GANPAT KRISHNA PARTEversusHIGH POWER COMMITTEE, GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                      WP-7099-2016-J.doc



                                                                              Sayali


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SAYALI
DEEPAK                             WRIT PETITION NO. 7099 OF 2016
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
                      Ganpat Krishna Parte                     … Petitioner
UPASANI
Date: 2026.08.28
                                 V/s.
12:04:25 +0530        1. High Power Committee, Govt. of
                         Maharashtra

                      2. Secretary,
                         Slum Rehabilitation Authority

                      3. Assistant Commissioner, ‘N’ Ward &
                         the Competent Authority

                      4. Nalanda CHS Ltd (Regd)

                      5.   Money Magnum Nest Pvt. Ltd.         … Respondents

                      Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni i/b V. S. Daware, for
                      Petitioner.
                      Mr. J. G. Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent nos. 1 &
                      2.
                      Mr. D. R. Kawale, for Respondent No. 3 – BMC.
                      Ms. Riya Thakkar i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia, for
                      Respondent No. 5.



                                      CORAM               : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                      RESERVED ON         : AUGUST 24, 2026

                                      PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 28, 2026




                                                    1
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc




JUDGMENT :
1.   The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01st August,
2015 passed by respondent no. 1 in Application No. 292 of
2013. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks that the said
order be quashed and set aside.

2.   The facts and circumstances because of which the present
petition has been filed are as follows. In the year 1976, the
Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Ward issued a Pitch Card in respect
of Hut No. 85/6 in the name of the petitioner's brother,
Madhukar G. Parte. The said hut was shown for residential
purpose. In the year 1985, the petitioner started residing in Hut
No. 478 along with his wife and other family members. For the
said hut, he obtained a Residential Electricity Connection.
Thereafter, in the year 1992, the petitioner started a canteen
business in the said hut and obtained a Commercial Electricity
Connection for carrying on the said business. On 29 May 2000,
the Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Ward issued Annexure-II for
development of the said slum under the Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme. In the said Annexure-II, the Censused Hut was shown
at Serial No. 55 on the basis of the Pitch Card issued in the year
1976. The hut in which the petitioner was residing before 1
January 1995 was shown as eligible for residential purpose in
the name of the petitioner's wife, Kalawati G. Parte. On the same
date, i.e. 29 May 2000, the Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Ward
issued a Slum Plan along with the said Annexure-II. In the said



                                  2
                                                          WP-7099-2016-J.doc


plan, the two huts were shown separately and there was no
common area shown between them. In the year 2005, the
petitioner   filed   an   Appeal       before   the   Secretary,    Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, seeking change of user of Hut No. 55.
According to the petitioner, the hut was wrongly shown as
residential instead of commercial in Annexure-II. On 20
November 2006, the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority
forwarded the petitioner's Appeal to the Assistant Commissioner,
'N' Ward for taking a decision. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the
Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority issued Annexure-II to
Nalanda Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. In that Annexure-II, the petitioner's
wife was declared ineligible. According to the petitioner, this
was done without issuing any 'Show Cause Notice' to her and
without giving her an opportunity of hearing.

3.    On 02 June 2008, the Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Ward
forwarded the electricity bill produced by the petitioner to
Reliance Energy Ltd. for verification. On 04 June 2008, the
Deputy General Manager of Reliance Energy Ltd., by his letter
bearing No. 215/2008, informed the Senior Colony Officer,
Eastern Suburb, that the electricity connection had been
obtained in the year 1992. It was stated that the connection was
still running and that it was a commercial connection standing
in the name of the petitioner. On 13 October 2008, the Assistant
Commissioner, 'N' Ward rejected the petitioner's claim for
Commercial Purpose. Being dissatisfied with this decision, the
petitioner   filed   an   Appeal       before   the   Secretary,    Slum



                                   3
                                                       WP-7099-2016-J.doc


Rehabilitation Authority. Thereafter, on 21 September 2012, the
Tahsildar, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, once again forwarded
the electricity bill produced by the petitioner to Reliance Energy
Ltd. for verification. On 24 December 2012, the Deputy General
Manager of Reliance Energy Ltd., by email, informed the
Tahsildar, Slum Rehabilitation Authority that the electricity
connection had been obtained in the year 1992. The said
connection was still running and was a commercial connection
standing in the name of the petitioner. On 02 September 2013,
the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority rejected the
petitioner's claim and confirmed the decision of the Assistant
Commissioner, 'N' Ward.

