Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Indu Ramchandra Khanvilkar, claimed to have a hut on survey no.162/162-2/1 to 7, 165/1 to 84 at Village Malad, Taluka Borivli, which was declared a slum on 23.11.1978. A slum rehabilitation scheme was formed, and respondent no.2 prepared Annexure-II listing eligible residents. The petitioner's name was not included. She applied for inclusion, relying on a ration card and bank passbook to show residence since 1973. Respondent no.2 rejected her application on 28.8.2009, finding that her name was not in the electoral roll as of 1.1.1995 and that her structure was part of structure no.80 on the survey map. The petitioner appealed to respondent no.1 (Slum Rehabilitation Authority), which confirmed the rejection on 21.6.2010. The petitioner then filed a writ petition. The court heard arguments and perused the ration card (Exhibit B), which showed an address different from the hut in question. The court noted that the electoral roll is the primary document for proving residence as of 1.1.1995, and the petitioner failed to produce it. The court found no error in the orders of the authorities and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Eligibility Criteria - Proof of Residence - The petitioner sought inclusion in Annexure-II for rehabilitation under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - The court held that the requirement of being in the electoral roll as of 1.1.1995 is a valid criterion and the petitioner failed to provide such evidence - Held that the rejection by authorities was justified (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to inclusion of her name in Annexure-II (list of eligible residents) for slum rehabilitation despite not being in the electoral roll as of 1.1.1995.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders of respondent no.2 dated 28.8.2009 and respondent no.1 dated 21.6.2010 are confirmed.
Law Points
- Eligibility for slum rehabilitation requires proof of residence as of 1.1.1995
- electoral roll is primary evidence
- ration card and bank passbook insufficient without electoral roll
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (03) 22
WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2011
S.J. Vazifdar, R.Y. Ganoo
Pradeep J. Thorat for Petitioner, Vijay D. Patil for Respondent No.1, Bharat Mehta A.G.P. for State-Respondent Nos.2 and 3
Indu Ramchandra Khanvilkar
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Dy. Collector (Enc. & Rehab.), State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of request for inclusion in slum rehabilitation list.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought inclusion of her name in Annexure-II for rehabilitation and protection of her hut.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's name was not included in the list of eligible residents for slum rehabilitation despite her claim of residence since 1973.
Previous Decisions
Respondent no.2 rejected the request on 28.8.2009; appeal to respondent no.1 dismissed on 21.6.2010.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to inclusion in Annexure-II for slum rehabilitation.
Whether the requirement of being in the electoral roll as of 1.1.1995 is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she resided in the hut since 1973 and produced ration card and bank passbook as evidence.
Respondents argued that the petitioner's name was not in the electoral roll as of 1.1.1995, which is a necessary condition.
Ratio Decidendi
For eligibility under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, proof of residence as of 1.1.1995 is essential, and the electoral roll is the primary evidence. Failure to produce such evidence justifies rejection of the claim.
Judgment Excerpts
The respondent no.2 rejected the request of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in Annexure-II on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that her name was included in the electoral list as of 1.1.1995.
We have perused the ration card at Exhibit B. The address mentioned in the ration card is not the address of the hut in question.
Procedural History
Petitioner applied for inclusion in Annexure-II; rejected by respondent no.2 on 28.8.2009. Appeal to respondent no.1 dismissed on 21.6.2010. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2011 in Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 19.3.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Slum Rehabilitation Act, 1973:
