All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: 25.7566.22-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7566 OF 2022 Shri Rahul Baburao Navsagare ….. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner Mr.P.P.Kakade, G.P. a/w Mr.S.B.Kalel, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 30, 2022 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned G.P. submits that the authority has now taken up the documents and would pass the orders on it. It appears that subsequently, directions have been issued by respondent no.3 for the acceptance of the documents and if the documents confirm to the provision of the the Registration Act, may register it. Naturally, the respondents would pass orders with regard to the registration of the documents or otherwise, on its own merits. TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA Date: 2022.07.04 11:15:13 +0530 25.7566.22-wp.docx Writ Petitions is disposed of. (S. M. MODAK,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 14251 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 14th June, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 12/12/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : 20th JUNE, 2017 P.C. . Not on Board. Taken on Board. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He states that notice of today's application has been served to the first respondent. He states that he will file an affidavit of service. We accept the statement. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 19th July, 2017. We direct the first respondent to depute the Designated Officer of the concerned ward to the site for ascertaining whether illegal construction as alleged by the petitioner is in progress. The Designated Officer shall visit the site within a period of three working days from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is served to the first respondent. 2 If the Designated Officer finds that illegal construction is in progress, he shall forthwith take steps in accordance with law for stopping the illegal construction and thereafter proceed to take steps for demolition of the illegal construction in accordance with law. 3 Compliance affidavit shall be filed by the Designated Officer before the next date. The first respondent to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 4 In addition to service through Court, private service is permitted. Along with private notice authenticated copy of this order shall be forwarded to the concerned respondents. (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT. VIBHA VASANT KANKANWADI, JJ DATE : 19th July, 2017 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 29/09/2017. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 11th January, 2018 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, matter stands adjourned to 02/04/2018. If any ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will be continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ....Petitioner V/S Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Atharva A.dandekar For Petitioner Mr N. R Bubna for R.no.1 CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ DATE : 12th January, 2018 P.C. : Not on Board. Taken on Board. No Order. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt Majedabano Mohd. Mukeem Ansari ..Petitioner vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Atharva A. Dandekar for the Petitioner. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2018 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. Mr. Dandekar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner states that he has served a notice to the advocates representing the Respondent No.1 as well as the Respondent No.4 of today's application. We accept the statement. Affidavit of service be filed within one week from today. He states that the Designated Officer of the Respondent No.1 has not complied with the directions contained in the order dated 28th June 2017. Place the Petition under caption "Direction" on 9th February 2018. We direct the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation to ensure that the Designated Officer of the concerned ward personally remains present on the next date along with the file. Advocate for the Petitioner to serve a copy of this order in the office of the Commissioner of the Respondent No.1 and the Commissioner shall act upon the said order. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6665 OF 2017 Smt. Majedabano Moh. Mukeem Ansari … Petitioner Vs. Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Atharva Dandekar for the Petitioner. Mr. N.R. Bubna for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul G. Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R.D. Suryawanshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : A.S. OKA & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 9 th FEBRUARY, 2018 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has produced for perusal of the Court a file containing relevant documents. The file shows that on 15th October, 2015 when the officers of the Municipal Corporation inspected the structure subject matter of this Petition (pages 79 to 83), construction of ground floor was in progress. It appears that further inspection was carried out on 16th October, 2015, when certain construction material was seized. It appears that on 4th November, 2015 a notice was issued to second and third respondents calling upon them to stop the construction. On 7th November, 2015 when the Municipal Officers visited the property, it was found that slab of the ground floor was laid which was not in existence on 15th October, 2015. On 8th March, 2016, when the Municipal Officers visited the property it was found that brick work of the ground floor and the construction of erection of columns of the first floor was in progress. Photographs taken on that date are also part of the file. It appears that prosecution was lodged against second and third respondents under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short "the MRTP Act, 1966"). There are further reports of inspection carried out by the Municipal officers and photographs taken during the course of inspection. It appears that construction continued on the site. The report dated 11th August, 2016 submitted by the Municipal officers of the inspection along with photographs show that RCC work of ground plus two floors was completed and work of third floor was in progress. 