SAEED SHAH MOHD KHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                           wp11851-2018-J.doc


                   AGK
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.11851 OF 2018

                   Saeed Shah Mohd Khan                              … Petitioner

                                          Vs.

ATUL                    1. The State of Maharashtra
GANESH
KULKARNI                2. Grievance Redressal Committee
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
                        3. Additional Collector (Cnc/Rem) -
Date: 2026.10.09
12:38:18 +0530             Eastern Suburbs
                        4. Deputy Collector (Enc/Rem) and
                           the Competent Authority                   … Respondents



                   Mr. Raj K. Awasthi with Ms. Bushra Sayed and Mr. Yash
                   Mishra i/by Mr. Nitesh Acharya for the Petitioner.
                   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4-
                   State.



                                       CORAM                  : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                       RESERVED ON            : OCTOBER 5, 2026.

                                       PRONOUNCED ON          : OCTOBER 9, 2026

                   JUDGMENT:

                   1.      By the Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
                   Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the legality, validity
                   and correctness of the order dated 19 September 2026 passed by
                   the Grievance Redressal Committee in Appeal No. 925 of 2018. By




                                                      1
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


the said order, the Grievance Redressal Committee confirmed the
original order dated 11 January 2018 passed by the Competent
Authority under Section 3Z-1 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The
said order of the Competent Authority was earlier challenged
before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 10 of 2018. The
appeal was dismissed by order dated 25 May 2018.

2.    According to the Petitioner, the facts relevant for deciding
the Writ Petition are as follows. The premises of the Petitioner are
situated in a census slum area bearing Survey No. 8, Village Kurla,
Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District. The land is owned by the
State Government through the Collector, Mumbai Suburban
District. The premises in question are being used for commercial
purposes. The Petitioner is carrying on the business of hotel and
lodging in the name and style of Hotel Guest Inn Residency.
According to the Petitioner, there is no unauthorised construction
or encroachment made after 1 January 2000. As a precaution, the
Petitioner submitted an application dated 17 July 2018 before the
Competent Authority seeking regularisation of the said commercial
premises and undertaking to pay such charges as may be required
for that purpose.

3.    Mr. Awasthi, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted
that it is not the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner
constructed any part of the premises after 1 January 2000.
According to him, Respondent No. 4 has filed three affidavits and
has had sufficient opportunity to state his case on oath. However,
even in those affidavits, there is no clear statement that any part of



                                  2
                                                           wp11851-2018-J.doc


the structure was constructed after 1 January 2000. According to
the learned Advocate, such a finding or satisfaction is necessary
under   Section   3Z-1(1)      of   the     Maharashtra    Slum      Areas
(Improvement,     Clearance,    and       Redevelopment)     Act,    1971,
hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act", before an order for
demolition can be passed.

4.    Mr. Awasthi submitted that the impugned order dated 11
January 2018 does not record any satisfaction that any
construction was made after 1 January 2000. He submitted that
the limit of 500 sq. ft. relied upon by the Respondents is found in
Government Resolution No. Gavasu-1220/Pra.Kra.204(1)/Zopasu-
1 dated 11 July 2001 and not in the Slum Act. He submitted that
the State Government has not framed any rules under Section 46
for the purposes of Sections 3X and 3Y(1) of the Slum Act.
According to him, the four structures had become one structure
before the year 1998. He relied upon the Government Resolution
dated 16 May 2015 and submitted that the protection available
under that Resolution applies to the structure in question.

5.    Mr. Awasthi submitted that the Petitioner has never claimed
ownership of the land. Paragraph 3 of the Petition states that the
land belongs to the State Government through the Collector,
Mumbai Suburban District. According to him, the Petitioner claims
only the status of a protected occupier and does not claim title to
the land. Therefore, the question in the Petition is not as to who
owns the land. The question is whether the Competent Authority
had recorded the necessary satisfaction that any part of the
structure was constructed after 1 January 2000. According to the



                                    3
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


learned Advocate, Respondent No. 4 has not answered this
question. He submitted that the statement now made by the
Respondent that the land "is not a declared slum area/slum
scheme" is contrary to the order passed by the Competent
Authority. The impugned order was passed under Sections 3Z-1
and 3Z-2 of the Slum Act. These provisions form part of Chapter I-
B of the Slum Act. The office of the Respondent issued the
Petitioner's photo pass under Section 3Y. In paragraph 5 of the
Reply dated 10 August 2026, the Respondent has described the
document as a “Slum Identity Card (Photo-pass)”. It was submitted
that if the land is really outside the operation of the Slum Act, the
Competent Authority could not have exercised jurisdiction under
the Slum Act. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent cannot
rely upon the Slum Act for passing the order and at the same time
contend that the Slum Act has no application to the land. The
learned Advocate submitted that, in any event, paragraph 3 of the
Petition states that the premises are situated in a census slum on
Survey No. 8 of Village Kurla. The Grievance Redressal Committee
has described the property as CTS No. 213/4 of Village Kurla. The
Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015 applies to census
slums. The Respondent did not deny in his Reply dated 10 August
2026 that the premises are situated in a census slum. Such a
contention, according to the Petitioner, cannot be raised for the
first time in the third affidavit. The expression "Census Slum" is
defined under Section 2(1b) of the Slum Act, 1971. According to
the Petitioner, the structure standing in such census slum is
entitled to the protection available under the Slum Act.




                                  4
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


6.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that the documents described by the
Respondent as “Photo passes 2000 (No. 730460 dated 19 August
2000 and 0698019 dated 17 July 2000)” are not photo passes.
According to him, these documents are receipts relating to the
census survey conducted in the year 2000. The Respondent has
described document No. 0698019 as a “Zopadpati Gana Pavti” in
paragraph 4 of his affidavit. Receipt No. 0730460 dated 19 August
2000 stands in the name of Mozzam Ali Shah Mohd Khan, who
was one of the four occupants. The Petitioner submitted that he
has taken this position from the beginning. According to him, the
receipts were produced only to show that the four structures were
existing at the site when the survey was conducted in the year
2000. He never claimed receipt No. 0730460 as his own
document.

7.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that the so-called admission relied
upon by the Respondents is that four adjoining structures
belonging to four different persons had become one structure
before the year 1998 and that the hotel and lodging business had
been carried on in that structure since then. According to him, this
cannot be treated as an admission that the Petitioner constructed
anything after 1 January 2000. On the contrary, according to the
Petitioner, the statement shows that the structure was in existence
before that date. He submitted that the Grievance Redressal
Committee recorded this case in paragraph 5 of its order dated 19
September 2018. The learned Advocate submitted that the
statement of the Respondent referring to "height above 25 square
feet" shows that the affidavit has not been prepared with proper



                                 5
                                                     wp11851-2018-J.doc


care. He submitted that the Respondent has alleged that the
Petitioner breached the conditions of the photo pass by “not to
transfer and not to change the user”. According to the Petitioner,
no authority issued any notice to him for such alleged breach
during the last twenty years. He submitted that such alleged
breach is not a ground for demolition under Section 3Z-1.
According to him, Section 3Z-1 is concerned with construction
made after 1 January 2000. The learned Advocate submitted that
there has been no change in the nature of use of the premises. The
Petitioner's photo pass No. 30NELL000491 records the use as
(commercial). Hotel and lodging is a commercial use. He relied
upon the Government Resolution dated 11 July 2001, which,
according to him, classifies the use of premises into three
categories, namely residential, commercial or industrial, and
mixed use. According to the Petitioner, where the premises
continue to be used for commercial purposes, merely changing the
nature of the commercial activity does not amount to a change
from commercial use.

