Mr. Avdesh Kumar Singh Markandey v. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Bandra And ORS
1 908.7024.19 wp.doc ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7024 OF 2019 Mr. T Papachen Varghese .....Petitioner V/s.
The Apex Grievance Redressal .....Respondents Committee and others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7025 OF 2019 Mr. Avdesh Kumar Singh Markandey .....Petitioner V/s.
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee .....Respondents and others Mr. Vinod S. Pandey i/b Mr. S. U Pandey for the Petitioners Mr. Girish Utangale a/w Mr. Chetan Mhatre i/b Utangale & Co. for respondent no. 2 Mr. P. P. Pujari AGP for the State Mr. Rishi N. Mishra a/w Mr. Ankit S. Dubey for respondent no. 5 CORAM :
NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE :
JULY 5, 2019.
P.C.
Heard.
Notices issued under Section 33/38 of the Maharashtra Slum
2 908.7024.19 wp.doc Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('the Act' for short) are subject matter of challenge. The petitioners claim to have been made eligible way back in 1994 for the benefits under the then Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, by inclusion of their name in Annexure 2. Said Annexure 2 was re-organized in 2005 and the petitioner was again shown to be eligible, however, a joint name of some other party was shown alongwith petitioners. The allotment letter for the block, pursuant to the order of rehabilitation of the petitioners speaks of the joint name of the petitioners with some third person which is formed to be basis by the petitioners for questioning the order of the Apex Grievance Committee and the notice under Section 33/38 of the Act.
What is required to be noticed is, allotment of the block/tenement to the petitioners is about 4 years ago pursuant to his inclusion in Annexure 2. It is not in dispute that corrected Annexure carries the name of the petitioners and not that of joint holder or eligible person.
3 908.7024.19 wp.doc That being so, just because in the allotment letter a joint name is mentioned, that by itself will not render petitioners ineligible. As such, there is no substance in the petitions. Petitions as such stand dismissed.
However, this will not preclude petitioners from approaching Slum Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA' for short) with prayer for correction in the allotment letter issued in favour of the petitioners for removal of name of the person other than the petitioners. If such request is made by the petitioners within period of 6 weeks from to day, SRA is directed to decide the request of the petitioner within period of 4 months from the date of receipt of such request. With above observations, both petitions stand dismissed. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]