✦ Bombay High Court · 30 Mar 2026

Dajiram Mahadeo Rongte v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Wp No. 2190 of 2026N JAMADAR

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Mr. Jeet Gandhi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Yatin S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for Respondent Nos. 1 and2- State. Adv Geeta R Shastri, for Respondent No.3-SRA. CORAM: DATE : N. J. JAMADAR, J. 30th MARCH 2026 P.C.:

2.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 27th April 2018, passed by the Appellate Authority, under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“the Slum Act, 1971”), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order passed by the Deputy Collector under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, 1971, came to be dismissed, for want of prosecution. ARS 20-WP-2190-2026.DOC

3.

By the said order dated 27th April 2018, passed on the Application of the Developer, the Petitioner as well as Mr. Pandurang Kashinath Garibe, Respondent No. 7 herein, the rival claimants, were directed to vacate the subject hut, keeping open the issue of eligibility.

4.

Since the said order has been implemented and having regard to the time-lag, at this stage, there is no propriety in entertaining the Petition. However, the Petitioner would be at liberty to agitate the issue of eligibility and entitlement for the permanent alternate premises under the Rehabilitation Scheme in an appropriate proceeding.

5.

Keeping open the option to avail the remedies, as available in law, the Petition stands disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Slum Act, 1971 — ss. 33, 38.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 30 Mar 2026. The bench was N JAMADAR.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Wp No. 2190 of 2026). ← Search more judgments