8.   As regards the allegation of transfer, Mr. Awasthi submitted
that the same Government Resolution provides for payment of
transfer charges. Paragraph 9 of the said Resolution provides for a
transfer fee of Rs. 10,000/- for a commercial structure of 225 sq.
ft. and Rs. 80/- per sq. ft. for additional area. According to him,
the Government policy allows transfer of a hutment on payment of
the prescribed charges. He submitted that the statement in
paragraph 16 of the Respondent's affidavit that an occupier can
never take over the structure of another photo pass holder is



                                 6
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


contrary to the Government Resolution relied upon by the
Respondent himself. In any event, according to the Petitioner,
transfer of a structure is different from construction of a structure.
Section 3Z-1 is concerned with construction after 1 January 2000
and not merely with transfer.

9.    Mr. Awasthi submitted that he accepts the Respondent's
description of Sections 3X(c) and 3Y(1) to (4), as those provisions
are part of the Act produced by the Petitioner as Exhibit RJ-2.
However, according to him, the Respondent has drawn an
incorrect conclusion in paragraph 10 by stating that “the photo-
passes were issued / verified by the SRA only once and never
reissued”. He submitted that Section 3Y(1) gives the power to
issue a photo pass to “the Government or any officer generally or
specially authorised by it”. The Respondent has not stated that the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority was authorised to issue photo passes
either in the year 2000 or in the year 2006. He has not stated
when or by which order such authority was conferred upon the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority. No such order has been produced.
According to the Petitioner, his photo pass bears the signature of
the Zonal Officer, 30 NE census zone, along with the seal of that
zone at page 138. The demand notice dated 27 March 2006,
produced as Exhibit RJ-5, was issued by the Deputy Collector
(Enc/Rem), Bandra Division. The Respondent admits in paragraph
17 that Exhibit RJ-5 was “issued by the encroachment Bandra”.
Thus, according to the Petitioner, the Government authorities of
that time had dealt with and acted upon his photo pass. The Slum
Rehabilitation Authority had not issued the same. The learned



                                  7
                                                          wp11851-2018-J.doc


Advocate submitted that Section 3Y(5) requires the Government to
maintain a Register of photo passes in the prescribed form.
According to him, the Respondent has not produced that Register
or even a single entry from it. Instead, reliance is placed only upon
a letter issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in August
2026. The Petitioner submitted that the Respondent should be
required to establish the statements made in paragraphs 10 and 11
by producing the Register maintained under Section 3Y(5). He
submitted that even the Respondent's own interpretation of
Section 3Y supports the Petitioner's case on the main issue.
According to the Respondent, a photo pass is issued to the occupier
of a dwelling structure "in existence on or prior to 1 January
2000". According to the Petitioner, this is the relevant cut-off date
under Chapter I-B. There is no separate cut off of 500 sq. ft. or 14
feet in the provisions of Chapter I-B.

10.    Mr. Awasthi submitted that the contention that the
Petitioner's photo pass was only for “225 square feet horizontally
and 14 square feet vertically” is a new contention and is contrary
to    the   record.   According   to     him,   the   photo   pass     No.
30NELL000491 records the area as 524 sq. ft. It records that the
Petitioner is eligible for rehabilitation up to 500 sq. ft. The column
relating to height "more than 14 feet" is ticked. The use is recorded
as commercial. He submitted that the impugned order dated 11
January 2018 protected an area of 500 sq. ft. The First Appellate
Authority and the Grievance Redressal Committee proceeded on
the basis of 500 sq. ft. Even the Respondent's own Reply dated 10
August 2026, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6, refers to 500 sq. ft.



                                   8
                                                         wp11851-2018-J.doc


However, in the third affidavit, the Respondent has reduced the
area to 225 sq. ft. by relying upon a letter issued by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority in the year 2026. The learned Advocate
submitted that the expression “14 square feet vertically” has no
proper meaning in the context of the record. The photo pass
records height in feet and the column “more than 14 feet” is
ticked. He submitted that an authority cannot improve or alter the
reasons for its earlier order by filing an affidavit. In support of this
submission, he relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952
SC 16, and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner,
(1978) 1 SCC 405, which are referred to in paragraph 19 of his
Affidavit dated 21 September 2026.

11.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that the Government records of the
year 2006 show the area of the Petitioner's unit as 514 sq. ft. and
524 sq. ft. The Grievance Redressal Committee has referred to the
Corporation's receipt dated 11 May 2006 as being "for the area of
514". The Corporation receipt No. 045266 dated 11 May 2006,
produced as Exhibit RJ-7, records an area of 524 sq. ft. against
survey form No. 0730458. The Respondent admits in paragraph 17
that these receipts were paid to the Corporation. According to the
Petitioner, in view of these Government records, the Respondent
cannot now contend that the Petitioner's unit was only 225 sq. ft.

12.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that during the hearing, the learned
Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions of Respondent No.
4, contended that the photo passes are maintained by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and that, by Notification dated 23 May



                                   9
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


2022 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has
jurisdiction over census slums. The learned Advocate submitted
that the said Notification is dated 23 May 2022. The survey of the
Petitioner's structure was conducted in the year 2000. The photo
pass was issued on 10 July 2006. The impugned order was passed
on 11 January 2018. Thus, the Notification came into existence
more than four years after the impugned order and about sixteen
years after the photo pass was issued. According to the Petitioner,
it cannot determine which authority issued the photo pass in the
year 2006. It cannot provide a reason for an order passed in the
year 2018. The Notification was not before the Competent
Authority, the First Appellate Authority or the Grievance Redressal
Committee when they passed their respective orders. The learned
Advocate submitted that the Notification was issued under Section
3C of the Slum Act. It declares lands on which slums existed on or
before 1 January 2011, and which are either declared slums under
Section 4 or are census slums, to be "Slum Rehabilitation Area" "for
the purpose implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes".
According to him, the Notification does not state that the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority will issue photo passes. It does not state
that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority will maintain the Register
under Section 3Y(5). It does not confer upon the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority any power to verify, cancel or alter a
photo pass issued by the Competent Authority. According to the
Petitioner, the Notification does not deal with Chapter I-B. He
submitted that Section 3Y(1) gives the power to issue a photo pass




                                 10
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


to "the Government or any officer generally or specially authorised
by it". The Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority is not the Government. Therefore, according to the
Petitioner, the Chief Executive Officer could not confer upon
himself, by issuing the Notification, the power which Section 3Y
confers upon the Government or an officer authorised by the
Government. The learned Advocate relied upon the wording of the
Notification. According to him, the Notification records that “the
land owning Authority and Competent Authority have censused
the slum structures and protected structures have been issued
Photo passes.” According to the Petitioner, this statement shows
that the Competent Authority, and not the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, conducted the census and issued the photo passes. It
supports the Petitioner's case that his photo pass was issued by the
Competent Authority at the relevant time, namely, the Deputy
Collector (Enc/Rem), Bandra Division, through the Zonal Officer
of the 30 NE census zone.

