The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by Ganpat Krishna Parte, who sought recognition of a slum hutment as a commercial structure and a corresponding commercial rehabilitation tenement.
Justice Amit Borkar held that the existence of a commercial electricity connection, by itself, does not establish entitlement to a commercial rehabilitation premises under the Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015.
Background Of The Case
The dispute concerned Hut No. 55 in a slum rehabilitation project. The petitioner claimed that he had been running a canteen there since 1992 and had a commercial electricity connection in his name from that year.
However, the hut was shown as residential in the relevant municipal records. The petitioner argued that the commercial electricity records established that the structure was being used for commercial purposes before the qualifying period.
The authorities rejected the claim, following which the petitioner approached the High Power Committee. The Committee dismissed his application on August 1, 2015, observing that the electricity bill was only secondary evidence for determining eligibility.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined the Government Resolution and distinguished between proof that a hutment existed and proof of the purpose for which it was being used.
The Court noted that electricity records are specifically included among documents that can establish the existence of a hutment. However, the Resolution separately identifies documents such as a Gumasta permit, restaurant licence or tax receipt for proving commercial, professional or industrial use.
“The Government Resolution makes a difference between proving that the hut existed and proving for what purpose the hut was being used.”
The Court also considered municipal records showing the premises as residential and noted that no prescribed commercial-use document, such as a Gumasta licence or restaurant licence, had been produced.
Decision
Justice Borkar held that the petitioner had established the existence of a commercial electricity connection, but that fact alone did not establish that Hut No. 55 was a protected commercial hutment or that he was entitled to a commercial rehabilitation tenement.
The Court therefore dismissed the writ petition, upheld the High Power Committee's August 1, 2015 order, discharged the Rule and directed that there would be no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ganpat Krishna Parte v. High Power Committee, Government of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7099 of 2016
- Judge: Justice Amit Borkar
- Decision Date: August 28, 2026
