DAYANAND DHONDIBA WAGHMAREversusTHE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ENC/REM) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, EASTERN SUBURBS

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO.1794 OF 2026

Dayanand Dhondiba Waghmare                                      .. Petitioner
             Vs.
The Additional Collector (Enc/Rem),
and Appellate Authority, Eastern Suburbs & Ors.                 .. Respondents


Mr. S.S. Redekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Dipesh Siroya, AGP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.

Ms. Pushpa Yadav with Ms. Pratik Garade, Advocates for the Respondent-
BMC.


                                 CORAM : GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                                 DATE         : 2ND JULY 2026

P.C. :


1.       The Petitioner claiming to be the owner and occupier of structure no.110

situated at Nagababa Rahivashi Sangh, Near Khoka Company, Parksite, Vikroli

(West), Mumbai – 400 079, has filed this Petition seeking the following

reliefs:-

             “a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records &
                 proceedings of the Annexure II annexed at Exhibit F to
                 the Petition, impugned orders annexed at Exhibit G & H
                 to the Petition and after going through the legality,
                 validity & propriety of the same and after hearing the
                 Petitioner be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned
                                        1/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                             Dixit
                      order dated 29th October 2024 passed by the GRC along
                      with impugned order dated 30th January 2024 passed by
                      the Respondent no.1 and further be pleased to hold the
                      Petitioner as eligible for residential purpose at sr.no.114
                      in the Annexure II;

             b)       And/or in alternate the matter be remanded back to the
                      Respondent no.2 to decide fresh about the Petitioner’s
                      eligibility.”


2.      Mr. Redekar, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, submits that

the structure originally belonged to Respondent No.3 who transferred it to

Respondent No.4 and thereafter, by an affidavit dated 24th September 2004,

Respondent No.4 transferred the structure to the Petitioner. It is contended that

the structure has been in existence prior to the datum line date of 1 st January

2000 and that the Petitioner has been in continuous occupation thereof since

the year 2004. However, the Petitioner is wrongly declared ineligible for

rehabilitation by the Competent Authority on 9 th June 2022. The appeal

preferred before Respondent No.1 came to be rejected by an order dated 30 th

January 2024. A further appeal before Respondent No.5-Grievance Redressal

Committee being Appeal No.68 of 2024 also came to be dismissed by order

dated 29th October 2024. Learned counsel submits that the name of Respondent

No.3 appears in the electoral roll of 1994 for the Kurla constituency, thereby

establishing the existence of the structure prior to the datum line. The

authorities have failed to appreciate the documentary material produced by the
                                             2/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                                 Dixit
Petitioner while determining his eligibility. It is, therefore, submitted that the

impugned orders deserve to be quashed or, in the alternative, the matter be

remanded for fresh consideration.


3.      On the other hand, Mr. Dipesh Siroya, learned AGP appearing for

Respondent No.1 and Ms. Yadav, learned advocate appearing for Respondent

No.2, support the impugned orders. They submit that both Respondent Nos.1

and 5 have undertaken a factual examination of the material placed on record

and have rightly found that the Petitioner's claim suffers from serious

inconsistencies. It is pointed out that the electricity verification report dated

12th May 2006 records the electricity connection in the name of one Satyadev

Ramjor Kanojiya and not in the name of either the Petitioner's predecessor-in-

title or the Petitioner. Thus, no case is made out for interference with the

impugned orders and the Petition ought to be dismissed.