4.    According to the petitioner, this decision was taken
without giving him an opportunity of hearing and without
following the Principles of Natural Justice. In the year 2013,
therefore, the petitioner challenged the said decision of the
Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority before the High Power
Committee, Government of Maharashtra, by filing Application
No. 292 of 2013. On 01 August 2015, the High Power
Committee,    Government      of       Maharashtra,   dismissed     the
petitioner's application. The reason given was that the electricity
bill was only secondary proof for deciding the petitioner's
eligibility. Thereafter, on 20 August 2015, the Advocate for the
petitioner addressed a letter to the High Power Committee,
Government of Maharashtra. By the said letter, the petitioner
pointed out provision No. 5.1 of the Development Control



                                   4
                                                        WP-7099-2016-J.doc


Regulation. According to the petitioner, under the said provision,
an Electricity Bill is treated as proof of eligibility. The petitioner,
being aggrieved by the order dated 01 August 2015, has
therefore filed the present petition.

5.    Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to
consider that the petitioner had a Commercial Electricity
connection, namely LF-2, in his name prior to 01 January 1995.
According to him, this clearly shows that the structure bearing
Annexure-II No. 55 was being used for commercial purpose and
was therefore a Commercial structure. It was submitted that the
structure was wrongly shown as residential in Annexure-II. The
petitioner, therefore, ought to have been declared eligible for
Commercial purpose, since there was material to show that the
said premises were being used for Commercial purposes prior to
01 January 1995. He submitted that the petitioner has been
residing in Hut Annexure-II No. 478 from prior to 01 January
1995 till today. At the same time, he has been carrying on his
business in Hut Annexure-II No. 55. According to him, both the
huts have separate electricity bills from a period prior to 01
January 1995. These electricity bills, according to the petitioner,
show that the two huts were separately existing even before 01
January 1995. Therefore, the commercial use of Hut Annexure-II
No. 55 could not have been ignored.

6.    He submitted that Regulation 33(10) of the Development
Control and Promotion Regulation, 1991, as well as the


                                  5
                                                  WP-7099-2016-J.doc


Government Regulation dated 16 May 2015, specifically provide
for production of any one document prior to 01 January 2000
for declaring a slum dweller eligible under the Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme. According to him, the petitioner had
produced the relevant electricity record much before the said
date and the same was sufficient to consider his claim. However,
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not properly consider the said
provision. They therefore wrongly came to the conclusion that
the structure of the petitioner bearing Sr. No. 55 was not
protected for Commercial purpose.

7.   Ms. Riya Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent no. 5, submitted that Respondent No. 5 has already
handed over a total of 58 Project Affected Persons ("PAP")
tenements, consisting of both residential and commercial
rehabilitation units, to the Estate Department of the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority. The residential tenements were handed
over vide letter dated 21 April 2022 and the commercial
rehabilitation units were handed over vide letter dated 8
January 2025. According to her, the said handover has been
acknowledged by the concerned authority. She submitted that in
the year 2021, Respondent No. 5 had offered possession of the
residential premises to the petitioner. However, the petitioner
did not accept the possession offered to him. Therefore, by its
letter dated 9 February 2026, Respondent No. 5 handed over the
residential premises allotted to the petitioner to the Estate
Department of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It was



                               6
                                                   WP-7099-2016-J.doc


submitted that the PAPs and the rehabilitation residential and
commercial tenements allotted to those slum dwellers who did
not accept possession have been handed over to the Estate
Department of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. In these
circumstances, Respondent No. 5 has no authority to allot or
grant any commercial tenement in the rehabilitation building to
the petitioner, since the same is now within the control of the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

8.   It was therefore submitted that the above facts show that
the rehabilitation obligations of Respondent No. 5 have
substantially been completed. According to Respondent No. 5,
rights have accrued in favour of the eligible slum dwellers under
the Scheme. The petitioner is now seeking to reopen the
question of his eligibility and his claim for a commercial
tenement, even though the statutory authorities have already
considered the issue and have concurrently decided against him.
It was submitted that the project has substantially been
implemented. Therefore, if the present petition is entertained at
this stage, it would cause serious prejudice to the rights of
several persons who are not parties before this Court. It would
affect the redevelopment project, in which the rehabilitation
component had been completed several years ago.

9.   Mr. Arwad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.
1 and 2, submitted that under the Government Resolution dated
16 May 2015, seven documents have been specified for
considering the eligibility of a slum dweller. According to him,


                                 7
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc


the documents at Serial Nos. 1 to 6 relate to proof of residential
occupation of the premises. The document mentioned at Serial
No. 7 is the relevant document for establishing that the premises
were being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, merely
producing an electricity bill showing a commercial connection is
not sufficient to establish the petitioner's entitlement to a
commercial rehabilitation premises.