13.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that the Notification treats every
census slum existing on or before 1 January 2011 on public land as
a Slum Rehabilitation Area under Section 3C of the Slum Act. The
Petitioner's premises are situated in a census slum on Government
land. Therefore, if Respondent No. 4 relies upon the Notification,
he accepts that the land is a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the
Slum Act and that the Slum Act applies to the structures standing
thereon, including the provisions of Chapter I-B. The learned
Advocate submitted that the Notification refers to the relevant cut
off date. It records that “the slum dwellers occupying the



                                11
                                                         wp11851-2018-J.doc


structures existing on 1 January 2000 and prior thereto are
entitled for rehabilitation free of cost”. According to him, the
Notification focuses upon the date on which the structure existed.
It does not prescribe a limit of 500 sq. ft. or 14 feet. On the basis of
the Notification relied upon by Respondent No. 4 himself, a
structure existing before 1 January 2000 is treated as a protected
structure entitled to rehabilitation and not as a structure liable to
demolition merely on that ground. According to Mr. Awasthi, the
verification report of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 27
August 2026 has no basis. No provision of the Slum Act, and
nothing contained in the Notification, authorises the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority to reconsider a photo pass issued by the
Competent Authority about twenty years earlier and reduce the
area mentioned therein from 500 sq. ft. to 225 sq. ft. A letter
issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority cannot, according to
him, take the place of the Register required to be maintained
under Section 3Y(5). It cannot replace the satisfaction which
Section 3Z-1(1) requires the Competent Authority to record before
ordering demolition.

14.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that as regards the Identification
number, No. 30NELL000491 is mentioned on the Petitioner's photo
pass. The Competent Authority referred to this number on page 28
of the Petition and recorded on page 29 that he had verified it.
According to the Petitioner, the numbers shown in the right hand
column relate only to application numbers because the letter of the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority deals with the survey tokens issued
during the census survey of the year 2000 and not with the photo



                                  12
                                                     wp11851-2018-J.doc


passes issued in 2006. The Respondent has compared two different
documents belonging to two different stages and has treated the
difference as a discrepancy. As regards Bombay Auto Parts, the
learned Advocate submitted that the Respondent admits that the
Petitioner's photo pass does not mention “Bombay Auto Parts” or
any other particular business. Even if the survey sheet of the year
2000 mentioned a particular business being carried on in one of
the four galas, the trade licence dated 3 May 1998 records the
business as “Lodging House (45 rooms)”. According to the
Petitioner, a change from one type of commercial activity to
another commercial activity does not amount to construction after
1 January 2000. As regards the area, the learned Advocate
submitted that the Respondent describes the entry of 500 sq. ft. on
the photo pass as “stamped”. According to him, the figures “500”
and “524” are part of the printed and handwritten entries on the
photo pass. The photo pass bears the signature of the Zonal Officer
and the seal of the 30 NE census zone. The Respondent has not
stated that the signature or seal is not that of the concerned
Government department. He submitted that the Respondent's own
order protected 500 sq. ft. The Government Resolution dated 11
July 2001, particularly paragraph 4(2), provides for photo passes
up to 500 sq. ft. in the second phase. According to the Petitioner,
the figure of "225 square feet horizontally and 14 square feet
vertically" is found neither in the Slum Act nor in any Government
Resolution or other document on record. He submitted that the
reference to “in the prescribed format” in the right hand column is
incorrect because no rules have been framed under Section 46




                                13
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


prescribing such format. This was stated in paragraph 6 of his
Affidavit dated 21 September 2026 and has not been denied.

15.   As regards the location and dates, Mr. Awasthi submitted
that the three entries in the right hand column are the census
survey receipts of the year 2000 relating to three different
occupants, including Mozzam Ali Shah Mohd Khan, whose receipt
bears No. 0730460. According to him, the Petitioner's photo pass is
dated 10 July 2006 because it was issued by the Government in
2006, after the survey conducted in 2000 and after the Petitioner
paid the charges demanded by the notice dated 27 March 2006.
He relied upon paragraph 4(6) of the Government Resolution
dated 11 July 2001, which provides that the photo pass would be
issued after recovery of arrears from 1 January 1995 onwards.
According to him, the period between the survey in 2000 and
issuance of the photo pass in 2006 is not a discrepancy. It
represents the time taken by the Government to recover the dues
and issue the photo pass. As regards the description “Mohammad
Hussain Compound” appearing against receipt No. 0698019, the
Petitioner submitted that the issue has been dealt with in
paragraph 10 of his Affidavit dated 21 September 2026. He
submitted that the Competent Authority recorded on page 29 of
the Petition that he had verified receipt No. 0698019 as a receipt
relating to commercial use at the address of the suit premises.

16.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that the Respondent relies upon
clause 4(5) of the Government Resolution dated 11 July 2001 and
the Government Resolution dated 5 June 2002 as being applicable
to the Petitioner. According to him, clause 4(5) of the Government



                                 14
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


Resolution dated 11 July 2001 merely provides that a person living
on a loft or upper floor of a hutment will not be given a separate
photo pass. The Petitioner has never claimed a separate photo pass
for a loft or upper floor. According to him, that clause does not
confer any power to demolish a structure. He submitted that the
Government Resolution dated 11 July 2001 was based upon the
cut off date of 1 January 1995. Its title, paragraph 1, paragraph
2(2) and paragraph 3 all refer to 1 January 1995. However, the
Legislature replaced that date by 1 January 2000 in Sections 3Y
and 3Z-1 by Maharashtra Act 9 of 2014. According to the
Petitioner, a Government Resolution based upon the earlier cut off
date of 1995 cannot be used to support an order passed in 2018
under a provision which adopts 1 January 2000 as the relevant cut
off date. The learned Advocate submitted that paragraphs 4(2)
and 4(3) of the Government Resolution dated 11 July 2001 state
that the area above 500 sq. ft. "will be evicted without
compensation when proper or necessary". According to him, this
provision merely describes the area which the Government
proposes to rehabilitate free of cost. It does not confer a power of
demolition. The power to demolish is contained in Section 3Z-1
and that provision contains its own specific condition regarding
construction after 1 January 2000. If the interpretation of the
Respondents is accepted, any structure covered by a photo pass
and having an area above 500 sq. ft. could be demolished without
recording any finding that it was constructed after 1 January 2000.
According to the Petitioner, such an interpretation would make the
cut off date in Section 3Z-1(1) meaningless. An executive




                                 15
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


Government Resolution, according to him, cannot be interpreted in
a manner which defeats the express requirement of the statute.

