&w=3840&q=100)
Maharashtra govt tables bill to amend slum act, enable SRA to recover dues
The bill seeks to amend the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. It also 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). "The SRA hopes that the amendments will help fast-track its projects and also ensure slum dwellers are not left in the lurch without their rightful rent," an official said.
As per the proposed amendment, if a defaulting builder lacks sufficient company assets to clear the dues, the liability can extend to the personal property of its directors or partners. Currently, the SRA can issue stop-work notices or deny new permissions to defaulter developer. Officials, however, say that even as the stop work notice is issued, slum dwellers are left in lurch with no rent and the lack of stronger punitive measures lead to widespread non-payment of rent, which is why amendment is necessary. The bill also seeks to reduce the window for dissenting slum dwellers to join the 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 do not join 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 like MMRDA, MHADA, MSRDC and CIDCO within 30 days of issuance of a letter of intent, enabling faster execution of public sector-led projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Enemy Property: A Link Between Pervez Musharraf And Saif Ali Khan
Saif is not alone. Pakistan's former president and army chief Pervez Musharraf's property too was auctioned under the same Enemy Property Act. What is Enemy Property? Enemy property is property abandoned by those who emigrated from India to Pakistan or China following the Partition of India in 1947 or subsequent hostilities (particularly the 1962, 1965, and 1971 wars). The Enemy Property Act of 1968 was enacted by the Indian government, under which these properties are acquired and controlled by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India (CEPI), an organisation under the ministry of home affairs. These assets cannot be claimed, transferred, or inherited by relatives residing in India, particularly after significant legislative amendments provided in 2017, which consolidated the Act. What Changed in 2017? The Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017, was a game-changer. It introduced some significant changes. All the properties of the enemy are to perpetually vest with the custodian, irrespective of any court judgments or succession acts. Any sale or transfer of enemy property, even prior to the 2017 law, is null and void. Legal heirs, even Indian nationals, cannot inherit these properties. Courts are barred from adjudicating disputes regarding such properties. Saif Ali Khan's Bhopal Properties Declared Enemy Property Saif Ali Khan is the nephew of Begum Sajida Sultan, the late Begum of Bhopal. She inherited various royal properties in Bhopal after her elder sister, Abida Sultan, emigrated to Pakistan in 1950 and became a Pakistani citizen. In 2000, a trial court had ordered that Saif, his mother Sharmila Tagore, and sisters be allowed to inherit properties such as Flagstaff House, Noor-Us-Sabah Palace (which is now a luxury hotel), Dar-Us-Salam, Habibia Bangla, Ahmedabad Palace and Kohefiza property. But in July 2025, the Madhya Pradesh High Court overruled that decision. It ruled that since Abida Sultan had emigrated to Pakistan, the whole estate was enemy property under the 1968 Act. The HC directed a new trial in the district court within one year. In the meantime, the Custodian of Enemy Property can take over the properties for administration or auction. Pervez Musharraf's Family Land Also Auctioned One of the most high-profile cases was that of Pervez Musharraf, a former President of Pakistan. His family had property in Baghpat district, Uttar Pradesh. In September 2024, a 13-bigha (approximately 2-hectare) piece of agricultural land owned by the Musharraf family was auctioned by CEPI. The sale was legally enforceable under the Enemy Property Act. It was one of the first large-scale publicised auctions of an enemy property owned by a person of Musharraf's standing. How Many Enemy Properties in India? There are more than 12,600 enemy properties in India, as per government records. There are approximately 12,485 from Pakistan and approximately 126 from China. The total value of such properties is estimated to be around Rs 1 lakh crore. These are land plots, residential houses, palaces, and business buildings. The big states with enemy properties are Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. How Many Have Been Auctioned? CEPI has sold hundreds of properties throughout India, primarily agricultural and residential real estate. Dozens of sales have taken place in Uttar Pradesh, Bengaluru, and Maharashtra. In Bengaluru alone, 24 properties were estimated to be worth over Rs 500 crore. Exact figures differ by region and year, but auctions remain a steady source of income for the government. The Mahmudabad Case: A Turning Point One of the most famous cases is that of the Raja of Mahmudabad, whose father migrated to Pakistan in 1947. The family fought a decades-long legal battle to reclaim their property in Uttar Pradesh. advetisement In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Raja, allowing him to reclaim his assets. However, this judgment caused panic within the government, which feared more claims. As a result, the 2017 amendment to the Act was passed, effectively overruling the Supreme Court judgment and blocking future claims from Indian heirs. Government's Role and CEPI's Power
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt misusing IT laws, X corp tells Karnataka high court
