Judgment R.Y. Ganoo, J. 1. The petitioner claims that she had a hut standing on survey no.162/162-2/1 to 7, 165/1 to 84 at Village Malad, Taluka Borivli (for short, said property). The said property was declared as slum vide Gazette No.SAA/Malad/50 dated 23.11.1978. According to the petitioner, a scheme under SRA came to be formed for redevelopment of the said property. The respondent no.2 prepared a list of residents i.e. Annexure-II showing names of persons eligible to be rehabilitated as per the development scheme by allotment of tenaments in the building to be constructed on the said plot. 2. On going through the said Annexure-II petitioner realized that her name is not included in the said list though she was residing in the said hut since 1973. The petitioner, therefore approached the respondent no.2 for inclusion of her name in Annexure-II. The petitioner relied upon documents such as ration card, bank pass book to support her claim that she has been residing in the said hut since 1973. The said application filed by the petitioner was decided by the respondent no.2. By order dated 28.8.2009 the respondent no.2 rejected the request of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in Annexure-II on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that her name was included in the electoral list as of 1.1.1995. The respondent no.2 also held that the structure in respect of which the petitioner had put up the claim was a part and parcel of the structure which is shown as structure no.80 on the survey map drawn by the respondent no.2. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the respondent no.2, the petitioner, filed appeal with the respondent no.1. The petitioner had filed writ petition No.644 of 2010 so as to seek protection to the hut, as also for expeditious hearing of the appeal. This court had passed an order directing the respondent no.1 to hear and dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the said order. The respondent no.1 considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and by order dated 21.6.2010 confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2 and dismissed the appeal. 4. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. This court had passed an order directing the respondent no.1 to hear and dispose of the appeal within four weeks from the said order. The respondent no.1 considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and by order dated 21.6.2010 confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2 and dismissed the appeal. 4. We have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. We have perused the ration card at Exhibit B. The address mentioned in the said ration card is C/o. Arjun Sakharam Jadhav i.e. the person whose name is included in Annexure II as the holder of structure No.80 marked on the survey plan. The petitioner has also relied upon the bank pass book. The authorities below have not considered these documents in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 and respondent no.1 have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner based on the ration card as well as bank pass book. The petitioner has admitted that she is getting electricity supply through the meter held by Arjun Sakharam Jadhav. This fact also negatives her case that her hut was an independent structure. It is the case of the petitioner that she had applied in 1990 for getting her structure censused. The petitioner has not been able to place on record any material to show that her structure was duly censused and given an census number. 5. If the structure of the petitioner would have been an independent structure, surely it would have had a serial number as has been given to structure no.80 and other structures. 6. The respondent no.2 has in the last part of his order dated 28.8.2009 categorically observed that the person who is entitled to have a permanent alternate accommodation under the redevelopment scheme must have his name incorporated in the voter's list as of 1.1.1995. The petitioner has not been able to produce the voter's list as of 1.1.1995 showing her name therein. The claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected on this count. 7. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2. Once it is observed that the structure of the petitioner was not an independent structure and was a part and parcel of the structure of Arjun Sakharam Jadhav, holder of structure no.80, the petitioner's claim for including her name in Annexure-II was rightly rejected. 7. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2. Once it is observed that the structure of the petitioner was not an independent structure and was a part and parcel of the structure of Arjun Sakharam Jadhav, holder of structure no.80, the petitioner's claim for including her name in Annexure-II was rightly rejected. For the aforesaid reasons we do not wish to interfere in the orders impugned in this petition. 8. It appears that the petitioner's claim is rejected primarily on the ground that she has not been able to produce the electoral roll. We are inclined to allow the petitioner to make a fresh application to the concerned authority for inclusion of her name in Annexure-II, if she is in position to adduce any further evidence such as electoral roll. 9. In view of the above, following order is passed. i) Writ petition is dismissed. ii) In the event of the petitioner being able to adduce any further evidence such as electoral roll, liberty to apply afresh to the Deputy Collector for having her name included in Annexure-II.