17.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that Chapter I-B of the Slum Act is a
provision enacted by the Legislature and cannot be treated merely
as a temporary welfare measure. According to him, the protection
under Section 3Z continues until the protected occupier is
relocated in accordance with a scheme. He submitted that the
Respondent has stated that, "as per the settled policy guidelines of
the Housing Department and SRA regulations, only one Photo Pass
is permissible per family individual". According to the Petitioner,
no Government Resolution, circular, regulation, or provision has
been cited in support of this statement. The four photo pass
holders are four separate persons, namely: Saeed Shah Mohd
Khan, Mozzam Ali Shah Mohd Khan, Shah Mohd Khan, and
Mariam Mohd Hussain Shaikh. The names of all four persons and
the area of their respective units are stated in paragraph 2 of the
Petition. The same details are mentioned in the joint application
dated 17 July 2018, which has been signed by all four persons.

18.   Mr. Awasthi submitted that Section 3Z-1(1) permits
demolition only where the structure or part of the structure was
erected after 1 January 2000. According to him, the impugned
order dated 11 January 2018 does not record any finding or
satisfaction that any such construction was made after that date.
He submitted that none of the three affidavits filed by Respondent
No. 4 states that any part of the structure was constructed after 1
January 2000. He submitted that the limits of 500 sq. ft. and 14
feet are derived from the Government Resolutions dated 11 July



                                 16
                                                     wp11851-2018-J.doc


2001 and 5 June 2002 and are not found in the Slum Act. Chapter
I-B, which was introduced with effect from 18 May 2001 and
amended with effect from 2 May 2014, does not prescribe either of
these limits. According to the Petitioner, an executive instruction
cannot introduce an additional condition which the Legislature has
not included in the statute. He submitted that no rules have been
framed under Section 46 for the purposes of Sections 3X and
3Y(1). According to him, this position has not been denied by the
Government. The learned Advocate relied upon the trade licence
dated 3 May 1998 for "Lodging House (45 rooms)", the electricity
bill of July 1989 and the telephone bill of 1994. According to him,
these documents, which were referred to by the Competent
Authority, show that the structure existed in its form much before
1 January 2000. He relied upon the Government Resolution dated
16 May 2015, which according to him protects such existing
structures. He submitted that the Competent Authority did not
consider this Government Resolution while passing the impugned
order. Finally, Mr. Awasthi submitted that the material introduced
for the first time in the three affidavits filed in the year 2026,
namely the verification report of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
dated 27 August 2026, the Notification dated 23 May 2022, the
figure of 225 sq. ft., the allegation of forgery which has been
abandoned, and the allegation of change of user from auto parts,
was not before the Competent Authority or the appellate
authorities when they passed their respective orders. According to
him, this subsequent material cannot be used to supply reasons
which were absent from the original order. He submitted that, in




                                17
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


proceedings under Article 227, the order dated 11 January 2018
has to be examined on the basis of the material which was before
the Competent Authority when that order was passed. According
to the Petitioner, even if the subsequent material is considered, it
does not establish that any part of the structure was constructed
after 1 January 2000.

19.   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, learned AGP, submitted that the
photo-pass or survey token issued in respect of a structure is issued
only once and is not reissued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
or by any other authority. She submitted that the Respondent, by
letter dated 25 August 2026, requested the Competent Authority-
9, SRA, Mumbai, to verify the computerized master records
relating to the three survey tokens or photo-passes relied upon by
the Petitioner. The SRA, by its official reply bearing O.W. No.
1456/SRA/Competent           Authority-9/Survey         Token/Kavi-
Verification/2026/1456 dated 27 August 2026, gave the following
verification report. First, Survey Token No. 0730458 is recorded in
the name of Saeed Ahmed Shah Mohammad Khan. According to
the original survey form dated 19 August 2000, the structure had a
height of 14 sq. ft. and an area of 225 sq. ft. It was a ground-floor
structure and was shown as being used for "Bombay Auto Parts" for
commercial purposes. Secondly, Survey Token No. 0730460 is
recorded in the name of another person, namely Moazam Ali
Mohamad Khan. The premises are shown at Indiranagar Slum,
Parikh Khadi, Survey No. 4. The survey form is dated 14 August
2000 and records a height of 14 sq. ft. and an area of 225 sq. ft. It
was shown as a ground-floor commercial structure. Thirdly, Survey



                                 18
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


Token No. 0698019 is recorded in the name of Saeed Shah
Mohammad Khan, but relates to a different place, namely Mohd.
Husain Compound, Parikh Khadi, Kurla (W). The survey form is
dated 17 July 2000 and records a height of 9 sq. ft. and an area of
225 sq. ft. It was shown as a ground-floor commercial structure.
According to the learned AGP, the official master records of the
SRA show that the three survey tokens relied upon by the
Petitioner relate to different persons and different locations.
According to her, the Petitioner has wrongly combined these three
separate survey tokens and is relying upon them to justify a large
commercial structure of about 45 rooms and an area of nearly
3,000 sq. ft. at the disputed site. The learned AGP submitted that
the original survey record relating to Token No. 0730458 shows
only a ground-floor structure. According to her, the Petitioner
constructed, without permission, an unauthorised commercial
multi-storeyed structure having a height of about 25 feet. She
submitted that the Government Resolution dated 5 June 2002
refers to a height of 14 feet. According to her, the construction
beyond that height is in breach of the requirements relied upon
under Sections 3Z-1 and 3Z-2 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.

20.   The learned AGP submitted that the photo-passes issued by
the SRA record an area of not more than 225 sq. ft. She submitted
that each of the survey tokens or photo-passes relates to an area of
about 225 sq. ft. Even if the three areas are taken together, the
total would be only about 675 sq. ft. According to her, the
Petitioner, however, is claiming an area of more than 3,000 sq. ft.



