in Hanuman
Nagar Society, has not entitled her for independent residential
eligibility. In fact, no amount of document or case, would make her
entitle for another residential rehabilitation in this scheme or in any
other scheme in her lifetime in view of conjoint application of above
basic rule of clause III of Appendix IV read with the another basic
rule that when a person is given rehabilitation in any scheme, he/ she
is not entitled for any further rehabilitation under this Act. Therefore,
she cannot claim any further rehabilitation, neither in her own name
nor through the name of any other person. It is very much clear from
the consideration of the documents brought on record by the appellant
that this respondent No.1 has wrongly obtained independent
residential eligibility when her husband was already made eligible for
residential rehabilitation in adjoining scheme i.e. Pram Nagar SRA
CHSL. Thus, the eligibility of respondent No.1 in Hanuman Nagar
SRA CHSL. having been obtained in breach of the basic rules of
rehabilitation, is liable to be cancelled.
22) No doubt in ordinary circumstances, husband and wife cannot
be held eligible in respect of two separate slum structures. The objective
behind implementation of slum scheme is to ensure clearance of slum
through rehabilitation of slum area. The objective is to ensure that eligible
slum dwellers are rehoused. The objective is not to recognise title or
ownership in respect of multiple structures by slum dwellers and their
family members. A slum scheme is implemented with a view to ensure that
slum dwellers are not dishoused and are provided a rehab tenement.
However, in the present case, Petitioner claims eligibility qua slum
structure located in Hanuman Nagar SRA CHS towards inheritance right
from her father in accordance with Circular No.152 dated 5 June 2015.
The said Circular recognises right of inheritance in respect of eligible slum
structure. She was declared eligible way back in 2005. It appears that her
husband is separately declared eligible on 23 January 2003 in Annexure-II
prepared for Prem Nagar SRA CHS. In a given case, it may happen that a
daughter inherits right in respect of the slum structure on death of her
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
father and merely because she gets married to a person who is also eligible
in another slum scheme, whether independent right of a daughter would
automatically get destroyed only by virtue of her marriage with another
eligible slum dweller is a question which needs to be decided in an
appropriate case. For the present case, it is not necessary to delve deeper
into this aspect considering the unique facts and circumstances of the
present case. There is no contest between any two competing parties
claiming rights in respect of the slum structure. In the present case, the
contest is raised by the Developer who is otherwise beneficiary of a
declaration of eligibility of the Petitioner.
23) Considering the above position, this Court is of the view that
the GRC has grossly erred in entertaining and allowing the Appeal
preferred by Respondent No.2. The Appeal itself was inherently defective.
It was hopelessly barred by limitation. No justification worth name was
pleaded in the application for condonation of delay. Infact, GRC was
misled to believe that the Appeal was preferred challenging 'decision'
dated 31 January 2019, though the said letter dated 31 January 2019 had
merely returned the Appeal to Respondent No.2 for being presented before
the GRC. The GRC has ignored the position that Respondent No.2 has
taken benefit of eligibility of the Petitioner while implementation of Slum
Scheme and has later turned around to question the eligibility only when
occasion arrived for handing over possession of allotted rehab tenement
No. 701. The GRC ought to have appreciated the position that based on
Petitioner's eligibility vide Annexure-II dated 1 June 2005, a rehab
tenement has been constructed while implementing the subject Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. If the said rehab tenements is not allotted to the
Petitioner, the Respondent No.2-developer may deal with the same. Thus,
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
a rehab tenement constructed for Petitioner, would be sold to a third pray
on account of belated challenge raised by Respondent No. 2.
24) It also appears that though Petitioner's husband is held
eligible in Annexure-II prepared for Prem Nagar SRA CHS in the year
2003, the said slum scheme is yet to be completed. It is not that the family
of the Petitioner has received possession of another rehab tenement. On
the other hand, the family would have received possession of Rehab
Tenement No. 701 in the year 2017. The impugned order of the GRC has
resulted in a situation where the family continues to languish in a slum and
is deprived of rehabilitation, though Petitioner was declared eligible on
1 June 2005.
25) The impugned order passed by the GRC is thus indefensible
and liable to be set aside. The petition accordingly succeeds, and I proceed
to pass the following order :-
(I) Order dated 18 July 2019 passed by GRC in Appeal
No.201/2019 is set aside.
(II) Immediate steps shall be taken for handing over possession of
Rehab Tenement No.701 in Rehabilitation Building No.5 to
the Petitioner within the outer limit of 2 months.
26) With the above directions, the petition is allowed. Rule is
made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
16 September 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-3410-2020-FC
27) After the order is pronounced, the learned Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.2 prays for stay of the order for a period of four weeks.
The request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
Considering the reasons adopted while allowing the petition, I am not
inclined to stay the order. The request is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
16 September 2025
