Bombay High Court
ANJANEYA DILIP PATANKARversusAPEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The order permitting the developer to implement the slum‑rehabilitation scheme does not warrant interference, and the CEO's direction to correct the record of rights does not confer any right on the developer nor affect the petitioner's proprietary rights.
Summary
The petitioner, a co‑owner of land declared a slum, challenged an order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee that dismissed his appeal against a CEO, SRA, order allowing a developer to implement a slum‑rehabilitation scheme on the subject land. The petitioner argued that the CEO’s direction to correct the record of rights was beyond the CEO’s jurisdiction and that such correction would affect his proprietary rights. The Court observed that the mutation of the heirs’ names to the record of rights had already occurred and that any claim of ownership must be pursued in a civil suit. It clarified that the CEO’s direction to correct the record does not, by itself, confer any right on the developer nor prejudice the petitioner’s co‑ownership. Consequently, the order permitting the developer to proceed was not interfered with, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee's order dismissing the petitioner's appeal is liable to be set aside on the ground that the CEO, SRA, exceeded jurisdiction by directing correction of the record of rights.
- Whether the CEO's direction to correct the record of rights confers any entitlement on the developer and impinges upon the petitioner's proprietary rights.
- Whether the petitioner should approach a civil court for relief concerning his co‑ownership rights over the subject property.
Subjects
- slum rehabilitation
- record of rights
- co‑ownership
- civil suit
- proprietary rights
- writ petition
- jurisdiction
- appeal dismissal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:4098
9 wp 797 of 2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.797 OF 2026
Anjaneya Dilip Patankar ... Petitioner
versus
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. J.S.Kini with Mr. Aum Kini i/by Sapna Krishnappa, for Petitioner.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 23 JANUARY 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 29 May 2025 passed
by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (R1) in Appeal No.38 of 2024,
whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order passed by
the CEO, SRA, Pune, thereby permitting Respondent No.3 to implement the
slum rehabilitation scheme on the Final Plot No.2/1, 2/4, 3/1, T.P.scheme
No.1, Erandwane, Pune, came to be dismissed.
3. Mr. Kini, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner
is a co-owner of the subject land which has been declared as the slum. The
Petitioner claims through Ms. Anjaneya D. Patankar, daughter of
Chandrakant, in whose favour, a decree in Civil Suit No.1786 of 1993 was
passed alongwith his brother Vasant. After the demise of Chandrakant, in the
year 2017, the names of the Petitioner and other heirs of Chandrakant have
SSP 1/3
9 wp 797 of 2026.doc
been mutated to the record of rights of the subject property.
4. Mr. Kini submitted that, in the order passed by the CEO, SRA, the
developer has been granted liberty to seek corrections in the record of rights
of the subject property. Such a direction is beyond the remit of the jurisdiction
of the CEO, SRA. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has not
adverted to the said aspect of the matter though a specific objection was
raised on behalf of the Petitioner.
5. Mr. Kini further submitted that, on the strength of the said observation,
the developer has moved the revenue authority for correction in the record of
rights of the subject property.
6. It appears that, after the demise of Chandrakant in the year 2007, the
names of the legal heirs of Chandrakant came to be mutated to the record of
rights to a portion of the property over which SR scheme is being
implemented, in the year 2017. If the Petitioner claims proprietary title over
the subject property, the Petitioner will have to approach the Civil Court
seeking appropriate reliefs. The Petitioner may also assert preferential right to
implement SR scheme over the portion of the declared slum in the capacity of
the owners thereof, in the manner known to law.
7. Thus, the order permitting the Respondent No.3 to develop SR
scheme, does not warrant any interference. However, it needs to be clarified
that the directions by the CEO, SRA, that the Respondent No.3 – developer
SSP 2/3
9 wp 797 of 2026.doc
shall get the record of rights of the subject property corrected, will not, by
itself, confer any right on the Respondent No.3 – developer. To that extent, it
is clarified that the said direction would not impinge upon the proprietary rights
which the Petitioner may have over the subject property as a co-owner
thereof. And, in the event, the Petitioner institutes a suit in vindication of his
proprietary rights, the said observation would not bear upon adjudication of
such suit.
8. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petition stands disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )
SSP 3/3
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/01/2026 15:01:09
Checking your session…