                                 19
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


She submitted that the Petitioner has wrongly combined the photo-
passes or survey tokens belonging to different persons and has
thereby attempted to justify a much larger structure. The learned
AGP submitted that the photo-pass relied upon by the Petitioner is
forged and fabricated and was not issued by the SRA. According to
her, the Petitioner has placed a false and fabricated document
before this Court and before the other authorities and has thereby
created a wrong impression about his entitlement. She pointed out
that the photo-pass relied upon by the Petitioner bears the date 10
July 2006. According to her, even if that date is accepted, the
Government Resolution of the year 2000 cannot be applied in the
manner claimed by the Petitioner. She submitted that the photo-
passes verified from the SRA records bear the dates 19 August
2000, 14 August 2000 and 17 July 2000 respectively and relate to
different persons. The learned AGP submitted that the Petitioners
are only occupiers of the premises. An occupier, according to her, is
a person occupying a dwelling structure and holding a photo-pass.
She submitted that a photo-pass is an identity card-cum-certificate
issued by the Government under Section 3Y. It includes such other
document as may be declared by the Government by an order to
be equivalent to a photo-pass for the purposes of Chapter I-B of the
Slum Act.

21.   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, submitted that under Section 3Y, the
Government or an officer authorised by it can, after verifying the
relevant documents, issue a photo-pass to the occupier of a
dwelling structure which was in existence on or before 1 January
2000. She submitted that where the original photo-pass is lost or



                                 20
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


destroyed, the occupier has to make a written application to the
concerned authority along with the prescribed fee for issuance of a
duplicate photo-pass. The authority is then required to verify the
records and make the necessary enquiry. If the authority is
satisfied, it may issue a duplicate photo-pass, which has to be
marked as a duplicate. The learned AGP submitted that if the
original photo-pass is found by the occupier, it has to be
surrendered to the authority which issued it. According to her, this
procedure shows that a photo-pass is issued or verified only once
and cannot be repeatedly issued by the SRA or by any other
authority. She submitted that the photo-passes relied upon by the
Petitioner have to be tested against the original records maintained
by the concerned authority. The learned AGP submitted that the
Petitioner, being an occupier, can claim protection only to the
extent covered by his photo-pass. According to her, the photo-pass
verified from the SRA records covers only an area of 225 sq. ft.
horizontally and a height of 14 feet vertically. She submitted that
the Petitioner cannot claim protection for a structure larger than
what is recorded in the relevant photo-pass. The learned AGP
submitted that the land in question belongs to the Government.
Therefore, according to her, the Petitioner has no right, title or
interest in the public land. He cannot claim any permanent or
inherited right to continue an unauthorised structure or to carry
out construction without permission from the State Government.
According to her, the protection given to an occupier of a protected
structure is protection against eviction in accordance with the
Slum Act. Such protection does not give the occupier a right to




                                 21
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


make additional or unauthorised construction beyond the structure
which was protected. The learned AGP submitted that the
Competent Authority has the power to remove or demolish an
unauthorised or dwelling structure, provided the Competent
Authority follows the procedure prescribed by law. According to
her, the impugned order was passed in exercise of that power after
considering the relevant material.

22.   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, learned AGP, submitted that there are
two sets of photo-pass records on record. One is the photo-pass
relied upon by the Petitioner and the other consists of the photo-
pass or survey records verified from the records of the SRA.
According to her, the difference between the two sets of documents
is material and has to be considered while deciding whether the
Petitioner is entitled to protection for the structure standing on the
disputed land. The learned AGP submitted that the position,
including the alleged discrepancies in the photo-passes and the
alleged use by the Petitioner of documents relating to different
persons, has been placed before this Court through the SRA
verification report. According to her, the said report has not been
challenged by the Petitioner. She submitted that there is a
substantial difference between the photo-pass relied upon by the
Petitioner and the records verified by the SRA. According to her, if
the Petitioner's photo-pass is accepted, the Government Resolution
of the year 2000 would not apply in the manner claimed by the
Respondents. On the other hand, if the photo-passes verified from
the SRA records are considered, the Government Resolution of the
year 2000 would apply to the structures covered by those records.



                                 22
                                                     wp11851-2018-J.doc


The learned AGP submitted that an occupier cannot take or
borrow the photo-pass of another person and cannot change the
name appearing on such photo-pass. According to her, separate
photo-passes issued to different persons for structures existing on
or before 1 January 2000 cannot be combined or treated as one
photo-pass for the purpose of claiming protection for a larger
structure.

23.   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, submitted that the impugned order
dated 11 January 2018 refers to "Bombay auto part" as the
commercial use mentioned in the photo-pass. She pointed out that
the order dated 25 May 2018 passed by the Additional Collector
(Encroachment) refers to an auto garage being operated by the
Petitioner and to payment of taxes by the Petitioner in respect of
Bombay Auto Parts (Garage). She submitted that the order dated
19 September 2018 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee
refers to the photo-pass and the commercial tax receipt No.
001413 issued by the B.M.C. on 11 May 2006 for an area of 514
sq. ft. She referred to Exhibit RJ-5 produced with the Petitioner's
rejoinder, which bears the cancelled date of 6 December 2004 and
the handwritten date 27 March 2006 and was issued in connection
with the encroachment proceedings at Bandra. According to her,
the document refers to identification fees and compensation or
damage charges and states that no right or authority of transfer
would be granted. She submitted that Exhibits RJ-6 and RJ-7 show
payments made to the BMC. The learned AGP submitted that since
the Petitioner claims to be an occupier holding a photo-pass, the
Government Resolution dated 11 July 2001, particularly clause



                                23
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


4(5), and the Government Resolution dated 5 June 2002 would
apply to the Petitioner's case. According to her, these Government
Resolutions apply to both residential and commercial hutments
occupied by persons holding photo-passes.

24.   Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, submitted that the protection given
through a policy or photo-pass under the Maharashtra Slum Areas
Act, 1971, is intended to provide limited protection to identified
structures on public land. According to her, such protection cannot
be understood as giving an occupier an unrestricted right to
occupy or encroach upon Government land. She submitted that the
protection available to a protected structure cannot be used to
justify a large commercial construction or commercial activity over
a larger area of Government land. The learned AGP submitted
that, according to the policy guidelines of the Housing Department
and the regulations of the SRA, only one photo-pass can be issued
to a family or individual. She submitted that even if three or four
separate structures were adjoining each other, there is no provision
which permits the occupier to combine their separate photo-passes
and thereby create a single large commercial structure of about
3,000 sq. ft. for use as a lodging house on Government land.
According to her, such combination or expansion is contrary to the
scheme of the Slum Act and the applicable FSI and Development
Control Regulations. She submitted that any construction beyond
the protected limit would amount to an unauthorised structure
and would attract the provisions of Section 3Z-1. The learned AGP
submitted that the original photo-pass of the Petitioner was issued
for a small commercial unit and the use recorded against it was



                                 24
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


"Bombay Auto Parts". According to her, the photo-pass did not
recognise or protect a 45-room hotel or lodging house of the size
claimed by the Petitioner. The learned AGP submitted that the
Petitioner has changed the use of the premises. According to her,
the original commercial activity was an auto parts shop, whereas
the Petitioner is now running a 45-room hotel and lodging house
under the name "Hotel Guest Inn Residency". She submitted that
this amounts to a breach of the conditions applicable to the
protected structure. According to her, municipal trade licences,
permissions under the BMC Act, water connections or other
permissions relied upon by the Petitioner may permit the carrying
on of a particular commercial activity. However, such permissions
do not establish that the structure in which the activity is carried
on was lawfully constructed or that the construction is protected
under the Slum Act. According to the learned AGP, such municipal
permissions cannot override the provisions of the Slum Act
concerning unauthorised construction on Government land. The
learned AGP submitted that the Court is required to keep in view
the larger public interest and the need to protect Government
land. According to her, the impugned order dated 11 January 2018
passed by the Respondent, as well as the subsequent orders passed
by the First Appellate Authority and the Grievance Redressal
Committee, were passed in accordance with law and after
considering the material available before the authorities. She
submitted that the said orders are legal, proper and justified and
do not call for interference in the Writ Petition.




