Maharashtra government proposes amendments to slum revamp Act to fast-track projects
Transit rent is paid by the developer or the developing authority to the eligible people vacating their premises for redevelopment/rehabilitation purposes, till they avail permanent alternate accommodation.
The amendment bill, introduced in the state Legislative Assembly, seeks to treat unpaid rent to slum dwellers as arrears of land revenue, thereby empowering the SRA to initiate recovery proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC).
This includes the right to seize and auction movable and immovable property, and in some cases, attach bank accounts or lockers.
As per the amendment, if a defaulting builder lacks sufficient company assets to clear dues, the liability can extend to the personal property of its directors or partners.
Currently, SRA can issue stop-work notices or deny new permissions to a defaulting developer.
However, officials said that even as stop working is issued, the slum dwellers are left in lurch with no rent and the lack of stronger punitive measures has led to widespread non-payment of rent and hence the amendment is necessary.
The SRA hopes that the amendments will help fast-track the rehabilitation projects and also ensure slum dwellers are not left in the lurch without their rightful rent, the official said
The bill also seeks to reduce the window for dissenting slum dwellers to join SRA schemes — from 120 days to 60 days — once a majority (over 50 per cent) has consented to a redevelopment plan. After the 60-day period, those who have not joined the scheme risk losing their claim to on-site rehabilitation and may only be considered for relocation elsewhere, subject to availability.
Another provision allows land under slum redevelopment to be handed over to government agencies within 30 days of issuance of a letter of intent, enabling faster execution of public sector-led projects.
The bill is expected to be taken up for discussion later this week.
Meanwhile, the state government has also proposed an amendment to the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) aimed at bringing drug peddlers under its purview.
The amendment seeks to expand the definition of 'organised crime' to include activities related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
This bill is expected to be discussed in the Legislative Assembly later this week.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Vile Parle Jain temple demolition: HC extends status quo of Jain temple for four weeks
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal by the Trust which runs Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle (East), that challenged an order of the city civil court refusing interim protection from the BMC's demolition action. On April 16 this year, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished most of the Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle that sparked outrage and protests from members of the Jain community. The HC observed that the BMC's action cannot be faulted with and there was no 'illegality' or 'perversity' in the impugned order of the city civil court . A single-judge bench of Justice Gauri V Godse issued an order, allowing the status quo it granted on April 16 against further demolition to continue for another four weeks. This came after the judge was informed that appellant—Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust— had given an undertaking to the BMC that it will remove the temporary shed constructed for protection from monsoon before October 31 this year. On April 7, a city civil court had rejected the temple Trust's plea against demolition action but it gave the Trust interim protection from demolition for seven days to allow it to file an appeal in the high court. On April 15, the city civil court rejected an application by the temple Trust, seeking extension of interim protection from demolition. On April 16, the Trust informed the HC that the BMC officials and police were present at the site to begin demolition, after which the HC passed an order that status quo in respect of the suit structure as of now shall be maintained, However, the court was informed that most of the structure had already been demolished. Senior advocate Surel Shah, representing the Trust, on Tuesday sought the HC's interference in the impugned order, stating that the BMC could not have initiated the action at the subject premises. However, advocate Drupad Patil for the BMC submitted that there was no restrictive order against it to take an action. The HC noted that two separate actions were initiated by the BMC in December, 2024, including one implementing its notice under Section 53 (notice against unauthorised development) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The notice issued by BMC under said provision was confirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Trust had withdrawn its challenge against the implementation of the said notice. The second notice was issued by the BMC under Section 488 (inspection of premises by civic authorities) under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act. The HC further noted that the BMC was not prevented from taking action of implementing notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as the same had attained the finality before the Supreme Court and the Trust 'would not be entitled to seek any relief'. 'Thus, the prima facie opinion expressed by city civil court in impugned order to refuse grant of any interim relief cannot be faulted. In the absence of any prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the reasons recorded in impugned order cannot be faulted,' the HC observed. 'I do not see any legality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed,' Justice Godse held. The HC said that it will pass an order on other appeals and contempt plea along with issue of removal of debris on Wednesday, July 9.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha? Government to take call on Yashwant Varma removal route
