The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging twin concurrent orders dated December 6, 2017 by the First Appellate Authority and March 28, 2019 by the Second Appellate Authority, by which the petitioner was held ineligible for alternate accommodation as per Annexure-2 prepared by the Competent Authority on May 30, 2017. Justice Milind N. Jadhav declared the petitioner eligible and directed all consequential benefits under the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015.
The petitioner contended that he purchased Hut by agreement dated April 4, 2000 and was issued a Survey receipt dated July 22, 2000 along with a photo-pass of the same date, collectively certifying his occupation of the structure. Details of the electricity connection, originally in the name of another person from 1999 to 2005 and thereafter transferred to the petitioner’s name, were submitted, and a verification report by Reliance Energy Limited dated May 8, 2006 was produced, clarifying that electricity connection had been provided to the hut in 1999, thereby establishing the existence of the structure prior to January 1, 2000. The petitioner relied on voters list of 2002 showing his name with the address of the subject structure, continued thereafter till date and also produced a ration card issued prior to 2000. Despite this documentary evidence, the Competent Authority declared the petitioner ineligible on the sole ground that electricity connection was transferred from the original incumbent to the petitioner’s name only in 2005, and therefore there was no proof of his occupation prior to 2000.
However, the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the respondents, who contended that he was a transferee of the subject structure after January 1, 2000 and that the benefit of the transfer policy could not be granted since his occupation of the structure as well as the existence of the structure prior to January 1, 2000 was not established. It was argued that continuous actual occupation by the transferor prior to January 1, 2000 or proof of the structure’s existence had to be established by the petitioner to claim eligibility under the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015.
The Court analyzed the documentary evidence and found that the petitioner executed Agreement for Sale dated April 6, 2000 and was put in possession of the subject structure on that date. The agreement referred to availability of electricity provided to the structure. Further, the existence of the structure prior to January 1, 2000, being occupied by the transferor and their family, was established by the voters list of 1995 showing the structure identified as Hut No.248, which was certified by the Assistant Election Registration Officer dated February 22, 2016. The Court noted that Survey receipt No.1777345 dated July 22, 2000 along with photo-pass issued in favour of the petitioner and his family members clearly establishes existence of the structure. The petitioner relied upon the voters list of 1995 to demonstrate the existence of the structure in the name of the transferor and voters lists from 2000 onwards until 2017 to show continuous occupation of the subject structure.
It was found that by order dated May 20, 2017, the provisions of the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015 were applied and extended to the petitioner and 15 other similarly placed persons by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, and they were directed to pay Occupancy Transfer Charges at the rate of Rs. 40,000 for residential premises. The name of the petitioner appeared at a particular serial No. in the list of these 16 occupants, and the Occupancy Transfer Charges were deposited by him as directed. The Court held that the petitioner had prima facie satisfied the existence of structure prior to January 1, 2000 on the basis of the certificate issued by Reliance Energy Limited that the subject structure was provided with electricity from June 29, 1999. The Court found that conditions 3, 4 and 5 of Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015 having been satisfied, the legitimate claim of the petitioner could not be denied.
The Court observed that the Competent and Appellate Authorities failed to consider the material as per the conditions of the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015, and rejected the petitioner’s case solely because the electricity connection was transferred to his name in 2005. It noted that the petitioner’s case was required to be considered in light of the Additional Collector’s order dated May 20, 2017, calling for deposit of Occupancy Transfer Charges. Accordingly, Justice Jadhav quashed and set aside the twin impugned orders and declared the petitioner eligible in Annexure-2 document in respect of the subject hutment.
Appearances:
Mr. Prosper D’souza, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Tanaya Goswami, Advocate Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondent No.2 – State
