All Writ Petition (Civil)

#VALUE!

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4987 OF 2021 Govind Krishna Bhanage. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2021 Vinod Shankar Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4989 OF 2021 Hariba Tanaji Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4986 OF 2021 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4988 OF 2021 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad (Barbar). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2021 Shri Bajrang Ganpat Jadhav(Rodat). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2021 Nasima Abdul Deshmukh. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2021 Krishana Haribhau Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4982 OF 2021 Raziya Bashir Deshmukh.. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1363 OF 2021 Deepak Vithal Sutar. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1350 OF 2021 Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2021 Bhambu Govind Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4990 OF 2021 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4981 OF 2021 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4983 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4984 OF 2021 Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Dhananjay Chavan a/w. Mr. Vijay R. Garad i/b. Mr. R.A. Choudhari, advocate for Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for State in WP Nos. 1349/2021, 4988/2021, 1353/2021, 1350/2021. Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4985/2021, 4991/2021, 1347/2021, 1358/2021. Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4986/2021, 4989/2021, 4990/2021. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4987/2021, 4982/2021, 4990/2021, 4981/2021. Mr. Siddhesh Kalel, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4988/2021, 4983/2021 and 4984/202. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. ARUNA S TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA S TALWALKAR Date: 2021.09.07 10:52:06 +0530 P.C. 1 In all these petitions, a common order is passed today because it involves the same question; only the factual aspect differs for each petitioner. 2 The petitioners are Project Affected Persons whose lands were acquired for Koyna Dam Project way back in the year 1961. All these petitioners are still waiting for allotment of lands in lieu of the lands, which were acquired. The petitioners have made applications before the authorities as follows :- Sr. No. Name Date of application 1 Shri Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale(WP/1349/2021) 29/5/2020 2 Shri Govind Krishna Bhanage(WP/4987/2021) 29/7/2020 3 Shri Vinod Shankar Bhatose(WP/4985/2021) 24/6/2020 4 Shri Hariba Tanaji Bhatose(WP/4989/2021) 24/6/2020 5 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal(WP/4986/2021) 24/6/2020 6 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad(Barbar)(WP/4988/2021) 24/6/2020 7 Shri Bajarang Ganpat Jadhav(RODAT)(WP/4991/2021) 24/6/2020 8 Sou. Nasima Abdul Deshmukh(WP/1347/2021) 29/6/2020 9 Shri Krishana Haribhau Kadam (WP/1353/2021) 29/7/2020 10 Sou. Raziya Bashir Deshmukh(WP/4982/2021) 2/6/2020 11 Shri Deepak Vithal Sutar (WP/1363/2021) 29/7/2020 12 Sou. Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam (WP/1350/2021) 29/5/2020 13 Shri Bhambu Govind Dhawale (WP/1358/2021) 29/5/2020 14 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav (WP/4990/2021) 24/6/2020 15 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose(WP/4981/2021) 24/6/2020 16 Shri Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale(WP/4983/2021) 29/5/2020 17 Shri Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav (WP/4984/2021) 5/10/2020 The Petitioners have mentioned in their applications that lands in different survey numbers situated in village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad be allotted to them. 3 The said applications are still not decided. The petitioners have prayed for allotment of lands. Applications are pending for quite sometime. The petitioners have not been given alternate lands for many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternate lands of their choice within 8 weeks from today. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2021 Limbaji Bhimrao Thore Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent None present for Petitioner. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP, for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ. DATE : 16th January 2023 PC : Petitioner has been issued strict warning by Jail Authority for returning one day late to Jail, when he was released on emergency parole leave. Perusal of record indicates that Competent Authority has not committed any error while issuing strict warning to the Petitioner for his returning late to Jail Authority by one day. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S.GADKARI, J.) MST

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.]