Bombay High Court

PRASHANT M SINGHversusTHE PRIN. SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPT. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SHARMILA U DESHMUKH

Holding

The petition is dismissed as there is no merit in the petitioner’s claim of eligibility.

Summary

The petitioner, a tenant of Shop No. 23‑A in Manaji Rajiji Chawl, Mumbai, challenged the ineligibility declared by MHADA on two grounds: the shop was not reflected in the 1995‑96 inspection extract and it lay beyond the building line. He argued that rent receipts dating back to 1971 and other documents proved the shop's existence prior to the statutory cut‑off date of 30 September 1969, and that a different eligibility yardstick had been applied in a similar redevelopment scheme. The respondents contended that the DCR 33(7) requires proof of pre‑1969 existence, which the petitioner failed to produce, and that the rent receipt is a private document insufficient for that purpose. The Court noted that no material showing a different criterion had been placed before the authority and that a coordinate bench had previously dismissed a similar petition on the same facts. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

Issues considered

Whether the shop’s absence from the 1995‑96 inspection extract renders it ineligible under MHADA regulations.
Whether the shop’s location beyond the building line disqualifies it under DCR 33(7) requiring proof of existence before 30 September 1969.
Whether a different eligibility criterion applied in an identical redevelopment scheme can be invoked to overturn the ineligibility finding.

Subjects

Redevelopment
Ineligibility
Building line
DCR 33(7)
MHADA
Inspection records
Tenancy

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
QUTBUDDIN PATHAN
PATHAN Date:
21-WP-2549-2023.odt
2026.02.17
12:12:07
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2023

Prashant M. Singh … Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary,
Housing Department & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Shubham Bane i/b Mr. Sandeep Bane for the Petitioner

Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Ms. Sayali Apte for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4-
MHADA

Mr. Rahul Arora i/b Mr. Jeet Gandhi for the Respondent No.5

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
THURSDAY, 12th FEBRUARY 2026

P.C :

1 Heard.

2 By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 5 th

April 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated

14th September 2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of

the ineligibility of the petitioner.

3 The petitioner claims to be a tenant/occupant of Shop

No. 23-A situated on the ground ,oor of Manaji Rajiji Chawl, Lower
SQ Pathan 1/5
21-WP-2549-2023.odt

Parel, Mumbai, admeasuring 8.39 square meters. The Respondent

No. 5-developer, commenced the development of the said

structure under DCR 33(7), for which NOC was granted by MHADA.

MHADA has held the structure to be ineligible on two grounds: that

the structure are not re,ected in the inspection extract of 1995

and that it is beyond the building line. The ineligibility came to be

challenged by the petitioner before MHADA authorities, which has

dismissed the petitioner’s claim, leading to the ;ling of the present

petition.

4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner’s structure was held ineligible on the

ground that the structure is not re,ected in the inspection extract

of the year 1995–1996, whereas, there are documents produced on

record such as rent receipts, licence, post o>ce passbook, etc. and

the rent receipts show that the rent is paid for the year 1971. He

would further submit that, in respect of separate re-development

scheme, di@erent eligibility criteria is applied by the MHADA

authorities, which is impermissible.

5 Mr. Lad, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

SQ Pathan 2/5
21-WP-2549-2023.odt

No. 4, has tendered the a>davit-in-reply, which is taken on record.

He would submit that the requirement of DCR 33(7) is that the

building should be a cessed building, and as the petitioner’s

structure is beyond the building line, the documents required to be

produced should establish the existence of the structure prior to

30th September 1969. He would further submit that the rent receipt

is a private document which cannot establish the existence of the

petitioner’s structure prior to the year 1969.

6 Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5

has tendered a decision of this Court dated 5 th August 2024 passed

in Writ Petition No. 518 of 2024. He would submit that in identical

facts, in respect of the same redevelopment scheme, this Court has

dismissed the petition ;led by an identically placed

tenant/occupant on the ground that the premises of the petitioner

therein was beyond the building line. He would therefore submit

that the present petition is required to be dismissed.

7 I have considered the submissions and perused the

record. The petitioner has been held ineligible on two counts:

;rstly, that the structure is not re,ected in the inspection records

SQ Pathan 3/5
21-WP-2549-2023.odt

of the year 1995–1996; and secondly, that the shop is situated

beyond the building line of Chawl No. 4. Though it is sought to be

contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in

an identical scheme of redevelopment in respect of some other

premises, a di@erent yardstick has been applied for deciding

ineligibility, the same is not demonstrated to have been placed

before the Authority. As such, the said contention cannot be

considered before this Court for the ;rst time. A perusal of the

impugned order does not indicate that any such material was

placed before the Authority for consideration, and there was no

application which was ;led by the petitioner showing that such

material was placed and was not considered by the Authority.

8 Insofar as the premises being beyond the building line

is concerned, as the redevelopment is under DCR 33(7), the

documents which are required to be produced by the petitioner are

documents showing the existence of the structure prior to 30 th

September 1969. Admittedly, no such document has been

produced. It is also pertinent to note that the Coordinate Bench of

this Court, in an identical case, where the petitioner’s structure

therein was beyond the building line, has refused to grant any
SQ Pathan 4/5
21-WP-2549-2023.odt

relief. The said decision rendered in identical facts will bind the

Coordinate Bench.

9 In light of the above, there is no merit in the petition.

The petition stands dismissed.

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

SQ Pathan 5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…