                                  25
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


REASONS AND FINDINGS:

25.   The main question which comes for consideration is whether
the protection under Section 3Z is limited to the dwelling structure
and area shown through the photo-pass, which can be treated as
the protected shelter of the protected occupier.

26.   At the outset, it is necessary to understand what is protected
under Chapter I-B of the Act. The answer has to be found from the
definitions. Section 3X(a) gives a wide meaning to "dwelling
structure". It includes a structure used for dwelling or otherwise
and includes an out-house, shed, hut or other enclosure or
structure attached to the earth. Therefore, the expression is wide
enough to cover different kinds of hutments and structures.
Section 3X(b) defines "photo-pass" as follows:

      “photo-pass” means identity card-cum-certificate issued by
      the Government in the prescribed form under section 3Y and
      includes any other document declared by the Government to
      be equivalent thereto.”
27.   Section 3X(c) defines "protected occupier" as under:

      “protected occupier” means an occupier of a dwelling
      structure holding a photo-pass.
28.   These two definitions have to be read together. A photo-pass
is an identity card-cum-certificate issued under Section 3Y. In the
same way, every person occupying a structure in a slum does not
become a protected occupier. The statute requires that the occupier
must hold a photo-pass. Therefore, the protection under the
statute is connected with the status of the protected occupier and
with the dwelling structure in respect of which that status is



                                 26
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


established. Section 3Z(1) provides:

      “From the commencement of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
      (Improvement,       Clearance,      and      Redevelopment)
      (Amendment) Act, 2014, no protected occupier shall, except
      as provided in sub-section (2), be evicted from the dwelling
      structure.”
29.   The important words are "no protected occupier" and "from
the dwelling structure". Therefore, the protection is not given to
every person occupying every portion of every structure in a
declared slum. First, the person must satisfy the meaning of
protected occupier under the statute. Thereafter, the protection is
from eviction from the dwelling structure to which that status
relates.

30.   The Petitioner submits that because the expression "dwelling
structure" is wide, the entire structure existing at the site must be
treated as protected. I am unable to accept the submission in this
broad manner. A definition may be wide, but it cannot be read
separately from the other provisions of the same Chapter. The
expression "dwelling structure" has to be read along with the
definitions of "photo-pass" and "protected occupier" and with the
manner in which the photo-pass is issued under Section 3Y.
Section 3Y(1) provides for issuing a photo-pass after verification of
the prescribed documents and records to the occupier of the
dwelling structure existing on or before 1 January 2000. Section
3Y(5) requires the Government to maintain an up-to-date Register
of photo-passes issued under Section 3Y(1). Therefore, the scheme
under the Act is based upon verification. The authority has to
identify the dwelling structure, identify the occupier and issue the


                                 27
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


photo-pass after the necessary verification. The protection under
Section 3Z cannot be separated from this process. The photo-pass
is the connection between the occupier and the protected dwelling
structure. For the same reason, the submission that the words
"dwelling structure" protect every extension or every additional
portion of the structure cannot be accepted. If such an
interpretation is taken, a photo-pass issued for a small hutment
existing before the qualifying date would protect every later
extension only because that extension remains attached to the
original hut. In that situation, the requirement of a photo-pass and
identification of the protected occupier would become almost
meaningless.

31.   Section 3Z-1 has been enacted to prevent such a result.
Section 3Z-1(1) gives power to the Competent Authority to act
when it is satisfied that an unauthorised or illegal dwelling
structure or part thereof has been constructed, or that an addition
to the existing structure recorded on the photo-pass has been
erected after 1 January 2000 without the permission. The words
"addition to the existing structure as recorded on the photo-pass"
are important. The statute connects the existing protected
structure with what is recorded on the photo-pass. Therefore, the
protection cannot be treated as protection of some undefined and
unlimited area around the original hutment. The structure
recorded as protected is the starting point for deciding whether
something added is an addition or not.

32.   The Petitioner is correct to this extent that Section 3Z-1 does
not contain the words "500 sq. ft." The statute does not say that



                                 28
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


every structure exceeding 500 sq. ft. must be demolished. But this
does not mean that the protected area has to be treated as
unlimited. The question is what extent of the dwelling structure
can be treated as protected under Sections 3X, 3Y and 3Z when the
Government policy regarding issuance of identity cards and photo-
passes is read along with the scheme. The Government Resolution
dated 11 July 2001 is important in this regard. It was issued by the
Housing Department regarding issuance of identity cards to
eligible slum dwellers. The Resolution states that the identity card
is evidence that the holder was residing in the hut which existed
before the relevant qualifying date. It provides for measurement of
huts exceeding 225 sq. ft. and states:

      “identity cards shall be issued to the slum dwellers residing
      therein only up to a maximum of 500 sq. ft.”
33.   The same provision states:

      “Construction in excess of 500 sq. ft. shall, whenever
      appropriate or necessary, be evicted without payment of
      compensation.”
34.   The Resolution deals with the area for which the identity
card is to be issued. It deals with what can be done in respect of
construction beyond that area. Clause 4(3) states:

      “the identity card shall be issued only for the area up to 500
      sq. ft. selected by the identity-card holder”
35.   and provides:

      “Construction in excess of 500 sq. ft. shall, whenever
      appropriate or necessary, be evicted without payment of
      compensation.”



                                   29
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


36.   The same principle is considered in cases where eligible huts
have been amalgamated. The Resolution considers huts existing on
or before 1 January 1995 which have been amalgamated and
where new huts or buildings have been constructed. Even in such a
case, after excluding the prohibited portion, the identity card is to
be issued to the concerned identity-card holder only up to a
maximum of 500 sq. ft. and the excess construction can be evicted.
Therefore, the Government Resolution does not accept that
amalgamation of huts creates a new unlimited protected structure.
The policy allows the hutment which was eligible, identifies the
person entitled to the identity card and fixes the maximum area
for which the identity card can operate.

