Dismissed¶29

Yadav Nagar Sra Chs through Its Chief Promoter Madhukar Jyoti Belekar v. the Assistant Municipal Commissioner G/South Ward and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2025WP/2039/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Slum rehabilitation; Annexure-II; SRA; BMC Mumbai; Yadav Nagar SRA CHS; 221 vs 63 huts; biometric survey 18.07.2017; videography; demolition of 158 structures for transit camp; eligibility verification; fresh draft Annexure-II 19.05.2018; cancellation and reverification 20.03.2019; site inspection 05.06.2021; Article 226 writ dismissed; G/South Ward; Assistant Municipal Commissioner; Colony Officer affidavits (Mahendra Pawar 20.07.2022; Sameer Tambe 23.10.2024).

What did the court decide?

The Petitioners failed to establish the basis on which their huts were demolished for the transit camp. ¶28

Yadav Nagar Sra Chs through Its Chief Promoter… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ under Article 226 should issue compelling the Respondent-Municipal Corporation to forthwith finalize and issue Annexure-II in respect of 221 members of the proposed Petitioner Society. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

There are no merits in the Petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioners failed to establish the basis on which their huts were demolished for the transit camp.

¶28

Key takeaways

In the absence of the huts, survey and identification cannot be conducted and thus eligibility and authenticity cannot be ascertained.ratio¶28
The Court found no reason to disbelieve the statements made by the concerned Officers of Respondent-BMC.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.2039 of 2024, decided 10 February 2025 (A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.) — A proposed slum rehabilitation society (Yadav Nagar SRA CHS) on land owned by the Municipal Corporation sought a writ under Article 226 compelling BMC to forthwith finalize and issue Annexure-II for 221 members. The draft Annexure-II dated 12.10.2017 had shown 221 structures/huts with a finalized map; after numerous complaints, a fresh draft Annexure-II of 221 slum dwellers was published on 19.05.2018. Documents showed 188 of 221 huts eligible and 33 ineligible, but 158 huts did not exist on the original plot and only 63 huts were found on inspection. The biometric survey/videography of 18.07.2017 (noticed by letter dated 11.07.2017) found only 63 huts; the Society and Developer by letters dated 14.07.2017 and 02.08.2017 admitted 158 slum structures had been demolished by the Developer for the transit camp. After complaints, the provisional Annexure-II was cancelled and re-examination ordered on 20.03.2019; a site inspection on 05.06.2021 again identified 63 huts, and Annexure-II for the 63 dwellers was submitted to the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) on 16.07.2021. Held: the Petitioners failed to establish the basis on which their huts were demolished for the transit camp; in the absence of the huts, survey, identification, eligibility and authenticity cannot be ascertained; no reason to disbelieve the BMC officers' statements. Petition dismissed.

¶1

sns 38-oswp-2039-2024 (F).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2039 OF 2024

¶5

Yadav Nagar SRA CHS … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Assistant Municipal Commissioner, G/South Ward & Ors. … Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Adv. Amey Sawant for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. S.V. Tondwalkar, Adv. K.H. Mastakar i/by Adv. Komal Punjabi for Respondent No.1-BMC. Mr. Anoop Patil for Respondent No.2-SRA. Mr. Dattatray B. Wandre, Colony Officer, G/W Ward, present.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 10^th February 2025.

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1. Petitioner – a proposed slum rehabilitation Society situated on the

¶12

plot of land admittedly owned by Respondent-Municipal Corporation, has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a Writ to compel the Respondent – Municipal Corporation to forthwith finalize and issue Annexure-II in respect of 221 members of the proposed Petitioner Society.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr.

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date: 2025.02.21 10:00:28 +0530

¶15

1/4

¶16

sns 38-oswp-2039-2024 (F).doc

¶17

Chavan learned Senior counsel for Respondent No.1-Corporation and Mr. Patil learned Advocate appearing for the SRA. Perused entire record produce before us.

¶18

It is the contention of the Petitioner that, in the draft Annexure-II dated 12^th October, 2017 totally 221 structures/huts were shown. Accordingly, apart from the list of hutment dwellers, a map was also finalized by the concerned competent Authority.

¶19

Later, the competent Authority of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 informed the Petitioner that only 63 structures and not 221 were there at the suit site and accordingly only they would be entitled to the slum scheme. Aggrieved by this reduction in the number of slum dwellers, the Petitioner filed the present Petition.

¶20

Perusal of record indicates that, in draft Annexure-II dated 12^th October, 2017 names of 221 persons of the hutment dwellers were shown, but subsequently, the concerned Authority of Corporation received numerous complaints regarding the eligibility of the slum dwellers whose names have been incorporated in draft Annexure-II. Thus, a fresh draft Annexure-II of 221 slum dwellers was published on 19^th May, 2018 as stated in the Affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Pawar, Colony Officer of RespondentCorporation dated 20^th July 2022. According to the documents submitted by hutment dwellers/owners in the said draft Annexure-II out of 221 huts 188 huts were being eligible and 33 huts were being ineligible. But out of 221

¶21

2/4

¶22

sns 38-oswp-2039-2024 (F).doc

¶23

huts 158 huts did not exist on the original plot and only 63 huts were found on inspection of the land.

