INDU RAMCHANDRA KHANVILKAR Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that she had a hut standing on survey no.162/162-2/1 to 7, 165/1 to 84 at Village Malad, Taluka Borivli (for short, said property). The said property was declared as slum vide Gazette No.SAA/Malad/50 dated 23.11.1978. According to the petitioner, a scheme under SRA came to be formed for redevelopment of the said property. The respondent no.2 prepared a list of residents i.e. Annexure-II showing names of persons eligible to be rehabilitated as per the development scheme by allotment of tenaments in the building to be constructed on the said plot.

(2.) ON going through the said Annexure-II petitioner realized that her name is not included in the said list though she was residing in the said hut since 1973. The petitioner, therefore approached the respondent no.2 for inclusion of her name in Annexure-II. The petitioner relied upon documents such as ration card, bank pass book to support her claim that she has been residing in the said hut since 1973. The said application filed by the petitioner was decided by the respondent no.2. By order dated 28.8.2009 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. The respondent no.2 also held that the structure in respect of which the petitioner had put up the claim was a part and parcel of the structure which is shown as structure no.80 on the survey map drawn by the respondent no.2.

(3.) WE have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. We have perused the ration card at Exhibit B. The address mentioned in the said ration card is C/o. Arjun Sakharam Jadhav i.e. the person whose name is included in Annexure II as the holder of structure No.80 marked on the survey plan. The petitioner has also relied upon the bank pass book. The authorities below have not considered these documents in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 and respondent no.1 have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner based on the ration card as well as bank pass book. The petitioner has admitted that she is getting electricity supply through the meter held by Arjun Sakharam Jadhav. This fact also negatives her case that her hut was an independent structure. It is the case of the petitioner that she had applied in 1990 for getting her structure censused. The petitioner has not been able to place on record any material to show that her structure was duly censused and given an census number.