2 On 31st May, 2017 again inspection was taken when it was found that substantial work of ground plus three floors was completed. Some shops on the ground floor were occupied and the construction of fourth floor was in progress. There are subsequent notices issued by the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and in fact of 2nd June, 2017 hearing was fixed. It appears that FIR was registered vide C.R. 81/2017. On 7th June, 2017 an order was made by the Assistant Commissioner which is addressed to second and third respondents which holds that construction of ground plus four floors made by them is completely illegal. In terms of adinterim order passed by this Court on 12th July, 2017 the Municipal Officers visited the building. At that time, it was found that construction of ground plus five floors was completed. The work of plastering upto three floors was completed. Partial brick work of fourth floor was completed and brick work of fifth floor was in progress. It is pointed out that out of 13 galas on the ground floor, some have been occupied and some are kept closed. It is pointed out that some of the flats have been also occupied. The photographs taken on 24th October, 2017 have been annexed which show that substantial number of shops on the ground floor have been occupied and parts of the upper floors has been occupied. 3 It is true that the petitioner has filed a suit for injunction against second to fourth respondents in which a limited injunction has been granted which prevents the second to fourth respondents from carrying out construction. The documents in the file prima facie show that there is no development permission granted to second to fourth respondents. The second to fourth respondents have proceeded with construction as stated above after 27th July, 2015. Apart from the fact that construction is grossly illegal it was completely in breach of the order dated 27th July, 2015 passed by the Civil Court. 4 The issue in this Petition is about inaction of the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation to take action of demolition against the illegal structure. Notwithstanding the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner, this Petition will have to be interfered as the documents produced by the Municipal Corporation prima facie show that notwithstanding several notices issued by the Municipal Corporation and notwithstanding grant of interim relief by the trial Court, the construction high handedly proceeded. The construction of ground plus five floors is completely illegal. Some of the premises have been permitted to be occupied. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents states that Shri Ethesham Ahmed Azmi is present in the Court on behalf of the second to fourth respondents. 5 At this stage, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second to fourth respondents pointed out that in this Petition the grievance made is about illegal construction in respect of CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part). The documents in the file to which we have made a reference indicate that the same are in respect of the land bearing Survey No.72/3, CTS No.342, Vetalpada, Bhiwandi. Thus, the structure subject matter of the documents in the file is on land bearing CTS No.342, Survey No.72/3 in respect of which no relief is claimed in the Petition. 6 We may note that in R.C.S. No.428 of 2015, the prayer sought is in respect of the land bearing CTS No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 (part) at village Nagaon, Khandupada. Therefore, second to fourth respondents were right in submitting that the file which is produced by the learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation does not relate to City Survey No.334, Survey No.32, Hissa No.3 or Survey No.82, Hissa No.3. 7 In the circumstances and in view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner is already pending in the Civil Court, we decline to entertain this Petition. However, we clarify that notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition, the Municipal Corporation is bound to take action in accordance with law for demolition of the illegal structure constructed on Survey No.72/3 of village Nagaon, (City Survey No.342) at Bhiwandi, District Thane. Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of. (P.N. DESHMUKH, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2358 OF 2021 Vikas Vitthal Ghurup .....Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra .....Respondent None for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre APP, for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : $13^{text{th}}$ JANUARY, 2023. P.C.:- ssm Ms Mhatre, learned APP on instructions from the Superintendent, Nashik-Road Central Prison, Nashik submitted that, subsequent to the rejection of the Application dated 20 th August 2018 for furlough leave filed by the Petitioner, he was released on COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Parole Leave on 23 rd August, 2021and has reported back to the Jail Authority on 20 th May, 2022. That, the Petitioner was also released on furlough leave from 10 th June, 2021 to 9 th July, 2021 and 10 th October, 2021 to 8 th November, 2022. That, the Petitioner has reported back to the Jail Authority within stipulated period. In view of the above, present Petition has become infructuous and is accordingly disposed off. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 1/1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5974 of 2007 M/s.Awate constructions. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.G. Tangsali for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ DATED : 17th August 2007. P.C.: ... . Heard. This petition is similar to the disposed of petitions. viz. writ petition nos.6086 of 2005 and 3126 of 2006. In the said petitions, this Court has directed :- "In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit this amount with the 2nd respondent who shall, forward the amount to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 2nd respondent that the vehicle shall not, hereafter, be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The 2nd respondent shall subject to compliance with the aforesaid conditions release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits." In our opinion, this petition also can be disposed of by accepting the request of the petitioner for depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and on deposit of such amount, the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent no.2 that the vehicle shall not be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The respondent no.2 is directed to comply with this order and release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits. This order has been passed in respect of vehicle bearing no. MH-04-E-4186.