:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7495 OF 2007 Smt.Nanda Dattu Kamble .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.G.Parkar for the petitioner. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar AGP for respondent nos.1, 4 & 5. Mr.Amol Mhatre i/b Mr.J.G.Reddy for respondent no.2. Mr.A.H.Bhor for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing. Ms.Mhaispurkar, learned counsel waives service for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5, Mr.Mhatre, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.2 and Mr.Bhor, learned counsel waives service for respondent no.3. 4. This petition is directed against an order dated 21.7.2007 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in appeal bearing No.Appeal/Desk/Slum-393/06 filed by the petitioner. By the impugned order the appeal has been rejected. The petitioner claims that she was in possession of the room in dispute bearing No.D.M.A./1 (for short "the room") It appears that she was held to be eligible and her name was inducted in the annexure II since she was in possession of the room :2: :2: :2: on or before 1st January, 1995. According to the respondents she transferred the room illegally in favour of one Leela Maru and handed it over to her. At the relevant time Leela Maru was found in possession of the same. The subsequent transfer of the room in favour of Leela Maru, according to the respondent, is illegal and contrary to the scheme and hence she is not entitled for permanent alternate accomodation. As against this the case set up by the petitioner is that she never transferred the room in favour of Leela Maru and for a short period they both were in possession of the room jointly. The petitioner submits that in August, 2006 when the room was inspected, she was in possession thereof which is clearly reflected in the reply affidavit filed by the Colony Officer dated 12.7.2007. The petitioner has further stated that at no point of time either the notice of eviction dated 5.8.2006 or any other notice was served on the petitioner though she was in possession of the room as stated in the reply dated 12.7.2007. Keeping in view the rival claims of the parties and considering the documents on record, in my opinion, the proper course would be to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her claim for permanent alternate accomodation. In the circumstances the order dated 21.7.2007 is set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner bearing :3: :3: :3: No.Appeal/Desk/Slum-393/06 is restored to file. Respondent No.3 shall consider the appeal afresh and decide it within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to place on record additional representation alongwith all the documents in support of her claim. The petitioner to file additional representation, if she so desires, alongwith all the documents as aforementioned within a period of three weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. This court has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner’s right as to whether or not she is entitle for alternate accomodation. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)