Bombay High Court
RAVINDRA VINAYAK GADREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GOVERNMENT PLEADER A.S. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the petitioner's claim, permitting the probate to be placed on record.
Summary
The petitioner challenged an order of the Grievance Redressal Committee that denied him a rehabilitation unit under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 because he had not produced any document showing possession of the premises prior to 2016. The committee observed that the petitioner's niece was in possession of two huts and concluded that the petitioner was ineligible. The petitioner thereafter produced a will of his deceased brother bequeathing a specific room, together with a probate decree, to establish prior interest. Respondents contended that the probate was not on record at the time of the survey and should be produced for reconsideration. The High Court remanded the matter, directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's claim afresh, allowing him to file the probate, and ordered a decision within eight weeks, thereby disposing the petition by remand.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for a rehabilitation unit under the Slums Act in the absence of documentary proof of possession prior to 2016.
- Whether a probate of a brother's will, produced after the survey, can be considered to establish the petitioner's prior interest in the premises.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- rehabilitation
- slum redevelopment
- probate
- will
- eligibility
- possession
- Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
- writ petition
- remand
Judgment
27.WP.4908.2024(1).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4908 OF 2024
Ravindra Vinayak Gadre ….Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Nishant Sangle, for Petitioner.
Smt. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for State.
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : JANUARY 28, 2026
ORDER :
1. This Petition impugns an Order dated June 17, 2021 passed by
Respondent No.2, Grievance Redressal Committee (“Impugned Order”)
under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slums Act”).
2. The Impugned Order disallows the claim of the Petitioner for a
rehabilitation unit in respect of the slum in question on the premise
that the Petitioner has not provided a single document to show his
possession of the premises prior to 2016. It is indicated in the
Impugned Order that the Petitioner’s niece, one Vaibhavi Gadre, was
found in the premises at the time the survey was conducted and her
Digitally signed
by AARTI
Page 1 of 3
AARTI GAJANAN
GAJANAN PALKAR JANUARY 28, 2026
PALKAR Date:
2026.02.03
Aarti Palkar
11:26:24 +0530
27.WP.4908.2024(1).docx
name was mentioned in Annexure II against Hut No.1750. The said
Vaibhavi Gadre was also found to be in possession of Hut No.1744 and
had been declared eligible in the respect of rehabilitation in lieu of Hut
No.1744.
3. Therefore, the Petitioner was held to be ineligible, and the
appellate forum, which passed the Impugned Order, has indicated that
there is not a single document to indicate the Petitioner’s interest prior
to 2016.
4. A close perusal of the Impugned Order would indicate that the
Petitioner did bring to bear a will made by his brother, Vijay Vinayak
Gadre, in his favour which alludes to Room No.962 bearing Structure
No.378 as being bequeathed to the Petitioner. This is said to
correspond to the entitlement denied on account of the niece being
found in possession of two units. The said Vijay Vinayak Gadre is said
to have passed away some time in 2013 and a probate is also said to
have been obtained.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents states that at the relevant
time of survey, the probate had not been in place and should the matter
be remanded with the probate being brought on record, the matter
would be re-considered by the Respondents.
Page 2 of 3
JANUARY 28, 2026
Aarti Palkar
27.WP.4908.2024(1).docx
6. The Respondents shall deal with the aforesaid facet of the matter
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks
from today.
7. In these circumstances, the Petition is disposed of by way of
remand directing the Respondents to consider the matter afresh from
the perspective of the prior interest in the premises (prior to 2016),
with liberty to the Petitioner to bring the probate on record.
8. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 3 of 3
JANUARY 28, 2026
Aarti Palkar
Checking your session…