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5973 of 2007 M/s.Awate constructions. .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.B.G. Tangsali for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE AND D.G.KARNIK, JJ DATED : 17th August 2007. P.C.: ... . Heard. This petition is similar to the disposed of petitions. viz. writ petition nos.6086 of 2005 and 3126 of 2006. In the said petitions, this Court has directed :- "In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The petitioner shall deposit this amount with the 2nd respondent who shall, forward the amount to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the 2nd respondent that the vehicle shall not, hereafter, be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The 2nd respondent shall subject to compliance with the aforesaid conditions release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits." In our opinion, this petition also can be disposed of by accepting the request of the petitioner for depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, and on deposit of such amount, the petitioner shall also file an undertaking before the respondent no.2 that the vehicle shall not be plied within the municipal limits of the Greater Mumbai. The respondent no.2 is directed to comply with this order and release the vehicle only for one journey within the municipal limits of the greater Mumbai so as to enable the petitioner to take the vehicle outside the municipal limits. This order has been passed in respect of vehicle bearing no. MH-04-E-4186.

Order - Status 4: 39.6391.23 wp.doc Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav LHR ….Petitioner of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav V/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav ….Respondents LHR of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and others Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State Ms. Priya Pandey a/w Jackie for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19 th MAY, 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C. :- This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd May 2023 passed in Appeal No. 283 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that by the said order, the order of stay granted on 17th March 2023 has been vacated. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th March 2023, by which there was an order of statusquo granted. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on instructions states that possession of the offending structure is already taken on 1st March 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such a statement was never made during the hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the rival contentions raised by all the parties, parties are directed to file their respective Affidavits placing on record the exact status of the offending structure. Since there was an order of status quo passed on 17th March 2023 in Appeal No. 283 of 2022, it will be in the interest of justice to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they will not create any third-party interest in the alternate structure as regards the offending structure till the next date. Respondents are at liberty to file their respective Affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Stand over to 16th June 2023. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 of 2023 Baban S. Jadhav LHR of Smt. Parvati S. Jadhav …Petitioner V/s. Sujata H. Jadhav LHR of Hiroji D. Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane for the Petitioner. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.06.2023. P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. List on 5 July 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 … … Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jackie Jain, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 1/1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. Mr. Ankit S. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent no.4. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2023. P.C. : At the request of learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, stand over to August 2, 2023. Interim order to continue till then. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.07.24 11:34:31 +0530 28-WP-6391-2023.doc Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT Adv.ABHIJEET P RANE for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarase - AGP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th October, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/10/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 13th October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: 18-wp-6391-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri Baban Shanakar Jadhav Lrs of Smt Parvati Shankar Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lrs of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane a/w. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav a/w. Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent no.4. Mr. Dilip Shukla a/w. Ms. Priya Pandey i/b. Jackie Jain for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to annex copy of Annexure-II on the basis of which petitioner claims that Parvatibai had right to get alternate premises. The petitioner to also annex copy of the appeal memo filed before the Competent Authority. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 18th March 2024. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit if necessary in response to the amendment. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 18 th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 71 22nd April 2024 72 to 82 23rd April 2024 83 to 93 26th April 2024 94 to 106 29th April 2024 107 2nd April 2024 108 to 126, 128 to 136 3rd May 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Iresh

