Bombay High Court

RAKSHA ARJUN DHANAKversusTHE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE MUMBAI SUBURBAN,

Decided: 31 August 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner failed to produce credible evidence of pre‑2000 occupation, so the Committee's finding of ineligibility was justified.

Summary

The petitioner challenged an order dated 6 June 2025 in which the Grievance Redressal Committee dismissed her appeal against a finding that she was ineligible as a commercial structure. She relied on a 2000 MHADA survey slip to claim prior occupation of the structure for commercial purposes. The Court examined the Committee’s reasoning and found that the petitioner had not produced any document predating 1 January 2000 showing such occupation, noting that the electricity connection for commercial use was only obtained in 2004 and the voter list did not reflect earlier occupancy. Consequently, the Court concluded that the Committee’s finding was justified and there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition. The order of the Grievance Redressal Committee therefore stands.

Issues considered

Whether the Grievance Redressal Committee erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of ineligibility as a commercial structure.
Whether the petitioner produced sufficient evidence to establish occupation of the commercial structure prior to 1 January 2000.
Whether the order of the Committee is infirmable under the Court's supervisory jurisdiction.

Subjects

slum survey
commercial structure eligibility
Grievance Redressal Committee
supervisory jurisdiction
occupancy evidence
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
voter list
electricity connection

Judgment

                                                                      10-WP3849-2026.DOC

                                                                                  Santosh

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


                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 3849 OF 2026

                      Raksha Arjun Dhanak                                   ...Petitioner
                                       Versus
                      The Grievance Redressal Committee,
                      Mumbai Suburban & ors.                            …Respondents



                      Mr. Shaikh Usman, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for Respondent – State.
                      Mr. Abhijit Aher, i/b Tanaya Goswami, for the SRA.
SANTOSH
                      Mr. Sachin Vajale, i/b Komal Punjabi, and Pallavi Tahkar, for
SUBHASH                    Respondent No.3-BMC.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI                                               CORAM:      N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Date: 2026.09.03
13:33:23 +0530                                         DATED:      31st AUGUST, 2026

                      Oral Order:-

                      1.   Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


                      2.   The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 6 th June,

                      2025 whereby the Grievance Redressal Committee dismissed

                      the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order passed

                      by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 35/2024, which had,

                      in turn, dismissed the appeal against the determination under

                      the Annexure-II that the petitioner was ineligible qua a

                      commercial structure.




                                                     1/3
                                                 10-WP3849-2026.DOC

3.   The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention

of the Court to the letter dated 16 th April, 2021, which indicated

that, in the survey of the slums carried out in the year 2000 by

the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, the

petitioner was issued Survey Slip 0840900. Yet, the Competent

Authority has observed that for want of clarification from

MHADA, the petitioner was declared ineligible qua a commercial

structure.


4.   This Court finds that, that was not the sole ground on

which the petitioner was declared ineligible qua a commercial

structure. The Authority has found that, there was no

document which was predated 1st January, 2000, to show the

occupation by the petitioner of the subject structure for a

commercial    purpose.   The    electricity   connection   for   the

commercial purpose was obtained in the year 2004. None of the

voters list indicated that, the petitioner was in the occupation of

the commercial structure prior to 1st January, 2000.


5.   Thus, upon appraisal of the material on record, the

Authorities have arrived at a justifiable finding as the petitioner

failed to place on record any credible material to show that she

was in occupation of the commercial structure since prior to 1 st

January, 2000.      Therefore, this Court in exercise of its

                               2/3
                                           10-WP3849-2026.DOC

supervisory jurisdiction does not find any infirmity in the

impugned order.


6.   The petition stands dismissed.


                                      [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




                             3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.