Peer Mohammed Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. Jamshed Ansari, for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind More, A.G.P. for the State. ----- ---- CORAM: A.A. SAYED, J. DATE : MARCH 31, 2012. P.C.:

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. The Petition impugns an order dated 27.4.2009 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division dismissing the Appeal of Petitioner thereby upholding the order of the Dy.Collector (Enc/Removal) dated 31.3.2006. The Dy. Collector (Enc/Removal) had directed the Petitioner’s sister Yasmin Parveen Ansari to remove her structure situate in the bed of Mithi river else it would be forcibly demolished, which order 2 wp.913-2012.sxw was passed pursuant to a show cause notice issued to her under section 3 (z) 2 of the Slum Act, 1971 .

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the subject hut in fact belongs to the Petitioner and not his sister Yasmin Parveen Ansari. He states that so far as the Petitioner’s sister Yasmin Parveen Ansari is concerned, her husband is one Mr. Humayun Ansari who had separately filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 473 of 2006 and has ultimately been allotted a premises considering the cut-off date as on

01.01.2000. He points out the Affidavit of the Petitioner’s sister wherein she has stated that the subject hut belongs to the Petitioner-Peer Mohammed Ansari and that she does not have any right, title and interest in the said hut. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner concedes that there was an error or mistake in the Memorandum of Appeal filed before the Divisional Commissioner, wherein instead of word “sister”, the word “wife” has been mentioned while taking instructions from the Petitioner. The learned Counsel contends that the documents produced by the Petitioner have not been appropriately considered by the Authorities below. 3 wp.913-2012.sxw

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further points out the letter dated 3.11.2010 which is part of the Written submissions which is tendered, wherein under the Right To Information Act, the Petitioner's Advocate has been informed that the cut off date for claiming protection in respect of the slum dwellers at Parigh Khadi near Mithi River, Kurla is 1.1.2000. He submits that the Authorities below have incorrectly considered the case of the Petitioner on the basis that the cut off date is 1.1.1995.

Considering the overall view of the matter, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the Deputy Collector to consider the matter afresh including the issue as regards the cut off date which according to the Petitioner is 1.1.2000 and not 1.1.1995. The Dy.Collector (Enc/Removal) Bandra shall in considering the eligibility of the petitioner also examine the documents of the Petitioner's sister husband Shri Humayun Ansari (Appeal No. 473 of 2000) to ensure that structure was different.

It is admitted position that the hut in question is already demolished. The only question is about the Petitioner being a protected 4 wp.913-2012.sxw occupier and consequently entitled to be rehabilitated in terms of the extant policy of the Government of Maharashtra.

The Petitioner is granted liberty to submit all such documents before the Deputy Collector (Enc/Removal) Bandra in support of his case. The Deputy Collector (Enc/Removal) Bandra shall, after following the principles of natural justice, decide the eligibility of the Petitioner afresh within eight weeks from today, on its own merits and without being influenced by this order or previous orders passed. All contentions are kept open.

The Petitioner shall appear before the Deputy Collector, ENC, Bandra on 9th April, 2012 at 11.00 a.m to seek appropriate directions regarding the date of hearing.