Order - Status 19: common order.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 3rd MAY 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 77 to 91 23rd June 2024 92 to 112 1st July 2024 113 to 133 2nd July 2024 134 to 155 5th July 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 22: 42wp6391-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 ————— Baban Shankar Jadhav LRs. of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav LR.s of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Rane, for the Petitioner. Mr.Jackie Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr.Ankit s. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondents-State. ————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 01, 2024 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 3rd May, 2023 in Appeal No.283 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15th October, 2022, by which the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking inclusion of his name in the Annexure-II came to be rejected. 2. By order dated 15th October, 2022, the Additional Collector noted that the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in Annexure-II at Serial No.128 and his name has also reflected in the voters list of 42wp6391-23 1995 for Ward No.427, at Serial No.597, T-1 and that on the basis of photo-pass which was issued, his illegibility has been determined. As regards the petitioner's mother, it was noted that the name of Petitioner's mother was included in the voters list for Ward No.427 at Serial No.599, T-2 and that both these structures appear to be different. The submissions which were advanced before the Additional Collector was that the Petitioner's mother was residing at Bandra and thereafter was allotted the hut at Kandivali where she was residing till 1997 and thereafter due to her old age, she started residing at her native place. It was contended before the Additional Collector that her brother started residing in the said hut without having any right to reside therein. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has also been issued the photo-pass in respect of the said hut and that on the basis of fraudulent documents, the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in Annexure-II. 3. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal by upholding the findings of the Additional Collector that there are two different structures of the parties and that the delay has not been explained. The Appellate Authority further held that the Appellant has failed to produce any document on record to show that the Respondent No.1 by misleading the Authorities has inserted his 42wp6391-23 name in Annexure-II. 4. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother was staying in Bandra at Zopdi No.REGE/Bandra/165. After the relocation to Kandivali, new Identity Card was issued having Serial No.84411. He submits that Identity Card No.0408308 was issued in name of petitioner's mother against Hut No.REGE/Bandra/165, C.S.No.163 (Part) Village Akorli. He would further submit that the Respondent No.1 had in fact, divided the hut into two different structures and had thereafter claimed right in respect of the part of the structure which was in his possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4-Developer submits that the entire scheme has been completed and the possession has already been handed over to the eligible slumdwellers. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Although the application which was made by the Petitioner was for deciding his eligibility and for inserting his name in Annexure-II, it appears that the submissions which were canvassed before the Collector was confined to the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 by including his name in Annexure-II. The order of the Appellate Authority also indicates that the same submissions were advanced that the Respondent No.1 without any right in the property has started occupying the hut after the petitioner's mother in the year 1997 left the premises to reside at her native place. 8. Upon consideration of the material produced on record, the Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Authority has noted from the documents that the name of the Respondent No.1 is in respect of her different hut i.e. T-1 and in the voters list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in respect of Ward No.427 at Serial No.597 whereas the Petitioner's mother name appears in the voters list in the year 1995 in Ward No.427 at Serial No.599 in respect of T-2. Based on these documents both the authorities have held that there are two different structures. The submission which is now sought to be canvassed that the hut was divided by the Respondent No.1 into two different parts and thereafter separate record was prepared is not the case of the Petitioner either in the application or in the submissions canvassed before the Collector and the Appellate Authority. The application of the Petitioner pleads that in respect of the said hut, it is the Petitioner who has a right being the legal heir of the original occupant and the Respondent No.1 has prepared fraudulent document and has got himself declared eligible in Annexure-II. 9. Considering that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority is that there are two different structures of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the Authorities were required to decide the eligibility of the Petitioner in respect of her own hut structure which does not appear to have been done. The Authorities appears to have considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner qua the fraudulent manner in which the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in place of the Petitioner's mother in respect of the said hut in Annexure-II. 10. Be that as it may. As both the authorities have held that there are two different structures, let an appropriate application be filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector within a period of four weeks. The application to be decided by the Collector on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. As the proceedings are pending since 2013, the Additional Collector is requested to decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the receipt of the application. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 12. Needless to clarify that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5825 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Coram,appearances,Court's Orders : Court's or Judges order or directions and Registrar Orders : ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Amit Borkar for the petitioner. CORAM : S.B. MHASE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 10th August 2007. P.C:- . Notice returnable after four weeks. Hamdast allowed. (D.G.KARNIK, J) (S.B.MHASE, J)