PNP 1 WP8683-8.7.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8683 OF 2010 Surekha Sahaji Gade ..Petitioner. versus The Chief Executive Officer, MHADA ..Respondent. ..... Ms. B.P. Jakhade for the Petitioner. Mr. S.P. Thorat for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 8 July 2011. P.C. : 1. The case of the Petitioner is that her mother Radhabai Shahaji Gade used to reside in a hut situated on a strip of open land between Shivsahyadri and Saraswati buildings at Chinchpokli. According to the Petitioner the hut was constructed about twenty seven years ago. The Petitioner s mother died on 4 December 1994. ’ Due to her poverty the Petitioner states that she was required to take her education in an orphanage. The Petitioner has relied upon an electoral identity card of 7 January 1995 in which her residential address is stated as follows : Ro.No.Gf/1, Shivsahyadri “ Magil H, D.M. Khamakar St (W), Chinchpokali, Bombay.” 2. Similarly, the Petitioner has relied upon a ration card of 1983 PNP 2 WP8683-8.7.sxw which the Petitioner claims was transfered in her name after the death of her mother. The Petitioner has also relied upon the address mentioned in a bank passbook of the Sahyadri Sakahari Bank Limited where the date mentioned is 8 August 1994. According to the Petitioner her name was also entered in the voters list for 1995. ’ The hut in question was demolished. The Petitioner moved the State Human Rights Commission complaining of the demolition of the hut, about four years prior to the institution of the complaint in or about 2008. By an order dated 8 August 2008 the Human Rights Commission directed MHADA to sympathetically consider the case of the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereupon seems to have filed another proceeding before the Lokayukta who found by his order dated 20 April 2010 that her claim was not acceptable considering a report submitted by the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board. 3. Having heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, we are of the view that the documentary material which has been produced by the Petitioner in these proceedings is such as would merit a fresh application of mind to the claim of the Petitioner by the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board. The Petitioner has, for instance, relied upon an electoral identity card of January 1995, which reflects the address of the room behind Shivsahyadri building. Similarly, there is a bank passbook of 8 August 1994. We hope and trust that the Chief Officer would reconsider the case of the Petitioner afresh on the basis of the documentary material which may be produced by the Petitioner before the Chief Officer within a period of four weeks from today. PNP 3 WP8683-8.7.sxw The Petitioner shall file an application before the Chief Officer together with all the documentary material on which she seeks to place reliance. Since the Petitioner has been represented in these proceedings before the Court by counsel appointed by the State Legal Services Authority, the learned counsel has fairly agreed to assist the Petitioner in putting into place a proper representation together with the relevant documentary evidence. The Chief Officer shall pass orders on the representation within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of the representation and in the event that the entitlement of the Petitioner is established, shall issue necessary directions in accordance with law. In the event that the Petitioner establishes her claim of being in occupation prior to the cut off date of 1 January 1995, we direct that she should be offered a suitable transit accommodation pending consideration of her claim to the allotment of permanent alternate accommodation. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.)