4.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. Since the controversy substantially turns upon the findings recorded by

Respondent No.5- Grievance Redressal Committee, paragraphs 9 and 10 of its

order dated 29th October 2024 are reproduced below:

          “9. The Committee has gone through the provision of the law
              against the above findings, the relevant provisions which this
              Committee deems it fit to reproduce the provisions of

                                        3/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                            Dixit
                Government Resolution dated 16/05/2015 on page no.6 under
                head Jodpatra – Ek (Annexure-One) Point no.1 At least one
                of the proofs in the accompanying statement
                (VIVRANPATRA) is required as proof of existence of the hut
                on or before 1.1.2000 for the hut to be eligible for protection.
                And Point no.2. At least one proof from the latest one year in
                the accompanying statement (VIVRANPATRA) showing the
                name and address of the hut or the fixed location of the hut is
                required as proof of the existing existence of the hut on or
                before 1.1.2000 and the fact that the hut dweller is actually
                living there on or before 1.1.2000.

          10. This Committee, after considering the appeal memo, various
              documents submitted and argument made by the appellant
              and the learned Advocate for the appellant, respondents,
              findings with reasoning of the Competent Authority and
              learned Appellate Authority observed that; (a) though the
              appellant did submit Transfer Affidavit showing transaction
              dated 23.09.2004 and the appellant has argued his entire
              case relying upon this Transfer Affidavit, but the appellant
              failed to produce any supporting proof as mentioned in
              accompanying statement (VIVRANPATRA) with Government
              Resolution dated 16.05.2015; to prove that an independent
              hut/structure was in existence before 01.01.2000; (b) the
              appellant failed to produce at least one proof from the recent
              one-year showing that the appellant was in continuous
              possession of the structure/hutment from 01.01.2000 till the
              preparation of Annexure-II as per the accompanying
              statement to Government Resolution dated 16/05/2015; (c) as
              per the Transfer Affidavit of said disputed huts, the original
              hut owner was Shri. Dilip Govind Mhaske sold this hut to
              Shri. Achyut Rambhau Bhoite on dated 06.03.2003 and
              thereafter the said disputed hut purchased by the appellant on
              dated 23.09.2004. But, as per the electricity verification
              report, first electricity connection obtained dated 12.05.2006
              in the name of Satyadev Ramjor Kanojiya and thereafter the
              said connection transferred in the month of December, 2006
              in the name of appellant. Thus, the chain of documents was
              not matched as per the electricity verification report.
              Considering the above findings of the Committee, it can be
                                          4/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                                Dixit
                concluded that the findings of the Appellate Authority are
                with correct reasoning; therefore, this Committee endorses
                the same. This Committee avoids mentioning the findings of
                the learned Appellate Authority here again to avoid repetition
                and prolixity. After carefully examining the provisions of law
                as mentioned above, this Committee believes that the learned
                Appellate Authority has passed a reasoned order and there is
                no need to interfere in the impugned order by the hands of
                this Committee since the appellant failed to establish the case
                as pleaded in the appeal. Hence, the following order is
                passed:
                                         ORDER

                1.    The appeal is hereby rejected.
                2.    No order as to costs.
                3.    Order shall be communicated to all concerned.”


5.      A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Petitioner's claim has

been examined in the light of the Government Resolution dated 16 th May 2015

governing determination of eligibility for rehabilitation. The authorities have

concurrently held that the Petitioner failed to produce the requisite

documentary evidence contemplated under the Government Resolution. The

transfer affidavit relied upon by the Petitioner is unsupported by the

contemporaneous documents prescribed under the applicable policy. More

importantly, the authorities have held that the electricity verification report

records the first electricity connection of the disputed structure in the name of

Satyadev Ramjor Kanojiya on 12th May 2006, which is inconsistent with the

Petitioner's claimed chain of title and possession. This discrepancy goes to the


                                          5/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                               Dixit
root of the Petitioner's claim and remains unexplained. The scope of

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters is limited.

Unless the findings are shown to be arbitrary, perverse or based on no

evidence, this Court would not re-appreciate the factual material as if

exercising appellate jurisdiction. In the present case, the authorities have

assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the Petitioner's eligibility claim. No

jurisdictional error, procedural irregularity or perversity is demonstrated.

Hence, the Writ Petition No.1794 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.



                                               [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]




                                     6/6
11-WP-1794-2026.doc                                                       Dixit