21-WP-2549-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2549 OF 2023 Prashant M. Singh … Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary, Housing Department & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Shubham Bane i/b Mr. Sandeep Bane for the Petitioner Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Ms. Sayali Apte for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4- MHADA Mr. Rahul Arora i/b Mr. Jeet Gandhi for the Respondent No.5 CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. THURSDAY, 12 th FEBRUARY 2026 P.C : 1 Heard. 2 By this petition, the challenge is to the order dated 5th April 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 14th September 2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the ineligibility of the petitioner. 3 The petitioner claims to be a tenant/occupant of Shop No. 23-A situated on the ground ,oor of Manaji Rajiji Chawl, Lower SQ Pathan 1/5 SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Digitally signed by SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN PATHAN Date: 2026.02.17 12:12:07 +0530 21-WP-2549-2023.odt Parel, Mumbai, admeasuring 8.39 square meters. The Respondent No. 5-developer, commenced the development of the said structure under DCR 33(7), for which NOC was granted by MHADA. MHADA has held the structure to be ineligible on two grounds: that the structure are not re,ected in the inspection extract of 1995 and that it is beyond the building line. The ineligibility came to be challenged by the petitioner before MHADA authorities, which has dismissed the petitioner’s claim, leading to the ;ling of the present petition. 4 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s structure was held ineligible on the ground that the structure is not re,ected in the inspection extract of the year 1995–1996, whereas, there are documents produced on record such as rent receipts, licence, post o>ce passbook, etc. and the rent receipts show that the rent is paid for the year 1971. He would further submit that, in respect of separate re-development scheme, di@erent eligibility criteria is applied by the MHADA authorities, which is impermissible. 5 Mr. Lad, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent SQ Pathan 2/5 21-WP-2549-2023.odt No. 4, has tendered the a>davit-in-reply, which is taken on record. He would submit that the requirement of DCR 33(7) is that the building should be a cessed building, and as the petitioner’s structure is beyond the building line, the documents required to be produced should establish the existence of the structure prior to 30th September 1969. He would further submit that the rent receipt is a private document which cannot establish the existence of the petitioner’s structure prior to the year 1969. 6 Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 has tendered a decision of this Court dated 5th August 2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 518 of 2024. He would submit that in identical facts, in respect of the same redevelopment scheme, this Court has dismissed the petition ;led by an identically placed tenant/occupant on the ground that the premises of the petitioner therein was beyond the building line. He would therefore submit that the present petition is required to be dismissed. 7 I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The petitioner has been held ineligible on two counts: ;rstly, that the structure is not re,ected in the inspection records SQ Pathan 3/5 21-WP-2549-2023.odt of the year 1995–1996; and secondly, that the shop is situated beyond the building line of Chawl No. 4. Though it is sought to be contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in an identical scheme of redevelopment in respect of some other premises, a di@erent yardstick has been applied for deciding ineligibility, the same is not demonstrated to have been placed before the Authority. As such, the said contention cannot be considered before this Court for the ;rst time. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that any such material was placed before the Authority for consideration, and there was no application which was ;led by the petitioner showing that such material was placed and was not considered by the Authority. 8 Insofar as the premises being beyond the building line is concerned, as the redevelopment is under DCR 33(7), the documents which are required to be produced by the petitioner are documents showing the existence of the structure prior to 30th September 1969. Admittedly, no such document has been produced. It is also pertinent to note that the Coordinate Bench of this Court, in an identical case, where the petitioner’s structure therein was beyond the building line, has refused to grant any SQ Pathan 4/5 21-WP-2549-2023.odt relief. The said decision rendered in identical facts will bind the Coordinate Bench. 9 In light of the above, there is no merit in the petition. The petition stands dismissed. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. SQ Pathan 5/5