37.   The Petitioner submits that the Government Resolution dated
11 July 2001 is based on the earlier qualifying date of 1 January
1995 and cannot control the qualifying date of 1 January 2000
introduced by the 2014 amendment. There is substance in this
submission to the extent that the qualifying date must prevail. An
executive resolution cannot change the date fixed by the statute.
However, the issue here is not whether the qualifying date is 1
January 1995 or 1 January 2000. The issue is the extent of the
protected shelter when a person claims protection under Chapter I-
B. On this question, the Government Resolution is relevant because
it explains how the identity card and photo-pass scheme operates
and what is the maximum area for which such identity card is
issued. The subsequent Government Resolution dated 16 May
2015 does not enlarge the protected area beyond the area allowed
under the photo-pass scheme. Its preamble records that the shelter



                                 30
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


of slum dwellers residing in declared and enumerated hutments
existing on or before 1 January 2000 has been protected. It
provides for a photo-pass to the person residing in such hutment
after verification of the relevant documents under Section 3Y. The
16 May 2015 Resolution deals with the documents and procedure
for deciding whether a hutment existed on or before 1 January
2000 and whether the person claiming protection is residing there.
It provides for documentary proof, self-declaration, scrutiny and
spot inspection by the Competent Officer. The Statement attached
to that Resolution mentions documents such as electoral roll,
electricity records, enumeration form, property tax assessment and
other documents for proving existence of the hutment on or before
1 January 2000. It mentions documents such as a Gumasta permit,
restaurant licence or tax receipt for proving professional or
industrial use. Therefore, these documents are evidence for
deciding eligibility. They do not create a protected area of
whatever size is mentioned in them. One document may show that
a hut existed before 1 January 2000. Another document may show
the nature of its use. But neither document        can enlarge the
protection beyond the protected dwelling structure identified
through the photo-pass.

38.   The Petitioner's reliance upon electricity bills, municipal tax
receipts, trade licences and similar documents has to be considered
in this manner. Such documents can have evidentiary value. They
cannot be rejected merely because they are not photo-passes. At
the same time, they cannot be treated as equivalent to a photo-
pass unless the Government has declared them to be so under



                                 31
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


Section 3X(b). The same reasoning applies to the survey tokens
relied upon by the Respondents. A survey token may be evidence
about existence of a structure or identity of a person in the survey
records. But a survey token does not become a photo-pass. Section
3X(b) gives a specific meaning to "photo-pass". Section 3X(c) then
makes possession of such photo-pass a condition for becoming a
protected occupier. Therefore, if the records show three different
survey tokens in the names of three different persons and relating
to separate locations, those documents cannot be added together
for creating one protected structure in favour of another person.
Such an exercise would defeat the requirement that the protected
occupier must hold the photo-pass. At the same time, the
Respondents' submission that the survey tokens establish that the
Petitioner's photo-pass is forged requires examination the complete
record. A later verification report may create serious doubt and
may require the authority to verify the original records.

39.   The photo-pass relied upon by the Petitioner is an important
document. The fact that it records an area of about 524 sq. ft.. The
earlier orders proceeded at different stages on the basis of an area
of about 500 sq. ft. The Respondents have referred to 500 sq. ft. in
the earlier proceedings. But the fact that a photo-pass records an
area slightly above 500 sq. ft. does not mean that the entire area
mentioned in it becomes protected contrary to the governing
policy. The Government Resolution provides the maximum area for
which an identity card can be issued. The words "up to a maximum
of 500 sq. ft." cannot be treated as having no meaning.




                                 32
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


40.   The Petitioner has submitted that 500 sq. ft. is only a
rehabilitation ceiling and has no connection with protection from
eviction. This submission requires consideration. The Resolution
may refer to the area eligible for rehabilitation. However, it
provides that construction in excess of 500 sq. ft. may be evicted
without compensation. Therefore, the document is not concerned
only with giving a rehabilitation tenement. It identifies the extent
of the area allowed under the identity-card scheme and deals with
excess construction.

41.   Section 3Z does not create protection for every construction
standing on the land. It protects the "protected occupier" from
eviction from the "dwelling structure". A person becomes a
protected occupier because he holds a photo-pass. The photo-pass
is an identity card-cum-certificate issued under Section 3Y. The
extent for which the identity card can operate has to be
understood from the Government policy governing its issuance. If
the Petitioner's interpretation is accepted, a person having a photo-
pass for 225 sq. ft. could construct or occupy another 1,000 or
2,000 sq. ft. and then say that the entire structure is a "dwelling
structure" under Section 3X and protected from eviction under
Section 3Z. Such an interpretation would lead to a result which is
inconsistent with Section 3Z-1, which permits action against
unauthorised or illegal structures and additions made after the
qualifying date. The word "unauthorised" in Section 3Z-1 has to be
understood with reference to the protected structure. A structure
may be attached to an old hutment and still be an unauthorised
addition. Merely because it is attached to the old structure, it does



                                 33
                                                        wp11851-2018-J.doc


not become part of the protected structure. This is the reason why
Section 3Z-1 refers not only to a newly constructed structure but
to an "addition to the existing structure as recorded on the photo-
pass". The legislature has allowed that an old protected structure
may be enlarged. If every such enlargement became protected
merely because it forms part of the same physical building, this
part of Section 3Z-1 would have little meaning.

42.   The words "after 1 January 2000" are important. The
protection is connected with the structure existing on or before the
qualifying date. It is not a permission to increase the size of that
structure after the qualifying date. The cut-off date identifies the
structure which is eligible for protection. It does not give a right to
enlarge that structure. I find that the Petitioner's submission that
because the words "500 sq. ft." are absent in Section 3Z-1, the area
must be treated as unlimited, cannot be accepted. The 500 sq. ft.
limit is not being inserted into Section 3Z-1 as an independent
phrase. It is being applied for finding out the extent of the
protected dwelling structure because the protection is connected
with the photo-pass and the photo-pass scheme, and the governing
policy provides that an identity card is issued only up to a
maximum of 500 sq. ft. This interpretation gives proper meaning
to the relevant provisions when they are read together. Section 3X
identifies the protected concepts. Section 3Y provides the
machinery for issuing and recording the photo-pass. Section 3Z
protects the protected occupier from eviction. Section 3Z-1 deals
with unauthorised construction and unauthorised additions. These
provisions cannot be read separately from one another. I am of the



                                  34
                                                     wp11851-2018-J.doc


view that, for the purpose of protection under Section 3Z read
with Sections 3X, 3Y and 3Z-1, the maximum area which can be
allowed as the protected dwelling structure under the photo-pass
scheme is 500 sq. ft. A claim beyond that area does not become
protected merely because the additional portion is connected with
the protected structure or because some document mentions a
larger area.

