Partly allowed

Dilip Trimbak Shirvale v. the Grievance Redressal Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2024WP/565/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner denied slum rehabilitation eligibility because occupancy documents were in the original occupant's name, not his. Court relied on the Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015 permitting subsequent occupants to establish eligibility via the original occupant's documents, quashed the adverse orders and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 31 March 2018 and 5 December 2019 quashed; petitioner permitted to file fresh claim within two weeks to be decided per GR dated 16 May 2015.

Dilip Trimbak Shirvale Vs the Grievance Redressal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

rrpillai

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 565 OF 2023

¶4

Dilip Trimbak Shirvale

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Grievance Redressal … Respondents

¶8

Committee Slum Rehabilitation

¶9

Authority and Others

¶10

Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶12

DATE : 21^st FEBRUARY 2024

¶13

P.C.

¶14

This petition is filed for challenging the order passed by the

¶15

competent authority rejecting the petitioners’ claim for eligibility for getting permanent alternative accommodation and the order passed by the Grieviance Redressal Committee (“GRC”) dismissing the petitioners’ appeal.

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶17

was held ineligible as there were no documents produced showing

¶18

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date: 2024.02.27 11:35:04 +0530

¶19

1/5

¶20

RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI

¶21

 41-WP-565-2023.docx

¶22

occupancy of the petitioner prior to 1^st January 2000. He submitted that the petitioner is claiming through original holder who had occupied the structure since 1995. He further submitted that since the petitioner was put in possession pursuant to a document executed by the original occupant on 21^st July 2007, the relevant documents to be considered were with reference to the occupancy of the original holder.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Government Resolution dated 16^th May 2015 which permits the subsequent occupant to be eligible, if the structure is in existence prior to the cut-off date. He submits that though the said resolution was not specifically relied upon before the competent authority or before the GRC, the petitioner is protected pursuant to the said Government Resolution. He submits that there are sufficient documents to show that predecessor of the petitioner was in occupation prior to the cut-off date.

¶24

He therefore, submits that the proceedings be remanded back to the competent authority for deciding the petitioners’ claim afresh based on the documents of the original occupant and the GR dated 16^th May 2015.

¶25

2/5

¶26

 41-WP-565-2023.docx

¶27

Learned AGP does not dispute that there is a Government Resolution which permits the subsequent occupant to claim eligibility for the structure which is in existence prior to the cut-off date. He however, submitted that the petitioner had not pressed his claim on the said GR and hence, it was not considered by the competent authority. He submitted that the competent authority rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner as there were no documents produced in support of the claim of the petitioner.

¶28

Respondent no. 4 is the Co-operative Housing Society and respondent no. 5 is the developer. Though the said respondents are served they are not represented in the petition.

¶29

Considering the claim of the petitioner based on the GR dated 16^th May 2015 and the supporting documents claimed in the name of the original occupant this petition can be disposed of finally in absence of respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶30

Hence, the petition was taken up for final disposal.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

¶32

3/5

¶33

 41-WP-565-2023.docx

¶34

for the petitioner and the learned AGP. I have perused the record of the petition. It is not in dispute that the GR dated 16^th May 2015 relied upon by the petitioner permits a subsequent occupant to claim eligibility based on the documents of the original occupant. The petitioner has based his claim by taking support of the documents in the name of the original holder who has transferred the structure in the name of the petitioner.

¶35

The competent authority as well as the GRC has rejected the petitioners’ claim on the ground that the petitioner was unable to produce any documents to show that he had occupied the structure prior to the cut-off date. Since the petitioner is claiming eligibility based on the aforesaid GR, it will be appropriate to remit the matter back to the competent authority for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh based on the GR dated 16^th May 2015. The petitioner will be at liberty to rely upon the documents in the name of the original ocupant to support his claim of eligibility.

¶36

Hence the petition is partly allowed by passing the following order :

¶37

4/5

¶38

 41-WP-565-2023.docx

¶39

(i) Impugned orders dated 31^st March 2018 passed by respondent no. 2 and order dated 5^th December 2019 passed by respondent no. 1 are quashed and set aside.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner is permitted to file fresh claim application before respondent no. 3 within a period of two weeks from today.

¶41

(iii) Respondent no. 3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner based on Government Resolution dated 16^th May 2015 in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned order.

¶42

(iv) Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶43

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶44

5/5

Dilip Trimbak Shirvale v. the Grievance Redressal Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Trimbak Shirvale v. the Grievance Redressal Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rayat Shikshan Sanstha Vs Sau. Kamal Dattatrya Javir and Anr.

Rajesh Kashinath Gupta and Anr. Vs Kashinath Rajaram Gupta and Ors.

Tukaram Sakharam Utekar and Ors. Vs Keshav Sakharam Utekar and Ors.

Lalchandra Badriprasad Tiwari Vs Deputy Registrar of Co-Op. Societies and Ors.

Shri. Prabhakar Gopalrao Kore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Dairy, Animal Husbandry and Fishery and Ors.

Umakant Laxman Bhende Vs Dist. Dy. Reg. Co-Op. Soc. (3), Mumbai and Ors.