31-WP-517-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 517 OF 2021 Gangabai Anant Dhumal W/o Anant G. Dhumal ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Urban Development Department & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Vishal C. Ghosalkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Nishigandh Patil, A.G.P for the Respondent-State. Ms. Aparna Kalathil a/w Ms. Sayali Apte & Mr. Murlidharan Kalathil i/b Mr. P.G.Lad for the Respondent No.5 – MHADA. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 – SRA. Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik a/w Ms. Laxmi Mishra i/b Kaushik & Co. for the Respondent No.7. CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL JJ. DATE : 2 nd SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) : 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Wakodikar 1/7 RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Digitally signed by RUPALI RAJESH WAKODIKAR Date: 2026.09.08 11:42:34 +0530 31-WP-517-2021.doc mandamus against the respondent No.3 to exercise its powers under Section 33 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Act, 1971 (‘SRA Act’ for short) and implement the order dated 12th April, 2010 by evicting the respondent No. 8 who according to the petitioner is an illegal occupant having illegal possession of flat No. B/407 in the building of the respondent No.6 - society and further to put the petitioner in possession of the said flat. 2. The petitioner is also seeking a relief of compensation for the temporary alternate accommodation till handing over the possession of the flat No. B/407 to the petitioner. The flat No. B/407 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said flat’). 3. The petitioner contended that the petitioner possessed a hut measuring at about 8.68 sq.mtr. in the slum area bearing Municipal Corporation No. 2/2/069/025 as per the photopass issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The respondent No.7 entered into agreement with the petitioner of providing Wakodikar 2/7 31-WP-517-2021.doc permanent alternate accommodation as against the said flat as the said hutment was within the slum area and the slum area was to be developed under the provisions of SRA scheme. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondent No. 7 did not pay to the petitioner compensation for the temporary alternate accommodation. In addition, the respondent No.7 also did not handover possession of the said flat as per the agreement dated 20th September, 2002. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said flat which was agreed to be handed over to the petitioner was illegally occupied by the respondent No.8. The petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No.2 and called upon the respondent No.2 to put the petitioner in possession of the said flat. 4. The petitioner took several steps before the Authorities under the SRA for putting the petitioner in possession of the said flat. However, the respondent / Authorities did not take any steps in that regard. As a result, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent – SRA as Wakodikar 3/7 31-WP-517-2021.doc well as the learned Counsel appearing for the developer i.e. the respondent No.7 did not dispute the position that the flat was allotted to the petitioner and that the petitioner was to be put in possession of the said flat. He, however, disputed the quantum of the amount which was due and payable to the petitioner. He stated that the respondent No.8 was not put in possession by him and that the respondent No.8 was a tresspasser. He stated that the petition could be allowed to the extent of putting the petitioner in possession of the said flat by evicting the respondent No.8. He, however, stated that the said action has to be taken by the respondent Nos.2 to 4. He, stated that there is a alternate remedy available to the petitioner under the SRA Act for the purpose of recovery of the rent and that this Court should not entertain the prayer for compensation. 5. We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. We have perused the various documents which are annexed to the petition. It is not in dispute that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent for the purpose of Wakodikar 4/7 31-WP-517-2021.doc allotment of the said flat to the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that an order dated 12th April, 2010 was passed by the Deputy Collector, SRA, wherein it was clearly stated that the third person i.e. the respondent No. 8 should be evicted and the petitioner should be put in possession of the said flat. Neither the respondent - SRA nor the respondent - developer has disputed passing of the order dated 12th April, 2010. Since there are no disputed questions of fact in this matter, we have proceeded to hear the parties. 6. The respondent No.8 had appeared before this Court on the earlier occasion and time was sought by the respondent No.8 to engage an Advocate. Today, nobody appeared for the respondent No.8. It appears that the respondent No.8 is not interested in prosecuting this matter. The respondent No.8 is not having any right in the said flat. The order dated 12th April, 2010 fortifies this position. In these circumstances, there is no reason why the petitioner who has been waiting for such a long time to be put in the possession of the said flat, should not be entitled to his legitimate Wakodikar 5/7 31-WP-517-2021.doc rights. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to be granted relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. 7. As far as the next prayer namely prayer for compensation is concerned, it is in the nature of recovery of rent, which is due to the petitioner in lieu of the temporary accommodation. The petitioner surely has remedy under the provisions of the SRA Act for that purpose. There is no reason why this Court should entertain the proceedings on that count. Even otherwise the respondents have disputed the quantum of the said amount. In such circumstances, since there is a dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, we do not find it appropriate to entertain the petition to the extent that it relates to recovery of the compensation amount. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the petition by passing the following order : ORDER (i) The respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to evict the respondent No. 8 from the flat bearing No. B/407 in the building of the respondent No. 6- Society namely Santacruz Golibar Tarun Bharat Co-operative Society, Wakodikar 6/7 31-WP-517-2021.doc seventh Road, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East). (ii) The respondent is directed to carry out the said exercise of evicting the respondent No.8, if there is no legal impediment to execute the order dated 12th April, 2010 within a period of eight weeks from today and put the petitioner in possession of the same. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings under the SRA Act for the purpose of recovery of the compensation amount due to the petitioner in lieu of the alleged temporary alternate accommodation. (iv) This Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner to the extent of the compensation. (v) All the contention of all the parties on the issue of quantum are kept open. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Wakodikar 7/7