Mrs. Smita Dattatraya Rane vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

By the present Petition, the Petitioner is seeking to challenge the order dated 8^th June 2005 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in Appeal No.794/2005. The Petitioner also seeks other consequential reliefs in respect of providing the Petitioner permanent alternate accommodation in the nearby vicinity, allowing the Petitioner to reconstruct the structure being room No.206-B, situated at CTS No.1319 part, Survey No.139, Four Bungalows, Versova Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400 053.

Heard Ms.Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.Kakade, learned Additional Government Pleader for the State and Mr.Aradwad-Reddy for Respondent No.2.

Rule in this Petition was issued on 28^th September 2026.

It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s structure i. e. room No.206-B, situated at CTS No.1319 part, Survey No.139, Four Bungalows, Versova Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400 053 was in existence prior to the year 1982 and that the said structure was declared as a part of the slum. That, since the year 1979, the Petitioner is using the said structure for the purpose of her residence. According the Petitioner, the structure consisted of a room admeasuring 16 x10 ft. and kitchen admeasuring 6.5 x 5 ft. It is the case of the Petitioner that the structure was just adjacent to or there was a common wall in between the room and Andheri Kamgar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society.

The Petitioner vide letter dated 6^th September 1985 had applied to the Deputy Collector (Encroachment), Andheri-Bandra, Mumbai seeking regularization of the subject structure. The Deputy Collector (Encroachment) vide letter dated 11^th June 1985 directed the Petitioner to approach the Controller (Slums), Bombay and Suburban. That, on 21^st August 1985, the Tahasildar (Encroachment), Andheri-II issued the notice under section 50(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 seeking removal of the structure.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that, initiatives were taken to develop the said slum area under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (for short “SRA Scheme’). A Plan was approved by the concerned Authority and the Annexure-II was prepared. Although the Petitioner was staying in the said structure since 1979, the Petitioner’s name was not reflected in the Annexure-II prepared by the Kamgar Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and the Officers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short “SRA”)

It is the case of the Petitioner that, the Electoral List/ Voters List of the State Legislative Assembly of the year 1985 reflects the name of the Petitioner and her husband at serial Nos.915 and 916. It is further contended that the Electoral List/ Voters List of the State Legislative Assembly of the year 1995 also reflects the names of the Petitioner and her husband at serial Nos.671 and 672. The said Voters Lists are annexed at Exh.F and Exh.F-1 to the Petition. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is protected as per the provisions of the Development Control Regulation 33(10) and entitled to an alternate accommodation under the SRA Scheme. That, the Petitioner holds an Election Identity Card. That, although the structure of the Petitioner was surveyed, the Petitioner's structure which is adjacent to room No.206 is not shown in the said Survey Map.

That, although the Petitioner has various documents evidencing her entitlement to the structure bearing No.206-B, the Petitioner’s name is not shown in the Annexure-II. While referring to the affidavit dated 17^th May 1996 filed by one Krishna S. Nirgun before the City Civil Court, who is the occupant of room No.205, the Petitioner submitted that the said Mr.Krishna Nirgun has specifically stated in the affidavit that the Petitioner’s structure was adjacent to her structure and was numbered as 206-B. The said Krishna Nirgun has further stated in the affidavit that the Petitioner was in occupation and possession of the said structure since the year 1982. The said Krishna Nirgun in his affidavit stated that the Petitioner’s structure was an independent structure.

It is the case of the Petitioner that, though the Petitioner submitted various documents such as Electoral List of Legislative Assembly for the years 1995, 1998, 2002, and 2004, her Election Identity Card, old Ration Card, and Slum Census Receipt dated 26^th November 1990, the SRA has not considered the said documents.

Per contra, Mr.Aradwad-Reddy appearing for Respondent No.2- SRA submitted that, the impugned order dated 8^th June 2005 has been passed after considering the documents submitted by the Petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. On behalf of Respondent No.2, it was submitted that, one Mr.Krishna S. Nirgun was found eligible in respect of room No.206-B as is mentioned in the Annexure-II to the said Scheme. It was submitted that, it is correctly recorded in the impugned order that no sufficient proof was produced by the Petitioner to show her independent stay in the alleged structure before 1^st November 1995. While referring to the suit filed by the Petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of SRA that, the structure of the Petitioner is an unauthorized extension to room No.206. This finding has been rendered by the City Civil Court in its order dated 20^th May 1996 passed in Notice of Motion (Stamp) No.2901/1996 in S.C.Suit No.2697/1996. It is further submitted behalf of SRA that, the documents which were produced by the Petitioner i.e. Electoral Rolls clearly indicate that as against room No.206-B, the names of four persons were shown. Out of the said persons, Mr.Krishna Nirgun has been allotted the said structure.

We have perused the entire record. Though the submissions made by the Petitioner, on the basis of the documents referred to by the Petitioner appear to be attention seeking at the first instance, a close scrutiny of the documents would indicate that the said documents do not clearly establish the right of the Petitioner or the fact that the said structure i.e. room No.206-B was an independent structure which formed part of the SRA Scheme. The perusal of the documents which the Petitioner relies upon would indicate that in certain places names of Krishna Nirgun, Petitioner and others were shown as against room No.206-B, whereas in some documents the name of Krishna Nirgun is shown as against room No.205. The documents are as under:

We have noted that in the order dated 20^th May 1996 passed in the Notice of Motion (Stamp) No.2901/1996 in S.C. Suit No.2697/1996 filed by the Petitioner, there is a specific observation, which reads as under:

The said suit was filed by the present Petitioner. After the ad-interim was refused, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal from Order bearing No.637/1996, which was dismissed vide order dated 6^th June 1996. By order dated 5^th August 2005, the Notice of Motion filled by the Petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as the Petitioner and her advocate remained absent during the hearing on at least for 7 occasions.

In this factual backdrop, if the impugned Order dated 8^th June 2005 is perused, it will be clear that the said order is a well reasoned order passed after considering the documents available on record. We find no reason to interfere with the said order dated 8^th June 2005. The claim of the Petitioner as far as it relates to including of her name in Annexure-II appears to be doubtful. From the material on record, it appears that the Petitioner's structure was an unauthorized extension to structure No.206. Once the Petitioner has failed to establish that she was in occupation of an independent structure, it is not possible for this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction to grant any relief to the Petitioner as payed for.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the claim of the Petitioner. In view thereof, Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

The Petitioner will be at liberty to take steps or raise her claim as against Krishna Nirgun and/or the allottee in respect of original structure No.206 by taking appropriate proceedings, if permissible and in accordance with law.