Bombay High Court
Indumati Girishkumar Umarvanshi vs State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors on 3 February, 2023
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: G.S. Patel, Neela Gokhale
7-OSWP-1925-2018+.DOC
Ashwini V
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1925 OF 2018
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2896 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1925 OF 2018
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10073 OF 2021
Indumati Girishkumar Umarvanshi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2443 OF 2019
Neeta D Savla ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondents
Mr Vincent D'Silva a/w Dinesh Vishwakarma for the Petitioner.
Mr Sukanta Karmakar, AGP, for the State.
Mr Girish Utangale a/w Mr Saurabh Utangle i/b Utangle & Co for
Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 6.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Dr Neela Gokhale, JJ.
DATED: 3rd February 2023
Page 1 of 4
3rd February 2023
7-OSWP-1925-2018+.DOC
PC:-
1. Writ Petition No 1925 of 2018 is a good example of the persistent abuse of the slum rehabilitation process in this city.. The Petitioner states that she has been denied her rehab tenement. She says this is illicitly occupied by Respondent No.7. She claims that Respondent No.7, SRA and the SRA society are all in collusion. She admits that Respondent No.7 has been occupying these premises since 2001. The Petition was not fled until 2018. In 2019, Respondent No. 7 to Writ Petition No 1925 of 2018 fled her own Writ Petition No 2443 of 2019.
2. But what we are told in Writ Petition No 1925 of 2018 is merely interesting. What is concealed is vital. There is undoubtedly a written transaction between the Petitioner or her husband and Respondent No.7 regarding the original slum structure. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence in the city. In other matters, we have had occasions to note this and the resulting fraud that is becoming increasingly rampant. The occupant of a slum structure transfers that structure for cash or valuable consideration. A simple document is drawn up. It is never registered. The transferee believes that having parted with money the transferee's rights are secure. But when the area goes into slum redevelopment, it is the transferor's documents that are taken up. Eligibility is shown against the transferor's name. At the time when the transfer took place, the completion of the SRA project was perhaps a distant dream and transferor typically believes it is prudent to accept that money immediately rather than await an uncertain outcome. But some SRA Page 2 of 4 3rd February 2023 7-OSWP-1925-2018+.DOC project do get completed. Then the rehab buildings in which tenements are ofered free of cost are an absolute bonanza. Depending on the location, a rehab fat will sell in double-digit lakhs (as in this case) and sometimes even in crores (if the project is, say, in the Worli or Parel area). It is at this time that the transferor suddenly realises the huge cash value of the rehab fat, and the enormous gains that are to be made from it. The transferor starts moving against the transferee who has been allotted the rehab fat, and seeks the eviction of the transferee from the rehab fat.
3. We have, over the last year or so protected such transferees in rehab fats, realizing that this is an ongoing issue that the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and extant policies do not adequately address. We have been orally informed that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority accepts the reality on being shown transfer documents, and it is perhaps on this basis that Respondent No 7 was allotted a rehab fat.
4. In the present case, there is a document of transfer. But the Petitioner says it is forged. The Petitioner has done nothing whatever by way of a civil action in regard to that allegation and expects us in our writ jurisdiction to take it at face value. The submission is that it is not for the Petitioner to show the forgery, but it is for Respondent No.7 to show the negative, viz., that it is not a forgery. That is perhaps a unique approach.
Page 3 of 43rd February 2023 7-OSWP-1925-2018+.DOC
5. More to the point, we do not see why this matter deserves out-of-turn priority, especially in light of what we have stated above.
6. Both Petitions were admitted on 30th July 2019 (Akil Kureshi and SJ Kathawalla JJ). All parties were to maintain status quo. They have done so until now.
7. They will continue to do so. Status quo to be maintained until hearing and fnal disposal of both petitions.
8. The Interim Application fled in Writ Petition No 1925 of 2018 will need to be heard fnally after the Replies are fled. Rule on interim relief.
9. All Afdavits in Reply to be fled by 31st March 2023. No Afdavit in Rejoinder without leave of the Court.
10. Rule on interim relief (i.e., the Interim Applications in Writ Petition No 1925 of 2018) is returnable on 2nd May 2023.
(Dr Neela Gokhale, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
Page 4 of 4
3rd February 2023