Punjab and Haryana HC disposes of Chandigarh slum dwellers' resettlement plea
The High Court bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Aman Chaudhary passed the order on June 19. The petitioners had approached the court after their earlier attempt to enforce a 2016 court decision in their favour was rejected last year.
The dispute began in 2012, when the petitioners — slum residents — had gone to a civil court, challenging their removal from the land. In 2016, the court partly ruled in their favour, saying two things: first, they could only be evicted through legal means, and secondly, the government should consider their claim for resettlement under welfare policies for slum dwellers.
However, when the petitioners tried to act on this 2016 ruling by filing another case in 2019 to make the administration carry it out, the court rejected it in 2023. The judge in that case said the earlier order (called a decree) was limited in what it allowed, and the court couldn't go beyond what had already been stated.
In its June 19 judgment, the High Court agreed with that view. It noted that the land belongs to the Chandigarh Administration and that the petitioners' claims had already been looked into and turned down. The court said the earlier judgment had run its course and could not be stretched to give the petitioners further relief.
The petitioners had likely hoped the court would rely on a landmark 1985 Supreme Court judgment (Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation), which held that eviction of slum dwellers without resettlement violated their right to life. But the High Court said that case didn't help in this situation because the Chandigarh Administration had already examined and rejected the petitioners' claims based on city development plans under the Chandigarh Master Plan.
While disposing of the case, the court said the petitioners were still free to challenge the latest order passed by the Chandigarh Administration on June 18, 2025, if they wish to pursue the matter further.
The case was argued by advocates Anil Mehta and Sukriti Kaur for the petitioners. The Chandigarh Administration was represented by senior standing counsel Amit Jhanji, along with Sumeet Jain and Himanshu Arora.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Coimbatore Master Plan envisages outer ring road, industrial clusters, and economic corridors
Coimbatore local planning area (LPA), including Coimbatore Corporation, four municipalities, 21 town panchayats and 66 revenue villages, is envisaged to have a 119.3 km outer ring road, nine industrial clusters, and five major economic corridors by 2041. The second Master Plan for Coimbatore, released by Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, projects 58.4 lakh population in Coimbatore LPA by 2041. With a total area of 257.81 sq. km, the Coimbatore Corporation is the second largest city in the State, next to Chennai. It had a population of 15.84 lakhs in 2011 and a population density of 61.41 persons per hectare. By 2021, the population is expected to have grown to 20.51 lakhs and in the LPA area, it is likely to be 31.62 lakhs. In the total LPA area, at present, 59.62 % of land use is for agriculture purpose, 20.73 % for residential, and 5.12 % for industrial purposes. The city has 6.72 % area as water bodies and 0.61 % area for recreation/lung space. Saravanampatti and Kalapatti have emerged as prime residential modules because of the growth of the IT sector in the nearby areas. Vellakinar, Thudiyalur, and Veerakeralam are also growing rapidly as residential hubs. By 2041, Coimbatore city and areas under the LPA should have ready-to-use industrial infrastructure, more medium-scale industries, retail clusters, and should evolve as a startup and innovation capital among tier-two cities in the country. It is projected to have higher retail development on Mettupalayam road and surrounding areas, Information Technology sector growth on Saravanampatti road and nearby areas, industrial growth along Pollachi road and institutions on Avinashi road. The plan expects industrial clusters - GCC and Information Technology on Sathyamangalam Road, Defence units in and around Sulur, Electric vehicles, automobile sector in Arasur and Moperipalayam, medi tech, bio tech along Avinashi Road, and also clusters for renewable energy, agro processing, textiles, and engineering. The plan has incorporated the alignment for 119.3 km outer ring road, including western road from Madukkarai to Gudalur, eastern road from Narasimhanaikenpalayam to Karanampettai, and southern road from Madukkarai to Selakkaraichal. The Peelamedu, Podanur and Irugur railway stations should be upgraded and logistics units are developing around Irugur, according to the plan.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Setback For Saif Ali Khan, Family As Rs 15,000 Crore Property Case Goes To Retrial
