RUKMINIBAI KRISHNA SHIGWAN Vs. ADINATH BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are filed to seek appropriate alternative accommodation in lieu of the structures which were occupied by the petitioners earlier as claimed by them. The issue involved in both these petitions is almost similar as also the facts and, therefore, it will be advisable to decide both petitions together.

(2.) The petitioners in both these petitions are claiming this alternative accommodation under the scheme of the State Government framed for the purpose of slum re-development/ rehabilitation. Both these petitioners were occupying their structures in a chawl known as Sakharam Paste chawl, ghatkopar (East). There is no dispute that in the scheme of re-development any such occupant of a slum could claim right of rehabilitation in a tenament of 225 sft. provided he or she is in a position to establish that they are occupying the concerned structure in the slum prior to 1st January, 1995. As far as the petitioner in W. P. No. 492 of 2000 is concerned, it is her case that although her father-in-law is allotted a tenament in the scheme of rehabilitation, she is entitled to a separate tenament. Similarly in W. P. No. 685 of 2000, the contention of the petitioner is that although his brother is allotted a tenament in the scheme of rehabilitation, he is entitled to a separate tenament. The case of the respondents in the first case was that the petitioner and her father in law were occupying only one structure. Similarly, the case of the respondents in the second matter was that the petitioner and his brother were occupying one structure and not two structures. This being the position, the stand of the respondent was that the petitioner in either case was not entitled to two separate tenaments.

(3.) To advance the submission that the petitioner in the first case is entitled to a separate tenament, reliance is placed by Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for petitioners on an order dated 15th January 1999 issued by the Dy. Collector (Encroachment). This order in para two thereof records that the concerned hutment colony had in all 70 members and 65 out of them had given their consent to the scheme of rehabilitation. It also records that all those 65 hutment dwellers were shifted to alternate accommodation in transit camp. Only five of them had not given their consent and had lodged complaints against being sent to the transit camp. The name of the petitioner in W. P. 492 of 2000 appears at serial No. 2 and the name of the petitioner in W. P. 685 of 2000 appears at serial No. 1 respectively in this list of five. The order further records that all those five persons were called for considering their view points. Both these petitioners remained present. Petitioner in W. P. 685 of 2000 Mr. Pawar filed written statement. The petitioner in W. P. 492 of 2000 Mrs. Shigwan declined to give anything in writing. Mr. Hingu, who appeared for the developer, therefore, submitted before the officer that an order be passed to remove these hutments, since those structures were creating difficulties. Accordingly, an order was passed by the officer concerned that those structures be removed and they be shifted to the transit accommodation.