Bombay High Court
PRAKASH BALKRISHNA JADHAVversusADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI CITY
- Decided
- Disposal
- WITHDRAWN
Holding
The court held that the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and must approach the GRC for any further relief, as the earlier order had attained finality.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Balkrishna Jadhav, challenged a Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) order dated 22 May 2026 that set aside an earlier order of 28 April 2025 which had included his name as a joint occupant in Annexure II. The GRC had held that the petitioner had not made a clean breast of the transaction and ignored a prior order dated 18 January 2020 from Appeal No.170 of 2018, which had rejected his earlier appeal. The petitioner argued that, under the SRA Circular of 18 December 2024, the appropriate remedy was to approach the GRC rather than the lower Appellate Authority, as the earlier order had attained finality. The court, noting the procedural posture, granted leave to withdraw the writ petition and directed the petitioner to seek relief before the GRC if desired. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can challenge the GRC order allowing the respondent's appeal and set aside the earlier inclusion of his name as joint occupant.
- Whether the petitioner should approach the GRC instead of the lower Appellate Authority given the finality of the earlier order.
Subjects
- Grievance Redressal Committee
- Annexure II
- joint occupant
- withdrawal of petition
- appellate authority
- SRA Circular
- property rights
- marital dispute
Judgment
2026:BHC-OS:19053
20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3257 OF 2026
Prakash Balkrishna Jadhav ... Petitioner
versus
Additional Collector and Appellate Authority
and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Khushnood Akhtar with Mr. Hamza Shaikh, Ms. Shifa Farooqui i/by Mr.
Shivaji Nirmale, for Petitioner.
Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for State.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 25 AUGUST 2026
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 22 May 2026 passed
by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), whereby the appeal preferred
by the Respondent No.6, the purported estranged wife of the Petitioner,
against an order dated 28 April 2025, directing the inclusion of the name of
the Petitioner in the Annexure II as a joint occupant, came to be allowed by
setting aside the said order.
3. The GRC was of the view that the Petitioner had not a made a clean
breast of the transaction and there was no reference to the order dated 18
January 2020 passed in Appeal No.170 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioner
against an order dated 4 June 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. By
SSP 1/3
20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc
the said order dated 18 January 2020, in Appeal No.170 of 2018, the GRC
had rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The observations in the
concluding paragraph of the said order dated 18 January 2020 read as
under :
“The appellant claimed that he was also present in said
structure at the time of survey. The said version of
appellant appears to be contradictory. Because as per
appellant’s own version due to matrimonial dispute he
temporarily shifted to his relative’s residence Smt. Shobha
Pawar, 239-A, Katkar House, Katkar Lane, Worli, Koliwada.
The impugned order of Additional Collector reveals that a
intervention application was filed by Respondent No.5
before Additional Collector. Before Additional Collector, the
Respondent No.5 has pleaded that due to illness she has
shifted to her native village in Konkan since the year 2001.
On careful consideration of facts and circumstances on
record, it appears that the Respondent No.2 was occupying
the said structure at relevant time and the Competent
Authority has rightly inserted her name in Annexure II. It is
also to be noted here that even if there is name of wife as
per the provisions of DCR the husband get equal right in
tenement. The appeal is liable to be rejected…...”
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner was
required to approach the Appellate Authority, in view of the SRA Circular
dated 18 December 2024 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, in the
matter of inclusion of the names of the husband and wife in the Annexure II.
SSP 2/3
20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc
5. If that was the case, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner was to
approach the GRC in Appeal No.170 of 2018. The Petitioner could not have
approached the lower Appellate Authority as the order in Appeal No.170 of
2018 had attained finality.
6. When the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the Petition in
view of the aforesaid consideration, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
seeks leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to approach the GRC in
Appeal No.170 of 2018 and seek appropriate reliefs.
7. Leave granted with liberty as prayed for.
8. In the event, such an application is filed before the GRC in Appeal
No.170 of 2018, the same shall be decided on its own merits and in
accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
9. Writ Petition stands disposed as withdrawn.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/08/2026 12:20:30
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.