X Corp on Friday told the Karnataka high court that while it was not opposed to regulation, all restrictions on digital speech must strictly conform to existing law. Objecting to the Union government's directive mandating social media platforms to join the Sahyog Portal -- a centralised system for content takedown requests, the platform argued that the portal enables arbitrary censorship by executive authorities, in violation of constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court precedents. This illustration photograph shows the logo of social network X (formerly Twitter) displayed on a smartphone.(AFP/File) Senior advocate KG Raghavan, who appeared for X Corp, told a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna that presently, the central administrative authorities or the several nodal officers empowered by the Sahyog Portal to issue take down notices to social media intermediaries, were 'misusing' the takedown regime under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act that outlines conditions under which intermediaries can lose their safe harbour protection. These officers, Raghavan argued, were performing 'judicial functions,' leading to 'arbitrary and opaque censorship' of online content. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Raghavan said Section 69A of the IT Act, which permits content takedowns, was upheld by the Apex Court because it provides procedural safeguards, including a defined structure and the involvement of a nodal officer. However, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules that Sahyog portal relies upon for issuing take down orders, lack such safeguards. Raghavan also argued that Rule 3(1)(d) gives the government a 'backdoor mechanism to control online content,' avoiding the Shreya Singhal mandated process under Section 3(1)(d) undermines the constitutional safeguards that the Supreme Court laid down by shifting the burden of censorship to social media platforms and enabling takedown orders by countless officers of the state issued merely on their respective discretion. 'Today, virtually any officer, from the Delhi Metro to any department, can interpret any law in the country and decide that a social media post is unlawful. This is a judicial function being carried out by executive authorities,' Raghavan argued. 'A thousand administrative officers are now empowered to interpret law, apply facts, and order takedowns. This is constitutionally impermissible,' he said. When the court asked if acts or online content deemed 'unlawful' under the law were not 'already enumerated,' and whether officers were merely 'determining if a post violated these laws,' Raghavan insisted that such determinations must not be made by executive officials without a structured procedure or review mechanism as prescribed under Section 69A. Section 69A of the IT Act provides for blocking or taking down online content only through a legal process with safeguards such as prior notices, an explanation or reasoning for why such content must be taken down, a hearing, and review etc., X Corp has argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, however, requires intermediaries to take down a wide range of content without any such procedural protections, based on vague criteria and even user complaints. The company has maintained that Rule 3(1)(d) effectively bypasses 69A and violates the Supreme Court's ruling, while also making the intermediaries vulnerable to losing their safe harbour protection to under the Act. The safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act shields online platforms from liability for user generated content, as long as they act as neutral intermediaries and comply with takedown orders. Raghavan further said that empowering executive officials to issue take down notices without any procedural safeguards will have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'A comment saying the Delhi Metro is not running on time can be taken down because the metro authorities might feel that it sends the wrong signal,' Raghavan said. 'We are a responsible platform with user agreements and moderation mechanisms. We are not against regulation, but regulation must be in accordance with law,' he said. Raghavan also argued that the Sahyog Portal had no statutory backing since it was created through 'a mere letter, with no notification or executive order.' 'The architecture of Indian law making requires statutory support for such mechanisms,' Raghavan said. Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether the portal was simply for implementation purposes, to which Raghavan said that irrespective of what the Portal intended to do, it could not have been constituted through administrative communication alone. The court will now hear the union government's arguments through Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, on July 17.
India Today
6 hours ago
- India Today
Investigation agency arrests 11th key accused in ISIS Pune sleeper module case
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has arrested Rizwan Ali, also known as Abu Salma and Mola, the 11th key accused in the ISIS Pune sleeper module who carried a reward of Rs 3 lakh and was subject to a standing Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the NIA Special Court, was wanted for his active role in furthering the terror agenda of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).advertisementAccording to the NIA, Rizwan was involved in conducting reconnaissance of potential hideouts, organising arms training sessions, and teaching the fabrication of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). His arrest is linked to case number RC-05/2023/NIA/MUM, which pertains to a broader anti-India conspiracy allegedly planned by ISIS operatives. Rizwan and the 10 others accused already in judicial custody had conspired to execute terror attacks aimed at destabilising the country and inciting communal previously arrested individuals include Mohammed Imran Khan, Mohammed Yunus Saki, Abdul Kadir Pathan, Simab Nasiruddin Kazi, Zulfikar Ali Barodawala, Shamil Nachan, Akif Nachan, Shahnawaz Alam, Abdullah Faiyaz Shaikh, and Talha have been chargesheeted under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and the Indian Penal NIA has stated that investigations are ongoing as part of a broader effort to dismantle ISIS-linked terror networks plotting to wage war against the Indian government and impose Islamic rule through violence and subversion.- EndsMust Watch