¶24

In an additional Affidavit dated 23^rd October 2024, Mr. Sameer Tambe, Colony Officer, G/South Ward has stated that, in accordance with the procedure, letter dated 11^th July, 2017 was issued to the Petitioner informing it that the biometric survey of the slum dwellers of Petitioner Society i.e. Yadav Nagar slum dwellers and videography of it would be conducted on 18^th July, 2017. That, during the biometric survey and videography the Respondent No.1-BMC found that, there existed only 63 huts at Yadav Nagar site. The Society and the Developer vide their letters dated 14^th July, 2017 and 2^nd August, 2017 informed the Respondent No.1 that, 158 slum structures were already demolished by the Developer for the purpose of construction of transit camp. In paragraph No.12 categorical averment is made that, the Respondent No.1 subsequently received several complaints and objections regarding the provision Annexure-II published and accordingly the then Competent Authority cancel the provisional Annexure-II and Ordered reexamination and reverification of provisional (draft ) Annexure -II on 20^th March, 2019. A site inspection was conducted on June 5, 2021, during which a total of 63 huts were identified. Consequently, Annexure-II, documenting the 63 slum dwellers, was prepared and submitted to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) on July 16, 2021. The affiant further asserted that since 158

¶25

3/4

¶26

sns 38-oswp-2039-2024 (F).doc

¶27

structures were not at site an Annexure – II could not be issued.

¶28

Perusal on record indicates that the Petitioners have failed to establish the basis on which their huts were demolished for the transit camp. Moreover, the Annexure – II relied upon by the Respondent No.1 clearly indicates that most of the petitioner’s members were ineligible. Nearly 158 hutments were demolished. In the absence of the huts, survey and identification cannot be conducted and thus eligibility and authenticity cannot be ascertained. We find no reason to disbelieve the statements made by the concerned Officers of Respondent-BMC.

¶29

Accordingly, we are of the considered view that, there are no merits in the Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶30

(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

¶31

4/4

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Draft Annexure-II dated 12 October 2017 showed a total of 221 structures/huts; apart from the list of hutment dwellers, a map was finalized by the concerned competent authority.¶18
Prior proceeding
Competent authority of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 informed the Petitioner that only 63 structures (and not 221) existed at the suit site and only those would be entitled to the slum scheme; aggrieved by this reduction, the Petitioner filed the present Petition.¶19
Prior proceeding
After the Corporation received numerous complaints regarding eligibility, a fresh draft Annexure-II of 221 slum dwellers was published on 19 May 2018, as stated in the affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Pawar, Colony Officer of Respondent-Corporation, dated 20 July 2022.¶20
Prior proceeding
As per documents submitted by hutment dwellers/owners in the said draft Annexure-II, out of 221 huts, 188 were eligible and 33 were ineligible.¶20
Prior proceeding
However, 158 of the 221 huts did not exist on the original plot; only 63 huts were found on inspection of the land.¶23
Prior proceeding
By letter dated 11 July 2017 the Petitioner was informed that biometric survey and videography of the Yadav Nagar slum dwellers would be conducted on 18 July 2017; during the survey, Respondent No.1-BMC found only 63 huts at the Yadav Nagar site.¶24
Prior proceeding
The Society and the Developer, by letters dated 14 July 2017 and 2 August 2017, informed Respondent No.1 that 158 slum structures had already been demolished by the Developer for construction of the transit camp.¶24
Prior proceeding
After several complaints and objections regarding the published Annexure-II, the then Competent Authority cancelled the provisional Annexure-II and ordered re-examination and reverification of the provisional (draft) Annexure-II on 20 March 2019 (additional affidavit of Mr. Sameer Tambe, Colony Officer, G/South Ward, dated 23 October 2024).¶24
Prior proceeding
Site inspection conducted on 5 June 2021 identified a total of 63 huts.¶24
Prior proceeding
Annexure-II documenting the 63 slum dwellers was prepared and submitted to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (Estates) on 16 July 2021.¶24
Prior proceeding
The affiant (Mr. Sameer Tambe) asserted that since 158 structures were not at the site, an Annexure-II could not be issued.¶27

Yadav Nagar Sra Chs through Its Chief Promoter Madhukar Jyoti Belekar v. the Assistant Municipal Commissioner G/South Ward and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadav Nagar Sra Chs through Its Chief Promoter Madhukar Jyoti Belekar v. the Assistant Municipal Commissioner G/South Ward and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jayashree Raghuvanshi and 15 Ors. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 8 Ors.

Pinto Babu Sham vs Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (Mhada)

Sadguru Ventures Private Limited vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Manish Bhanushakar Dave vs Ravilakshmi Bhanushankar Dave and 7 Ors.

Treaty Construction vs the Commissioner, Mcgm and 6 Ors.

New Samrat Welfare Society vs Muncipil Corporaton of Greater Mumbai