Court Clarifies that Commercial Electricity Connection Alone Insufficient to Establish Commercial Use Under Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Scheme; Separate Proof Required
In a significant judgment delivered on August 28, 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Ganpat Krishna Parte challenging the decision of the High Power Committee, Government of Maharashtra, which rejected his claim for eligibility to a commercial rehabilitation tenement under the Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner had sought recognition of commercial use of his hutment based on a commercial electricity connection obtained in 1992, contending that this was sufficient proof under the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015.
The Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, and the specific Government Resolution governing eligibility criteria for rehabilitation tenements. While acknowledging that electricity bills are among the documents considered relevant to prove the existence of a hutment, the Court emphasized a critical distinction made in the Government Resolution between documents that demonstrate mere existence of a hutment and those required to establish its commercial or professional use.
The petitioner had presented evidence of a commercial electricity connection in his name prior to the qualifying date of January 1, 2000. However, the Court noted that the Government Resolution explicitly requires additional documentation, such as a Gumasta licence, restaurant licence, or tax receipts, to prove commercial use as per Serial No. 7 of the attached Statement. The electricity record, categorized under Serial No. 2, serves only as secondary proof of the existence of the hutment, not as definitive proof of commercial activity.
Further, the Court considered municipal records and other documents, which consistently described the premises as residential. The petitioner failed to produce any document specifically confirming commercial usage besides the electricity bill. The municipal corporation had also noted the absence of separate entrances for residential and commercial use, and income-tax returns described the premises as residential, reinforcing the authorities' conclusion.
Addressing the petitioner’s contention of denial of natural justice due to inadequate opportunity of hearing, the Court found that the petitioner’s claims were examined at multiple levels by statutory authorities, including verification of the electricity connection by the electricity company. Thus, the grievance did not alter the substantive findings.
The Court also took into account the stage of the rehabilitation project, noting that a substantial portion of the project, including allotment of residential and commercial tenements to Project Affected Persons, had been completed and handed over to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Reopening eligibility claims at this advanced stage, without prescribed documentary proof, would prejudice other stakeholders and disrupt the implementation of the scheme.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court upheld the order dated August 1, 2015, of the High Power Committee, affirming that the petitioner’s claim for commercial eligibility could not rest solely on a commercial electricity connection. The judgment reinforces the principle that eligibility for commercial rehabilitation tenements under the Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Scheme requires strict adherence to documentary requirements as prescribed by the Government Resolution.
The petition was dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
Bottom Line:
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme - Commercial electricity connection alone is insufficient to establish a claim for commercial eligibility under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Distinction must be made between proof of the existence of a hutment and proof of its commercial use as per prescribed documents under the Government Resolution.
Statutory provision(s):
Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971; Government Resolution dated 16 May 2015 (Maharashtra Slum Rehabilitation Scheme); Development Control and Promotion Regulation, 1991 (Regulation 33(10))