      Reasons and Analysis

10.   I have considered the Petition, the submissions made by
the learned Advocates appearing for all the parties and the
material which is placed before the Court. I have considered the
Government     Resolution    dated    16   May   2015    and     the
communication of the Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Department
concerning Annexure-II Serial No. 55. The main thing which is
required to be seen is whether the petitioner has shown, from
the documents which can be considered under the said
Government Resolution, that Hut No. 55 was being used for
commercial purpose on or before the relevant qualifying date. If
the petitioner is able to establish this, then it will have to be
seen whether on that basis he can claim a commercial
rehabilitation premises.

11.   Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was having Commercial
Electricity connection, namely LF-2, in his name before 01
January 1995. According to him, because of this, Hut No. 55




                                8
                                                     WP-7099-2016-J.doc


shown in Annexure-II could not have been treated as a
residential hut. He submitted that the petitioner was residing in
Hut No. 478 and was carrying on his business in Hut No. 55.
According to him, both the huts were having separate electricity
connections even before 01 January 1995. On this basis, it was
submitted that the two huts were separately existing and Hut
No. 55 was being used for commercial purpose.

12.   This submission of the petitioner cannot be left out
because the electricity record is a relevant document. The
Government Resolution includes electricity records amongst the
documents which can be considered for showing that the
hutment was existing on or before 01 January 2000. In the
Statement attached to the Government Resolution, Serial No. 2
specifically   mentions   “Documents/records/bills     of    electric
connection given by authorized electric company to that
hutment.” Therefore, the electricity bill produced by the
petitioner is required to be considered. It can show that the
hutment was existing and that an electricity connection was
given to that hutment. Thus, it cannot be said that the electricity
bill has no value whatsoever. But when the question of the
actual use of the hut is considered, the position becomes
different. The Government Resolution does not provide that
every electricity bill, even if it is for a commercial connection,
will become final proof of commercial use. Paragraph 1(a) of the
Government Resolution requires “At least one compulsory proof
from the accompanying statement” for deciding whether the



                                 9
                                                         WP-7099-2016-J.doc


hutment was existing on or before 01 January 2000 and was
eligible for protection. The accompanying Statement contains
seven types of documents. Serial Nos. 1 to 6 include electoral
roll, electricity records, enumeration form, property tax
assessment, non-agricultural permission and share certificate.
Serial No. 7 has been separately provided where the hutment is
claimed to have been used for commercial, professional or
industrial   purpose.   It   refers   to   a   “Permit    for    agency
(Gumasta)/mess” or “Restaurant licence/tax receipt” obtained
on or before 01 January 2000 and mentioning the hutment
number or definite location, in respect of a hutment used for
“professional or industrial nature use or being used besides for
residential purposes.” The separate mention of Serial No. 7
therefore cannot be ignored. Serial No. 2 is relating to the
electricity connection and is relevant for showing the existence
of the hutment. Serial No. 7 is relating to the document showing
the nature of use where the hutment is claimed to have been
used for professional, industrial or other non-residential
purpose. Thus, the Government Resolution makes a difference
between proving that the hut existed and proving for what
purpose the hut was being used.

13.   If the petitioner's submission is accepted, then every
electricity bill showing a commercial connection would have to
be treated as proving commercial eligibility. Such interpretation
cannot be taken from the language of the Government
Resolution. The seven documents cannot be treated as if each



                                 10
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc


one of them proves all the requirements. The document at Serial
No. 2 may show the existence of the hutment on the relevant
date. But when a specific commercial entitlement is claimed, the
proof regarding commercial or professional use becomes
important. Serial No. 7 has been separately provided for that
purpose and its requirement cannot be made ineffective.

14.     The BMC communication placed on record requires
consideration. It records that the hut shown in Annexure-II at
Serial No. 55 was shown in the Municipal Corporation records
as residential. It records that the occupant had produced proof
showing residence before 01 January 1995 and that his name
was appearing in the voter list dated 01 January 1995. It is
recorded that the Municipal Corporation records showed his
residence in the hut. These entries cannot be ignored merely
because the petitioner has produced a commercial electricity
bill.

