Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay dismissed two writ petitions filed by occupants of a chawl in Ghatkopar seeking separate permanent alternative accommodation under the slum redevelopment scheme. The petitioners, Smt. Rukminibai Krishna Shigwan and the legal heirs of Vaman Dhaku Pawar, claimed that they were entitled to individual tenements of 225 square feet because their names appeared against different room numbers in the electoral roll of 1993. They relied upon voters' cards, ration cards, and an order dated 15 January 1999 passed by the Deputy Collector (Encroachment) directing removal of hutments. The respondents, comprising the developer and the society of hutment dwellers, contended that the survey, census, and identity cards showed the petitioners and their respective relatives residing in a single structure each, and that the electoral roll of 1993 was an aberration. It was argued that eligibility under the scheme required an independently numbered structure, and that all occupants of one structure were together entitled to only one tenement. The court analysed Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations, which stipulates that a rehabilitation tenement is provided in exchange for an independently numbered structure. It observed that the electoral roll of 1977, 1983, 1988, and 1995 consistently showed the petitioners and their relatives in one room, and that the identity cards and census recorded a single structure number. The order of the Deputy Collector was found to be merely a removal order and did not confer any right. The court held that the rule was clear: family members occupying one numbered structure are collectively eligible for one tenement. Both petitions were dismissed, but the petitioner in the first writ petition was allowed to stay in transit accommodation for a further eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Eligibility for Redevelopment - Requirement of independently numbered structure - Development Control Regulations, Regulation 33(10) - The eligibility clause requires that a rehabilitation tenement is provided in exchange for an independently numbered structure. Family members occupying a single numbered structure are entitled to only one tenement - Held that the petitioners, though listed in electoral rolls, could not claim separate tenements because they did not occupy independently numbered structures (Paras 7-8). B) Evidence - Electoral Rolls and Voters' Cards - Proof of separate occupancy - Development Control Regulations, Regulation 33(10) - Electoral roll entries of 1993 showing separate rooms are not conclusive when prior and subsequent electoral rolls, census, and identity cards consistently show single structure occupancy - Held that isolated electoral roll entries cannot outweigh consistent official records (Paras 5-6, 8). C) Administrative Law - Effect of Executive Order - Order of Deputy Collector (Encroachment) - Development Control Regulations, Regulation 33(10) - An order directing removal of hutments and shifting to transit camp does not imply that occupants held separate independent structures - Held that such order cannot be stretched to create a right to separate tenements (Paras 3, 8). D) Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Dismissal of Petitions - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioners failed to establish entitlement to separate tenements under the scheme - Held that petitions were devoid of merit and dismissed (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, whose names appeared separately in the electoral roll of 1993, were entitled to separate tenements under the slum rehabilitation scheme even though survey and identity cards indicated single structures
Final Decision
Both writ petitions dismissed. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.492 of 2000 allowed to remain in transit accommodation for a further period of eight weeks from the date of judgment.
Law Points
- Eligibility for slum rehabilitation under Development Control Regulation 33(10) requires independently numbered structure
- electoral roll and voters' cards not conclusive evidence of separate structures when other records show single structure
- order of removal of encroachment does not imply separate structures
- rehabilitation tenement provided in exchange for an independently numbered structure not per family member
