Smt. Ashalata Prabodh Kolhatkar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors

ORDER

¶1Appeal along with stay application is Dismissed.

¶2No Order as to cost." (Emphasis added)

¶4Mr. Jakhadi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied on several documents. He has produced the documents pertaining to the Petitioner as well as the documents of her father-in-law. The said charts giving particulars of the documents are as follows: DOCUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS Page Nos.

1.

20.11.1994 Copy of Voter ID Card

2.

26.12.1997 Copy of Gas Connection receipt 2-5

3.

31.12.2016 Copy of Electricity Bill 6-9

4.

01.01.1995 Copy of Voter list 10-11

5.

09.01.2018 Based on above Voter List Photo-pass has been issued to the Petitioner

6.

10.05.1994 Copy of old Ration Card 13-14 4 of 9

¶71998 Based on above Ration Card New Ration Card is issued 15-17 INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTS OF FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS Page Nos.

1.

20.11.1994 Copy of Voter ID Card

2.

25.09.1981 Copy of Gas Connection 19-22

3.

31.12.1988 Copy of Electricity Bill 23-24

4.

01.01.1995 Copy of Voter list 25-26

5.

22.06.2016 Based on above Voter List Photo-pass has been issued to father-in-law of the Petitioner

6.

10.05.1999 Copy of Ration Card (It is replaced with old Ration Card) 28-30 (Emphasis added)

¶5At the outset, it is signifcant to note that the G. R. dated 17.01.2008 specifes the documents which can be considered for deciding the eligibility. Clause (6) of the said G. R. specifcally provides that the ration card be not considered as evidence for deciding the eligibility. The said G.R. specifes that inter alia the entries in the Voters list, telephone bill, electricity bill can be taken into consideration.

¶6As far as the documents of father-in-law are concerned, it is an admitted position that slum structure in his name i.e. slum structure No.145 has been held eligible. It is the 5 of 9

complaint of the Society that father-in-law of the Petitioner i.e. Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar has divided the said slum structure in two parts and created certain documents to show that the Petitioner is having an independent slum structure to get undue advantage of two rehab premises in the said slum scheme.

¶7It is an admitted position that the Petitioner married on

17.02.1992 Mr. Pramod Kolhatkar i. e. son of Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar, original slum dweller. The voter identity card dated

20.11.1994 is issued in favour of the Petitioner showing the address as 'Bhola Bhaiya Chawl Almeda Road, Nuribaba, Thane'. Therefore, the said voter identity card is of no assistance to the Petitioner, as no specifc address is mentioned in the voter identity card. As far as the gas connection receipt is concerned, same is dated 26.12.1997 and name of the consumer is mentioned as that of the Petitioner. However, the address shown is "Bhola Bhaiya Chawl, Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Thane - 400 601". Thus, the said Gas connection Receipt is also of no assistance, as no specifc address is mentioned on it.

¶8The main crucial document produced by the Petitioner is the Application dated 27.12.2016 fled by the Petitioner for the purpose of obtaining an electricity connection 6 of 9

which shows address as "Room No. 146, Bhola Bhaiya Chawl, Almeda Road, Chandanwadi, Pachpakhadi, Thane (W) – 400 602". The said Application is dated 27.12.2016. Thus, the same will not show the existence of the slum structure of the Petitioner since 1992, as claimed by the Petitioner or even before the cut off date.

¶9The reliance is also placed on the photocopy of voters list. The said voters list is of the year 1995. In the said voters list at Sr. No. 569 name of the Petitioner's father-in-law i. e. "Kolhatkar Dinkar Shankar" is shown and from Sr. Nos. 570 to 576, names of his family members are shown. The said entries are as follows:- dksYgVdj fnudj 'kadj iq-50 dksYgVdj lqfurk fnudj L=h 45 dksYgVdj fxjh"k fnudj iq-35 dksYgVdj izcks/k fnudj iq-25 dksYgVdj fouk fxjh"k L=h 25 dksYgVdj vk'kkyrk izcks/k L=h 23 dksYgVdj vrqu fnudj iq-21 dksYgVdj lqizHkk fnudj L=h 19 However, the above entries do not show existence of two separate slum structures. It is an admitted position that on the basis of said voters list, a photo pass has been issued in favour of the Petitioner's father-in-law i. e. Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar. The 7 of 9

Petitioner has also relied on photo pass. However, the said photo pass has been issued on 09.01.2018. Thus the said photo pass is not relevant for deciding the existence of separate slum structure apart from the slum structure of the Petitioner's father-in-law which has been held eligible.

¶10The Petitioner has also relied on a ration card which is on page Nos. 130 to 134. However as per the above G.R. ration card is not to be taken into consideration for deciding the eligibility. In any case, the address as mentioned in the ration card is "Bhola Bhaiya Estate, Chandanwadi, Opposite Shiv Sena Shakha". Thus the same does not prove the existence of the separate slum structure.

¶11The main crucial document for deciding the eligibility in this case is the electricity bill. However, same clearly shows that the Application for electricity connection was submitted on

27.12.2016. Thus, the same will not show the existence of the slum structure of the Petitioner since 1992, as claimed by the Petitioner or even before the cut off date.

¶12After taking into consideration the above documents, both the authorities have held that same do not show the existence of the two separate slum structures. Both the Authorities have taken a possible view of the matter. In fact the view taken by the 8 of 9

Authorities is the only view which can be taken on the basis of the material on record.

¶13Thus, this is not a case where any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

¶14In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) 9 of 9

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 2023 Smt. Ashalata Prabodh Kolhatkar .Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .Respondents Mr. Ajit N. Jakhadi a/w. Mr. Amol Anant Chile, Advocate, for the Petitioner Mr. A. B. Chate, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP, for the Respondent – State Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w. Ms. Ashwini Jadhav, Advocate, for Respondent No. 4 Mr. Abhishek Karnik i/b. Ms. Leena Patil, Advocate, for Respondent No. 5 Mr. Sandeep Mishra, Advocate, for Respondent No. 6 CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 22.12.2023 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Jakhadi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Chate, learned Additional GP along with Ms. Bhende, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent – State, Mr. Aradwad (Reddy), learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4, Mr. Karnik, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the Grievance Redressal 1 of 9 Committee, Thane city in Appeal No. SR-2 of 2019. By the said Order dated 15.10.2019 the Appeal bearing Appeal/SRA/SR-46 of 2018 fled by the Petitioner against the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Additional Collector and Appellate Authority, Thane is rejected. By the said Order dated 22.11.2018, Annexure – II dated 03.06.2017 is confrmed. By the said Annexure – II, the case of the Petitioner's father-in-law – Mr. Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar is considered and he has been held eligible for the non- residential premises. In the said Annexure-II, it has been specifcally held that certain slum structures are divided into two and therefore, such divided structures are ineligible for additional rehab premises as the same is only single slum structure. The Petitioner's structure given as Sr. No. 146 has accordingly is not held eligible. The Additional Collector in the Order dated 22.11.2018 recorded that Respondent No. 5 – Society has made complaint regarding the division of slum structures by certain slum dwellers and accordingly after verifcation, it is found that about 30 slum structures are divided into two parts including the structure of the Petitioner's father-in-law. 3. Accordingly, the Appeal has been dismissed by the Additional Collector. The said Order is challenged before the Grievance Redressal Committee, Thane city. The Grievance 2 of 9 Redressal Committee, Thane city while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner has observed in paragraph 10 as follows: "10. The suit premise is adjacent to the hut belonging to Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar who is father-in- law of the Appellant. The said Kolhatkar made gift deed in favour of Appellant and transferred Suit premises in the name of Appellant. Therefore, there is every possibility of Appellant residing with her father-in-law Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar and thereby the Appellants name came to be recorded in voting roll for the year 1995 and also Election Card No. MT/10/053/029140 dated 20/11/1994 came to be issued at the address of Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar i. e. room No. 145 which is declared eligible in Annexure-2 issued by Respondent No. 2 Deputy Collector and Competent Authority Thane-1. The documents of possession submitted by Appellant in respect of suit premises are of recent period i. e. after 1/1/2000. The Appellant has submitted Electricity Bill of MSDC dated 13/12/2015 and photo pass No. 28530 dated 03/01/2018 issued by Thane Municipal Corporation. This fact does not prove the existence of suit premises since 1992 as claimed by the Appellant. It appears that to claim the beneft Slum Rehabilitation scheme the Appellant along with other Hut Holders have newly constructed their respective huts by putting partition in the original huts. The occupant of Hut No. 145 Shri Dinkar Shankar Kolhatkar is declared eligible in Annexure-2. These facts are noticed by D