15.     There is another important part of the same BMC
communication. As per the municipal record, the hut was
residential. It was stated that if the hut was being used for non-
residential purpose, the residential entry concerning the hut was
required to be cancelled. It was stated that if the applicant was
residing in the hut and at the same time was using it for non-
residential purpose, there ought to have been two separate
entrances for the two purposes. The income-tax returns for the
years 2003-04 and 2004-05 were found to describe the premises
as “Residential”. The BMC communication records that, except


                                11
                                                     WP-7099-2016-J.doc


for the electricity bill, the applicant had not produced any other
proof such as a telephone bill or Gumasta licence. On this basis,
the municipal authority came to the conclusion that the hut was
being used as a residence and was not eligible to be treated as a
non-residential hut under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
scheme. Therefore, it cannot be said that the authorities ignored
the electricity bill. The bill was considered, but the authorities
found that the other material available on record was showing
the premises as residential.

16.   There is one factual aspect which requires to be noticed.
The BMC communication placed on record refers to the
applicant as “Shri Ganpat Krishna Patil”, whereas the present
petitioner, according to the pleadings before this Court, is a
different person. The BMC communication does not explain this
difference in names. Therefore, I would not treat the said
communication as conclusive against the personal claim of the
present petitioner. However, since the communication concerns
Annexure-II Serial No. 55 and deals with whether the said hut
was residential or non-residential, its contents cannot be left out
from consideration. Even if the communication is taken as
relating to the premises in question, it does not establish the
petitioner's commercial entitlement.

17.   The petitioner has relied upon the fact that the commercial
electricity connection was obtained in the year 1992 and that
the electricity company thereafter confirmed that the connection
was still running as a commercial connection in the petitioner's


                                12
                                                   WP-7099-2016-J.doc


name. This is relevant material and, to that extent, the
petitioner's submission requires consideration. But the question
before the Court is not whether a commercial electricity
connection was existing. The question is whether such
connection is sufficient to give the petitioner a right to a
commercial rehabilitation tenement under the prescribed
procedure. On considering the Government Resolution as a
whole, such conclusion cannot be drawn.

18.   The Government Resolution has prescribed a particular
procedure for deciding eligibility. The Competent Officer is
required to scrutinize the documents and thereafter take an
appropriate decision after inspection. The procedure requires the
relevant records and prescribed proofs to be considered along
with spot inspection. Therefore, eligibility cannot be decided
only by looking at one document separately without considering
the other material relating to the hutment. The petitioner has
relied upon the earlier qualifying date of 01 January 1995. This
submission by cannot assist the petitioner because the
Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015 records that the
date 01 January 1995 prescribed under the Maharashtra Slum
Areas Act for protection of hutments was changed to 01 January
2000 by the notification published in the Government Gazette
dated 02 May 2014. Therefore, the earlier date of 01 January
1995 remains part of the factual history and the documents
relating to that period may be considered. However, the
petitioner cannot proceed on the basis that 01 January 1995



                               13
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc


continued to be the governing qualifying date under the
Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015.

19.   The petitioner has relied upon the fact that the two huts
were separately shown and that they had separate electricity
bills. This may show that the two huts were separately existing.
But this fact does not establish that one particular hut was being
used for commercial purpose. The separate existence of two huts
and the commercial use of Hut No. 55 are two different
questions. An electricity record may assist in showing the first
question. For the second question, the nature of use and the
documents prescribed for proving such use have to be
considered. The Government Resolution makes this distinction.

20.   The submission of the petitioner based upon Regulation
33(10) and the Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015
cannot be accepted beyond this point. The authorities were
required to consider the documents prescribed under the
Government Resolution. But the requirement of one proof for
establishing eligibility of a hutment cannot mean that every such
document is sufficient for every separate entitlement. The
Statement places electricity records at Serial No. 2, whereas
documents such as Gumasta permit, restaurant licence or tax
receipt are separately placed at Serial No. 7 for proving the
relevant non-residential use. This distinction has to be given
effect. It is important that the BMC record does not show that
the petitioner had produced a Gumasta licence, restaurant
licence, tax receipt or any similar document of the nature


                               14
                                                     WP-7099-2016-J.doc


mentioned in Serial No. 7. The communication, in fact, records
that there was no other proof apart from the electricity bill. In
these circumstances, the conclusion of the authorities that the
commercial electricity bill by was not sufficient cannot be said to
be without any basis. The said conclusion is in accordance with
the distinction made in the Government Resolution.

