GANGABAI ANANT DHUMAL W/O. ANANT G. DHUMALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND 7 ORS.

          Digitally                                                  31-WP-517-2021.doc
          signed by
          RUPALI
RUPALI    RAJESH
RAJESH    WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
          2026.09.08   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          11:42:34
          +0530
                          ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 517 OF 2021


                Gangabai Anant Dhumal
                W/o Anant G. Dhumal                           ...Petitioner
                     Versus
                The State of Maharashtra Through
                Urban Development Department & Ors.           ...Respondents


                Mr. Vishal C. Ghosalkar for the Petitioner.

                Mr. Nishigandh Patil, A.G.P for the Respondent-State.

                Ms. Aparna Kalathil a/w Ms. Sayali Apte & Mr. Murlidharan Kalathil
                i/b Mr. P.G.Lad for the Respondent No.5 – MHADA.

                Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 –
                SRA.

                Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik a/w Ms. Laxmi Mishra i/b Kaushik & Co. for
                the Respondent No.7.

                                           CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                                   SANDESH D. PATIL JJ.
                                           DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026



                ORDER (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) :


                1.         By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of

   Wakodikar                                                                        1/7
                                                                 31-WP-517-2021.doc


            mandamus against the respondent No.3 to exercise its powers under

            Section 33 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Act, 1971 (‘SRA Act’

            for short) and implement the order dated 12 th April, 2010 by evicting

            the respondent No. 8 who according to the petitioner is an illegal

            occupant having illegal possession of flat No. B/407 in the building

            of the respondent No.6 - society and further to put the petitioner in

            possession of the said flat.



            2.          The petitioner is also seeking a relief of compensation for

            the temporary alternate accommodation till handing over the

            possession of the flat No. B/407 to the petitioner. The flat No. B/407

            (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said flat’).



            3.          The petitioner contended that the petitioner possessed a

            hut measuring at about 8.68 sq.mtr. in the slum area bearing

            Municipal Corporation No. 2/2/069/025 as per the photopass issued

            by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The respondent

            No.7 entered into agreement with the petitioner of providing


Wakodikar                                                                       2/7
                                                                  31-WP-517-2021.doc


            permanent alternate accommodation as against the said flat as the

            said hutment was within the slum area and the slum area was to be

            developed under the provisions of SRA scheme.          The petitioner’s

            contention is that the respondent No. 7 did not pay to the petitioner

            compensation for the temporary alternate accommodation.              In

            addition, the respondent No.7 also did not handover possession of

            the said flat as per the agreement dated 20 th September, 2002. It is

            the contention of the petitioner that the said flat which was agreed to

            be handed over to the petitioner was illegally occupied by the

            respondent No.8. The petitioner addressed a letter to respondent

            No.2 and called upon the respondent No.2 to put the petitioner in

            possession of the said flat.



            4.         The petitioner took several steps before the Authorities

            under the SRA for putting the petitioner in possession of the said flat.

            However, the respondent / Authorities did not take any steps in that

            regard. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to approach this

            Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent – SRA as


Wakodikar                                                                        3/7
                                                                 31-WP-517-2021.doc


            well as the learned Counsel appearing for the developer i.e. the

            respondent No.7 did not dispute the position that the flat was

            allotted to the petitioner and that the petitioner was to be put in

            possession of the said flat. He, however, disputed the quantum of the

            amount which was due and payable to the petitioner. He stated that

            the respondent No.8 was not put in possession by him and that the

            respondent No.8 was a tresspasser. He stated that the petition could

            be allowed to the extent of putting the petitioner in possession of the

            said flat by evicting the respondent No.8. He, however, stated that

            the said action has to be taken by the respondent Nos.2 to 4.      He,

            stated that there is a alternate remedy available to the petitioner

            under the SRA Act for the purpose of recovery of the rent and that

            this Court should not entertain the prayer for compensation.



            5.         We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the

            parties. We have perused the various documents which are annexed

            to the petition. It is not in dispute that an agreement was entered

            into between the petitioner and the respondent for the purpose of


Wakodikar                                                                       4/7
                                                                  31-WP-517-2021.doc


            allotment of the said flat to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute

            that an order dated 12th April, 2010 was passed by the Deputy

            Collector, SRA, wherein it was clearly stated that the third person i.e.

            the respondent No. 8 should be evicted and the petitioner should be

            put in possession of the said flat. Neither the respondent - SRA nor

            the respondent - developer has disputed passing of the order dated

            12th April, 2010. Since there are no disputed questions of fact in this

            matter, we have proceeded to hear the parties.



            6.          The respondent No.8 had appeared before this Court on

            the earlier occasion and time was sought by the respondent No.8 to

            engage an Advocate. Today, nobody appeared for the respondent

            No.8.   It appears that the respondent No.8 is not interested in

            prosecuting this matter. The respondent No.8 is not having any right

            in the said flat.   The order dated 12th April, 2010 fortifies this

            position.   In these circumstances, there is no reason why the

            petitioner who has been waiting for such a long time to be put in the

            possession of the said flat, should not be entitled to his legitimate


Wakodikar                                                                        5/7
                                                                 31-WP-517-2021.doc


            rights. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to be granted relief in

            terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition.



            7.         As far as the next prayer namely prayer for compensation

            is concerned, it is in the nature of recovery of rent, which is due to

            the petitioner in lieu of the temporary accommodation. The

            petitioner surely has remedy under the provisions of the SRA Act for

            that purpose. There is no reason why this Court should entertain the

            proceedings on that count. Even otherwise the respondents have

            disputed the quantum of the said amount. In such circumstances,

            since there is a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, we

            do not find it appropriate to entertain the petition to the extent that

            it relates to recovery of the compensation amount. We, therefore,

            proceed to dispose of the petition by passing the following order :

                                            ORDER

                       (i)   The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to evict the
                       respondent No. 8 from the flat bearing No. B/407 in the
                       building of the respondent No. 6- Society namely
                       Santacruz Golibar Tarun Bharat Co-operative Society,

Wakodikar                                                                         6/7
                                                                 31-WP-517-2021.doc


                     seventh Road, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East).


                     (ii)         The respondent is directed to carry out the
                     said exercise of evicting the respondent No.8, if there is no
                     legal impediment to execute the order dated 12th April,
                     2010 within a period of eight weeks from today and put
                     the petitioner in possession of the same.


                     (iii)        The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate
                     proceedings under the SRA Act for the purpose of recovery
                     of the compensation amount due to the petitioner in lieu
                     of the alleged temporary alternate accommodation.


                     (iv)         This Court has not considered the claim of the
                     petitioner to the extent of the compensation.


                     (v)          All the contention of all the parties on the
                     issue of quantum are kept open.



            8.        Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.




            (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                        (M. S. KARNIK, J.)



Wakodikar                                                                       7/7