Justice Yashwant Varma NEW DELHI: With many from the Opposition parties indicating support for the move to evict him from judiciary, the government is soon to take a call on whether to bring the motion for the removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha in the Monsoon session of Parliament, beginning on July 21. The law requires a motion for removal to be endorsed by 100 LS MPs. The required number is 50 in the case of Rajya Sabha. Govt has been holding consultations with the Opposition parties. The process for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, or a high court, is provided under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which says that "a Judge of the SC, or the high court, shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. " To initiate a removal proceeding, Constitution has laid down very stringent conditions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which requires Parliament to set up a three-member committee comprising the Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court and a noted jurist, to probe with evidence if the judge was indeed guilty of "misbehaviour or incapacity". The committee is constituted only after a motion is moved in Parliament for removal, addressed to the President 'praying for the removal of a judge'. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Once the motion is moved, Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, may consider admitting the motion and constitute an inquiry committee under Section 3(2) of Judges (Inquiry) Act. In this case, the Supreme Court has already constituted a three-member in-house inquiry committee comprising chief justices of Punjab and Haryana high court and Himachal Pradesh high court, and a judge of Karnataka high court. Based on their findings and examination and recording of statements of more than 50 witnesses, the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna recommended Justice Varma's removal to the President and the Prime Minister. The govt is likely to share the findings of the in-house report with the inquiry committee, which is mandated to be set up by Parliament after a motion for removal is adopted, under Judges (Inquiry) Act: something which may help the panel and enable it to submit its report soon. Others who faced removal As reported by TOI earlier, Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court was the first judge against whom the Rajya Sabha had voted with the required majority on a removal motion in 2011. But the judge finally resigned to avoid his removal. The first case of a removal motion in Parliament was against Justice V Ramaswami, a judge of SC, in 1991. But he escaped being removed as the motion failed to secure the required two-thirds majority in Lok Sabha. Justice PD Dinakaran, the then chief justice of Sikkim high court, resigned in 2011 before the removal proceedings were initiated in Rajya Sabha. In 2015, a similar motion was moved in Rajya Sabha against Justice JB Pardiwala of Gujarat high court. However, the judge later removed a controversial statement from a judgment of his that had stoked the controversy. The latest case was against Justice SK Gangele of Madhya Pradesh high court when 58 MPs of Rajya Sabha moved the motion. However, an inquiry committee absolved the judge of sexual harassment charges against him.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Punjab bill proposes life term if acts of sacrilegelead to riots, deaths
Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann (File photo) CHANDIGARH: The Bhagwant Mann-led Punjab government has drafted a stringent new law on sacrilege, proposing prison terms of up to life for desecration of holy scriptures and holding guardians liable if juvenile or differently abled people on their watch commit the offence. Titled Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Act, 2025, the bill prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years for sacrilege. If such acts lead to communal violence causing death or damage to property, punishment could range from 20 years to the remainder of natural life, plus fines between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 20 lakh. Parole or furlough will be barred for convicts receiving the highest punishment or defaulting on fines. A second or repeat conviction may result in life imprisonment or incarceration for the convict's natural life. Those tasked with religious duties - face the harshest punishment if found guilty under the proposed legislation. Parents or natural guardians who "deliberately or otherwise omit or fail to perform their duty to control and manage" juveniles or differently abled people accused of sacrilege will also be held accountable under the law. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The bill covers conspiracy, abetment, or obstruction of religious practices. Instigators or those disturbing religious ceremonies will be prosecuted under the same law. The draft defines sacrilege as any act of "insult, dishonour, damage, defacing, disfiguring, de-colouring, defiling, decomposing, burning, breaking, or tearing" of sacred texts, or any act intended to cause such damage. Holy scriptures listed include Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Quran Sharif, and the Bible. The bill mandates three to five years of jail and up to Rs 3 lakh fine for attempted sacrilege.