43.   The documents relied upon by the Petitioner have to be
considered for the purpose for which they can be used. An
electricity bill may show that electricity was supplied to the
premises. A municipal tax receipt may show assessment. A trade
licence may show a particular use. An old document may show
that some structure existed before 1 January 2000. But these
documents do not establish that the entire structure is the
protected dwelling structure under Section 3Z. The Government
Resolution dated 16 May 2015 follows this approach. It requires at
least one prescribed proof for deciding that the hutment existed on
or before 1 January 2000. It then requires separate proof regarding
residence of the hutment dweller. The Competent Officer is
required to scrutinise the documents and conduct a spot
inspection. The evidence has to be considered as a whole, but
every document has to be given only the effect which it can carry.
The photo-pass determines the protected status. The supporting
documents may assist in proving existence and nature of use. The
survey records may assist in verification.     But none of these
documents can be used for enlarging the protection beyond the
protected area.



                                35
                                                      wp11851-2018-J.doc


44.   The submission that a Government Resolution cannot
override the provisions of the statute is correct as a general
principle. A Government Resolution cannot take away a right
which is given by the Act. The question before the Court is not
whether the Government Resolution can override Section 3Z. The
question is what is meant by a "protected occupier" and what
extent of the dwelling structure of such protected occupier gets
protection under Section 3Z. For this purpose, Section 3Z has to be
read with Section 3X, which explains the relevant expressions, and
Section 3Y, which provides for verification and issuance of the
photo-pass. The photo-pass has importance because it connects the
protected occupier with the dwelling structure in respect of which
the protection is claimed. In this background, the Government
Resolution is not being used for putting any new restriction which
is not provided in the Act. It is being considered for understanding
the scheme under which the identity card and photo-pass were
issued and the extent for which such identity card was intended to
operate. The Government Resolution explains the policy and the
manner in which the identity-card and photo-pass scheme was to
be implemented. Therefore, the same can be taken into
consideration for understanding the extent of the protected
dwelling structure. At the same time, it cannot be used for taking
away the protection which is given by the statute. The Government
Resolution has to remain within the statutory scheme and cannot
be given a meaning which will defeat the right under the Act.
Therefore, the issue is not whether the Government Resolution can
prevail over the Act.     The issue is whether the Government




                                36
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


Resolution can assist the Court in understanding the scope of the
photo-pass and the dwelling structure which is allowed under the
statutory scheme. In my view, it can be considered for this limited
purpose. The statutory provisions and the policy under which the
photo-pass was issued have to be considered together, because the
protection under Section 3Z is connected with the protected
occupier and the dwelling structure represented by the photo-pass.
The Government Resolution is not being given any overriding
effect over the statute. It is being considered only for
understanding the extent of the protection which arises under the
statutory scheme.

45.   The Resolution dated 11 July 2001 states that in Greater
Mumbai eligible slum dwellers on Government land, declared
private land and land of other public undertakings are issued
identity cards through the Collector. It provides for an identity-card
register and makes regular payment of consolidated charges a
condition for validity of the identity card. This again shows that
the scheme is based upon a particular and identified entitlement
and not upon an unrestricted right over the whole structure or
land. The Petitioner's submission that the land belongs to the
Government and that he does not claim title does not change this
conclusion. The fact that ownership is not claimed may be relevant
for understanding the nature of the right. But Section 3Z gives
protection to a protected occupier without giving ownership. It is a
protection against eviction. Therefore, it has to remain within the
limits provided by the scheme. Similarly, the fact that the structure
may have been used for commercial purposes does not enlarge the



                                 37
                                                       wp11851-2018-J.doc


protected area. The Resolution dated 11 July 2001 allows
commercial and industrial use and provides a separate identity-
card fee for such use. It separately deals with the area and excess
construction. Therefore, commercial use may be allowed when
established, but commercial use cannot convert an unlimited area
into a protected structure.

46.   The submission regarding amalgamation of four structures
does not lead to a different conclusion. The Resolution dated 11
July 2001 considers situations where eligible huts existing on or
before the qualifying date have been amalgamated and new huts
or buildings have been constructed. Even in such a case, the
identity card is restricted to a maximum of 500 sq. ft. and the
remaining    excess    construction    may    be    evicted.     Thus,
amalgamation may be a relevant fact for deciding the history of
the structure. But it does not    create a larger protection. Four
separate structures cannot be joined together merely because they
are now connected and, on that basis, treated as one protected
structure.

47.   The material relating to the survey tokens has to be
considered. If the verified records show that the three survey
tokens were issued in different names and for different locations,
such material raises a serious question about the Petitioner's
attempt to combine those records. But such material alone cannot
decide the status of the Petitioner's photo-pass. The original photo-
pass and the record concerning its issuance remain relevant.




                                 38
                                                        wp11851-2018-J.doc


48.   For these reasons, I hold that the protection under Section
3Z(1) is protection of the protected occupier from eviction from
the protected dwelling structure. It is not protection of the land or
of every construction standing on the land. The maximum area
allowed for such protected dwelling structure under the photo-pass
scheme is 500 sq. ft. Any area or construction beyond that limit
does not acquire protection under Section 3Z merely because it is
attached to or forms part of the structure.

49.   In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material record, the following order is passed:

      (i)    The Petition is partly allowed in the above terms;

      (ii)   It is held that the protection under Section 3Z(1) of the
      Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
      Redevelopment) Act, 1971 is available to a protected
      occupier in respect of the protected dwelling structure
      represented by the photo-pass. Such protection cannot be
      understood as extending to every subsequent addition or
      other construction merely because the same is attached to
      the original dwelling structure;

      (iii) It is held that, under the photo-pass scheme and the
      applicable Government Resolution, the maximum extent of
      the dwelling structure which can receive such protection is
      500 sq. ft. The requirements of Section 3Z-1 have to be
      satisfied before any action can be taken in respect of such
      construction;




                                  39
                                                wp11851-2018-J.doc


(iv) The matter is accordingly remanded to the Competent
Authority for examining the claim of the Petitioner afresh in
accordance with the above legal position;

(v)   The Competent Authority shall examine all the
documents produced by the Petitioner in support of the
claim, including the photo-pass and such other documents as
may have been relied upon by the parties;

(vi) While doing so, the Competent Authority shall examine
the genuineness and evidentiary value of each of the
documents produced by the Petitioner. If any document is
found to be doubtful or requiring verification, the Competent
Authority shall make appropriate verification from the
concerned authority or record from which such document is
stated to have originated;

(vii) The Competent Authority shall examine the survey
records and the different survey tokens relied upon by the
parties;

(viii) The Competent Authority shall give the Petitioner and
all concerned parties opportunity to produce the original
documents, supporting material and explanations in respect
of the documents relied upon by them and shall give an
opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order;

(ix) The Competent Authority shall pass a fresh, reasoned
order after considering the documents and material on
record and the findings required to be recorded as above;




                             40
                                               wp11851-2018-J.doc


(x)   The entire exercise shall be completed, as far as
possible, within a period of twelve weeks from the date on
which a copy of this order is placed before the Competent
Authority;

(xi) Until the fresh decision is taken, no coercive action
shall be taken against the portion of the structure which is
prima facie covered by the protection under Section 3Z,
except in accordance with law;

(xii) The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.

                                       (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                           41