Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Prakash Bandu Jadyal, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 15.03.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 (Deputy Collector, Mumbai City, SRA) and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.7 (Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, AGRC) directing his eviction from Tenement No.302, 3rd Floor, Amrutmanthan SRA CHS Ltd., Santacruz (East), Mumbai. The Petitioner claimed that he was originally the owner of room No.18/8 at Shanti Nagar, Vakola pipeline, Santacruz (East), which he sold on 25.05.1999 to Respondent No.3. He further claimed that on 01.06.1999 he purchased another room No.16-3/11 from one Mr. Ramkumar Kumbhar, and that the SRA surveyor had shown him as eligible at Sr. No.72 of Annexure-II prepared in 2004. The Deputy Collector and AGRC rejected his claim, holding that he failed to prove his eligibility for alternate accommodation under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of fact and held that the Petitioner had not produced sufficient evidence to establish his purchase of the alternate room or his continued eligibility. The Court noted that the AGRC, being the final fact-finding body, had correctly appreciated the material and its findings were not perverse. Consequently, the Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the eviction orders.
Headnote
A) SRA Law - Eviction - Eligibility for Rehabilitation - Burden of Proof - Petitioner claimed ownership of alternate room after selling original tenement - Deputy Collector and AGRC found Petitioner failed to prove eligibility - Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction - Petitioner's claim of purchase of another room was not supported by cogent evidence - Eviction orders upheld (Paras 1-15).
B) SRA Law - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee - Finality of Orders - AGRC is the final fact-finding body under SRA scheme - Its findings on eligibility are binding unless perverse - Court declined to re-appreciate evidence - Held that AGRC's order dated 03.09.2021 was based on proper appreciation of material (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to challenge the eviction orders passed by the Deputy Collector (SRA) and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on the ground that he was an eligible occupant entitled to alternate accommodation under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned orders dated 15.03.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.7 are upheld.
Law Points
- Eviction under SRA scheme
- Eligibility for rehabilitation
- Burden of proof on claimant
- Scope of writ jurisdiction
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee's finality
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 93
Writ Petition (L) No. 17603 of 2022 and Writ Petition (L) No. 26431 of 2022
Mr. Dileep S. Vishwakarma i/by Mr. Sangram B. Suryavanshi, Mr. Ashish Gaikwad a/w. Ms. Vijaya Shinde and Ms. Komal Bhoir, Ms. Simantini Mohite, Mr. Nitin Gaware – Patil, Ms. Rukmini A. Thokal Meher, Mr. Arun Panickar a/w. Mr. Mangesh Sawant, Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, Mr. L.T. Satelkar, Mr. Anoop Patil
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging eviction orders passed by Deputy Collector (SRA) and Apex Grievance Redressal Committee under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 15.03.2021 and 03.09.2021 directing his eviction from the tenement.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed he was an eligible occupant entitled to alternate accommodation under the SRA scheme and that the eviction orders were illegal.
Previous Decisions
Deputy Collector (SRA) passed eviction order on 15.03.2021; Apex Grievance Redressal Committee upheld the eviction on 03.09.2021.
Issues
Whether the Petitioner proved his eligibility for alternate accommodation under the SRA scheme.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the Deputy Collector and AGRC are perverse or warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was the owner of room No.18/8, sold it on 25.05.1999, and purchased another room on 01.06.1999, and was shown as eligible in Annexure-II of 2004.
Respondents contended that the Petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove his purchase of the alternate room or his continued eligibility, and the eviction orders were justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The concurrent findings of fact by the Deputy Collector and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse. The Petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his eligibility for alternate accommodation under the SRA scheme.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present Writ Petitions, Petitioner has challenged the twin orders dated 15.03.2021 passed by Respondent No.2 and order dated 03.09.2021 passed by Respondent No.7, inter alia, pertaining to eviction of Petitioner from Tenement No.302, 3rd Floor, Amrutmanthan SRA CHS. Ltd. Shanti Nagar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055.
It is the Petitioner’s case that he was the owner of room No.18/8, Shanti Nagar, Vakola pipeline, Santacruz (East), Mumbai. Admittedly, on 25.05.1999 Petitioner has sold the said room to Respondent No.3.
Procedural History
The Deputy Collector (SRA) passed eviction order on 15.03.2021. The Petitioner appealed to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, which dismissed the appeal on 03.09.2021. The Petitioner then filed two writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging both orders.
Acts & Sections
- Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1995:
