[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mohammed Yusuf Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 18 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:13415
20-wp10130-13 with connected matters Final.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10130 OF 2013
Shezar Bismillah Khan ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10131 OF 2013
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10132 OF 2013
Adv. H.S. Anand a/w N. Khan for the petitioner.
Mrs. Mamta Srivastava, AGP, for the State -
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in WP No. 10130 of 2013.
Mrs. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State - Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 in WP No. 10131 of 2013.
Mr. Hamid D. Mulla, AGP, for the State - Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 in WP No. 10132 of 2013.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 18, 2026
P.C.:
1. Since all these writ petitions arise from almost identical
background and raise similar questions of law as well as fact, it is
considered proper to decide them together by a common order.
2. The challenge in the present writ petitions is directed against
the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan
Division. By the said orders, the Divisional Commissioner
entertained appeals under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
20-wp10130-13 with connected matters Final.doc
and passed the impugned directions affecting the rights of the
present petitioners. According to the petitioners, the orders under
challenge overlook relevant material placed before the authorities
and therefore call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
3. In order to establish their eligibility, the petitioners relied
upon several documents before the authorities. Among these
documents, particular reliance was placed on the photo pass issued
prior to the year 1995. The petitioners submitted that such photo
passes were issued by the competent authorities under the
prevailing policy to identify and protect occupants of slum
structures. Apart from the said photo pass, the petitioners also
relied upon other supporting documents indicating their
occupation of the concerned structures. It is also relevant that by
subsequent Government Notifications dated 16 May 2015 and 16
May 2018, the State Government clarified and fixed the cut off
date for determining eligibility of a slum dweller. As per these
notifications, a person who was in occupation of a slum structure
prior to 1 January 2000 is to be considered eligible for protection
subject to verification of documents. In that background, the
petitioners contended that the photo passes issued prior to 1995
acquire considerable significance because such documents indicate
that the occupation of the petitioners existed well before the cut
off date now prescribed by the Government. Therefore, according
to the petitioners, these documents ought to have been carefully
examined while deciding their eligibility.
4. However, on careful perusal of the impugned orders, it
appears that though the authorities have made a reference to the
20-wp10130-13 with connected matters Final.doc
photo passes issued prior to 1995, the substance of those
documents has not been examined. A mere reference to a
document cannot be treated as proper consideration of that
document. The record indicates that the authorities noted the
existence of the photo passes, yet there is no discussion explaining
whether those documents were found genuine or insufficient or
irrelevant. Similarly, certain other documents produced by the
petitioners have been mentioned in the order. But again there is no
clear finding recorded on their evidentiary value. In matters
concerning eligibility of slum dwellers, documentary material
assumes importance because the determination largely depends
upon proof of occupation prior to the prescribed cut off date. In
the present case, that exercise appears to be absent.
5. For deciding the question of eligibility of a slum dweller, the
competent authority is required to undertake a examination of all
documents placed before it. Only after such scrutiny can the
authority reach a conclusion regarding eligibility. In the present
matters, since the authorities have not evaluated the documents
produced by the petitioners in the required manner, the
determination of eligibility remains incomplete. In such situation,
the proper course is to permit the competent authority to
reconsider the matter afresh. Therefore, the impugned orders
passed by the first authority as well as the appellate authority
cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. The proceedings
are accordingly remitted to the competent authority under the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971, which is empowered under the statute
20-wp10130-13 with connected matters Final.doc
to determine the eligibility of a slum dweller.
6. The authority shall then examine the material produced and
record clear findings on each relevant document before arriving at
a final conclusion regarding eligibility.
7. It is further clarified that if the ultimate order passed by the
competent authority is adverse to the petitioners, the effect of such
order shall not be implemented for a period of six weeks from the
date on which the order is served upon the petitioners.
8. With these directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