21.   I have considered the submissions of Ms. Riya Thakkar,
learned   Advocate    for   respondent   no.   5,   regarding     the
subsequent progress of the rehabilitation project. It was
submitted that 58 PAP tenements, consisting of residential and
commercial rehabilitation units, have been handed over to the
Estate Department of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It was
submitted that the residential premises offered to the petitioner
were not accepted by him and that thereafter the petitioner's
residential premises were handed over to the Estate Department
by letter dated 09 February 2026. These facts concern the later
stage of implementation of the scheme. They cannot by
themselves create eligibility in favour of the petitioner if such
eligibility was not established from the prescribed documents. At
the same time, these facts are relevant while considering
whether an old claim should now be reopened after substantial
implementation of the rehabilitation scheme.

22.   The Government Resolution considers the situation where
a person was earlier declared ineligible. Paragraph 7 deals with
the position where a hutment is subsequently found eligible
under a changed criterion and the rehabilitation building is still


                                15
                                                     WP-7099-2016-J.doc


under construction. At the same time, it specifically provides
that, “if the construction of all rehabilitation buildings of the
concerned slum rehabilitation scheme has been completed, then
it will not be possible to accommodate in those rehabilitation
buildings such hutment dwellers who have been declared
ineligible as per earlier criteria dated 01 January 1995.”
Therefore, the stage of the rehabilitation project is a matter
which has been recognized in the Government Resolution. Thus,
the petitioner's claim has to be considered as per the
documentary requirements applicable to him and keeping in
view the stage of the rehabilitation project. The petitioner has
not   shown    the   prescribed    document    which    establishes
commercial use in the manner required for claiming commercial
rehabilitation premises. Therefore, the subsequent progress of
the project does not defeat any commercial right which is
otherwise proved. But in the present case, the commercial right
has not been established.

23.   I have considered the petitioner's grievance that there was
no effective opportunity of hearing. The material before the
Court shows that the petitioner's claim was considered at
different stages by the Assistant Commissioner, the Secretary, the
Tahsildar and thereafter the High Power Committee. The
electricity record was sent to the electricity company for
verification. Thus, the material does not show that the electricity
bill was ignored. On the contrary, it was sent for verification and
the electricity company confirmed the date and nature of the



                                  16
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc


connection. Therefore, the real issue is not whether the
electricity bill was considered, but what legal effect could be
given to it under the Government Resolution. On this
substantive issue, the petitioner's case cannot be accepted. The
grievance regarding breach of natural justice, therefore, cannot
by result in granting commercial eligibility to the petitioner.
Even if the opportunity of hearing is taken to be inadequate, the
Court cannot direct that a particular document should be treated
as sufficient when the Government Resolution makes a
distinction between proof of existence of the hutment and proof
of its commercial use. A remand would not alter the basic
position on the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The
commercial entitlement still remains without the prescribed
proof.

24.      On considering the material as a whole, I find that the
electricity bill relied upon by the petitioner does have
evidentiary value. It can show that the hutment existed and that
an electricity connection was given to it. The confirmation of the
electricity company that the connection was commercial is a
relevant circumstance. But the same does not by fulfil the
separate requirement of showing that the premises were being
used for commercial, professional or industrial purpose in the
manner contemplated by Serial No. 7 of the Statement attached
to the Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015. On the other
hand, the municipal record shows the premises as residential. It
records residence of the occupant and refers to the income-tax



                                17
                                                    WP-7099-2016-J.doc


returns describing the premises as “Residential”. It records that
no proof such as a Gumasta licence was produced. This material
gives a basis for the conclusion reached by the authorities. The
petitioner has not placed before the Court any prescribed
document which can displace this material and establish the
claimed commercial use.

25.    The petitioner may have established that a commercial
electricity connection was existing. But that fact alone does not
establish that Hut No. 55 was a protected commercial hutment
under the Government Resolution or that the petitioner was
therefore entitled to a commercial rehabilitation tenement. The
conclusion reached by the authorities cannot, on the material
placed before the Court, be said to be perverse or without
supporting material.

26.   In the result, the petitioner has not established sufficient
ground for interference with the impugned order dated 01
August 2015. The claim for commercial eligibility cannot be
granted merely because a commercial electricity connection was
existing. The Government Resolution requires the proof
regarding existence of the hutment and the proof regarding its
commercial or professional use to be considered in their proper
manner. The material produced by the petitioner does not satisfy
the requirement for proving commercial use. The petition,
therefore, cannot succeed on merits.




                               18
                                                     WP-7099-2016-J.doc




27.   In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:-

      (i) The Petition is dismissed;

      (ii) The order dated 01 August 2015 passed by the High
      Power    Committee,     Government    of    Maharashtra,      in
      Application No. 292 of 2013 is upheld;

      (iii) Rule is discharged;

      (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.


                                           (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  19