20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3257 OF 2026 Prakash Balkrishna Jadhav ... Petitioner versus Additional Collector and Appellate Authority and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Khushnood Akhtar with Mr. Hamza Shaikh, Ms. Shifa Farooqui i/by Mr. Shivaji Nirmale, for Petitioner. Mr. Nishigandh Patil, AGP for State. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 25 AUGUST 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 22 May 2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC), whereby the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.6, the purported estranged wife of the Petitioner, against an order dated 28 April 2025, directing the inclusion of the name of the Petitioner in the Annexure II as a joint occupant, came to be allowed by setting aside the said order. 3. The GRC was of the view that the Petitioner had not a made a clean breast of the transaction and there was no reference to the order dated 18 January 2020 passed in Appeal No.170 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 4 June 2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. By SSP 1/3 2026:BHC-OS:19053 20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc the said order dated 18 January 2020, in Appeal No.170 of 2018, the GRC had rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The observations in the concluding paragraph of the said order dated 18 January 2020 read as under : “The appellant claimed that he was also present in said structure at the time of survey. The said version of appellant appears to be contradictory. Because as per appellant’s own version due to matrimonial dispute he temporarily shifted to his relative’s residence Smt. Shobha Pawar, 239-A, Katkar House, Katkar Lane, Worli, Koliwada. The impugned order of Additional Collector reveals that a intervention application was filed by Respondent No.5 before Additional Collector. Before Additional Collector, the Respondent No.5 has pleaded that due to illness she has shifted to her native village in Konkan since the year 2001. On careful consideration of facts and circumstances on record, it appears that the Respondent No.2 was occupying the said structure at relevant time and the Competent Authority has rightly inserted her name in Annexure II. It is also to be noted here that even if there is name of wife as per the provisions of DCR the husband get equal right in tenement. The appeal is liable to be rejected…...” 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the Petitioner was required to approach the Appellate Authority, in view of the SRA Circular dated 18 December 2024 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, in the matter of inclusion of the names of the husband and wife in the Annexure II. SSP 2/3 20 wp 3257 of 2026.doc 5. If that was the case, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner was to approach the GRC in Appeal No.170 of 2018. The Petitioner could not have approached the lower Appellate Authority as the order in Appeal No.170 of 2018 had attained finality. 6. When the Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the Petition in view of the aforesaid consideration, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to approach the GRC in Appeal No.170 of 2018 and seek appropriate reliefs. 7. Leave granted with liberty as prayed for. 8. In the event, such an application is filed before the GRC in Appeal No.170 of 2018, the same shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. Writ Petition stands disposed as withdrawn. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 3/3 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 12:20:30