KBP 1 wpl.491-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION [LODGING] NO.491 OF 2011 Kirti Kishore Kadam ....Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and others ....Respondents -- Mr.S.S.Joshi i/b.Ms.Priti Joshi, for petitioners. Ms.K.R.Punjabi, for BMC. Mr.Chirag Balsara with Ms.Gadekar i/b.M/s.Divya Shah Associates, for respondent no.4. -- CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 28 th MARCH, 2011 P.C: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2] The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 29 th July, 2010 and 25 th February, 2011 concerning Annexure – II in respect of the property bearing Final Plot Nos.108/109, T.P.S. - V, Santa Janabai Marg, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400 057 (for short “the said plot”). The petitioner has also challenged notice dated 8 th September, 2010 issued under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) as also order dated 22 nd KBP 2 wpl.491-11.sxw October, 2010 issued under Section 38 of the Act in respect of the petitioner’s structure i.e.T-113, Bori Tabela No.2 situate on the said plot. 2] By order dated 29 th July, 2010, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation held that the name of the petitioner cannot be included in the Annexure – II as the petitioner’s name is not found in the voters list as on 1 st January, 1995 as also her hut is not shown in the plan of hutments. That apart, the petitioner has not produced any evidence substantiating her residence therein prior to 1 st January, 1995. Against this order, the petitioner preferred appeal under Section 35 of the Act before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. The said appeal was dismissed on 25 th February, 2011. After dismissal of appeal, notice under Section 33 of the Act was issued on 8 th September, 2010 followed by the order dated 22 nd October, 2010 passed under Section 38 of the Act. 3] The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that the petitioner relied upon the affidavit dated 27 th April, 1994 made by one Radhesham Yadav declaring that he was in joint possession and occupation and joint enjoyment of the hut admeasuring 10 x 8 sq. ft. situate at the said plot since many years. He has further set out that he has also been issued Ration Card in his name. The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner accepted the contentions of the Developer’s Advocate that if the petitioner had married in the year 2000, the affidavit made by said Yadav on 27 th April, 1994 should have been in her maiden name. Though the petitioner’s KBP 3 wpl.491-11.sxw marriage took place in the year 2000 still in the affidavit made in the year 1994, the said Yadav claimed to be in joint possession with the petitioner. The Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, therefore, came to the conclusion that the said affidavit appears to be bogus. 4] Apart from this, we have noted that the petitioner has enclosed a copy of Ration Card of Shri.Radhesham Yadav wherein, name of the petitioner is not shown. If at all the petitioner was jointly in the occupation of the said hut, her name naturally should have been included in the Ration Card. In view of this position, we find that the Authorities below rightly came to the conclusion that save and except affidavit dated 27 th April, 1994, the petitioner has not produced any evidence and that the affidavit also appears to be bogus. We do not find that the Authorities have committed error of law apparent on the face of the record. The orders cannot be termed as perverse. The Authorities below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not established her claim. We do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for invocation of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.]