Jayshree Sadashiv Shinde Nee Sakshee Swapnil Medekar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Govenrment Pleader

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to Appeal No. 96 of 2023 and upon considering the same, be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 10th October 2024 (Exhibit "A" hereto) passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (Mumbai City) in Appeal No. 96 of 2023 filed under the provisions of Section 35(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971 and the impugned Order dated 14th August 2023 (Exhibit "B" hereto) passed by the Additional Collector and Appellate Officer, Mumbai City under the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Rehabilitation) Act, 1971;

¶16

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the Petitioner with regards to eligibility for rehabilitation afresh on its own merits;

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

Laxmi

¶19

This order is modified as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 11^th December 2025.

¶20

305 WPL 23622-25 SPEAKING.DOC

¶21

(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No. 3 or Respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the representation dated 30^th May, 2025, addressed by the Petitioner, with regards to eligibility for rehabilitation, in a time bound manner on its own merits.

¶22

(d) for costs of this Petition be provided;

¶23

(e) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances may require.”

¶24

The Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 10^th October 2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Grievance Redressal Committee (Mumbai City) in Appeal No. 96 of 2023 filed under the provisions of Section 35(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Slum Act”) and the impugned Order dated 19^th June 2023 (Exhibit "B" hereto) passed by Respondent No.3-the Additional Collector and Appellate Officer, Mumbai City under the provisions of Section 35(1) of the Slum Act. By the said orders, the Petitioner has been held ineligible in Annexure-II dated 2^nd November 2022 published by Respondent No.4- Deputy Collector (Encroachment and Removal) in respect of B.D.D. Chawl Nos. 3 to 6, 11 to 15 and 30, N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

¶25

The only ground on which the Petitioner has been held ineligible in Annexure-II was on account of non submission of a documentary proof thereto showing the existence of his hut/tenement prior to 1^st January 2000. It is the Petitioner’s contention that post rejection of her Appeals by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide orders dated 19^th June 2023 and 10^th October 2024, the Petitioner visited the office of the Deputy Collector i.e. Respondent No.4 and upon making inquiries, the

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Laxmi

¶28

This order is modified as per speaking to the minutes of the order dated 11^th December 2025.

¶29

305 WPL 23622-25 SPEAKING.DOC

¶30

Petitioner was informed by the Office of Respondent No.4 that a record of the Petitioner’s hut/tenement being included and verified in the slum survey which was carried out on 21^st July 2000 was available in the said office. The Petitioner applied for a copy of the said record and was provided with a copy of the receipt bearing No. 39560 dated 31^st July 2000 issued by Respondent No.4 certifying that the hut/tenement of the Petitioner was duly surveyed on 21^st July 2000. In pursuance of the aforesaid record available with the office of Respondent No.4, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 30^th May 2025 to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 requesting them to review the case of the Petitioner in the light of subsequently discovered documents/record. This letter/representation dated 30^th May 2025 is pending consideration/decision before Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶31

The grievance of the Petitioner is that such letter/representation needs to be taken to its logical conclusion and the same therefore ought to be looked into and decided in an expeditious manner as the law would mandate. Delay in deciding the said representation/letter is causing grave prejudice to the rights of the Petitioner.

¶32

In view of the limited reliefs prayed by the Petitioner in the present Petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the Respondents and considering the nature of the orders which we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of justice:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34