Jabalpur: In a major judicial development concerning one of Bhopal's most protracted royal property disputes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a two-decade-old trial court judgment and ordered a fresh hearing in the celebrated case involving the descendants of the erstwhile Nawab of Bhopal, late Mohammad Hamidullah Khan. A single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, delivering the verdict on first appeals, ruled that the civil suits pertaining to the division of the Nawab's estate were erroneously dismissed by the District Court, Bhopal, in 2000. The trial court had based its ruling on a now over-ruled precedent laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the Talat Fatima Hasan case. The appellants, comprising multiple family members including noted celluloid figure Sharmila Tagore, Saif Ali Khan and his sister. Two civil suits were filed in 1999 seeking partition, possession, and a proper accounting of the ancestral estate that includes an expansive list of properties across categories. They contended that, upon Nawab Hamidullah Khan's death in 1960, the properties -- asserted to be his personal holdings -- should have devolved upon his heirs under Muslim Personal Law, and not solely upon his daughter, Begum Sajida Sultan. However, the Government of India had, through a letter dated January 10, 1962, recognised Sajida Sultan as the sole successor, citing the Bhopal Merger Agreement of 1949 and provisions under Article 366(22) of the Constitution. The defence argued that under the law of primogeniture and terms of the merger, the ruler's private properties passed entirely to the appointed successor of the Gaddi - not to be divided amongst heirs. The High Court has now found fault with the trial court's heavy reliance on the Allahabad judgment, which the Supreme Court explicitly overturned in 2020, affirming that private property of erstwhile rulers must be treated under personal succession laws and not merely as political inheritance. Given the "outdated legal basis" of the original ruling and the nature of the dispute, which hinges on familial succession and claims over significant immovable property, the High Court invoked its powers under Order 14 Rule 23A of the Civil Procedure Code to remand the matter back for retrial. Acknowledging the long pendency of the case - originally filed more than two decades ago - the Court urged the lower court to expedite proceedings and ideally conclude the trial within one year. The judgment signals a renewed legal battle over the legacy and wealth of one of India's most storied princely houses, where tradition, law, and lineage continue to intersect in complex and often contested ways.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 hours ago
- Business Standard
Krishna Janmabhoomi: HC junks plea to rename mosque as 'disputed structure'
In the ongoing legal battle over the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah site in Mathura, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea requesting that the term 'Shahi Idgah Mosque' be replaced with 'disputed structure' in all future proceedings related to the case, according to a LiveLaw report. Responding to the High Court's decision, Advocate Saurabh Tiwari told ANI, "The High Court has rejected the application of considering it as the disputed structure... The court has said that it is a normal application and not a shock to the Hindu community..." The order was passed by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who stated that the application was being dismissed 'at this stage'. A total of 18 cases are currently pending in the High Court. These petitions largely seek the removal of what are described as illegal encroachments on the premises of the Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, which includes the Shahi Idgah Mosque. Krishna Janmabhoomi case: Background The legal conflict revolves around claims that the Shahi Idgah Mosque was built on the site believed to be the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Hindu petitioners allege that the mosque, situated next to the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple, was constructed during Mughal emperor Aurangzeb's rule after demolishing a pre-existing Hindu temple. In 1968, a compromise was signed between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan — the temple's management body — and the Trust Shahi Masjid Eidgah. This agreement allowed both religious places to function side by side on the same premises. However, several fresh petitions have questioned the legality of this agreement. The pleas argue that the 1968 compromise was made fraudulently and is not valid under the law. Claiming the right to worship at the site, many petitioners have demanded the removal of the Shahi Idgah Mosque. Brief timeline of legal proceedings In May 2023, the Allahabad High Court transferred all pending cases related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah dispute from the Mathura court to itself. However, this order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the mosque committee, and later also by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, LiveLaw reported. Later in December 2023, the High Court allowed a plea for the appointment of a court commissioner to inspect the Shahi Idgah Mosque premises. In January 2024, the Supreme Court stayed the implementation of that inspection order. The stay has since been extended. Plea to include Radha Rani as a party rejected In May 2024, the Allahabad High Court rejected a plea seeking to include goddess Radha as a party to one of the 18 suits related to the title dispute. The application argued that Shriji Radha Rani should be made a joint holder of the disputed 13.37-acre land along with the plaintiff deity, Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman. The plea, filed by Advocate Reena N Singh, claimed that Radha Rani is 'the legal wife and the feminine form of the plaintiff in suit — Sri Bhagwan Krishna Lala Virajman — and that together, they both are worshipped as deities since time immemorial.' However, the court turned down the request. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra remarked, 'Puranic illustrations are considered hearsay evidence.' The court further said, 'The claim of the applicant as a joint holder of property in dispute together with plaintiff is based on some reference in various Puranas and Sanhitas wherein Shriji Radha Rani is considered as the soul of Lord Krishna.' During the hearing on May 23, the court noted that the Pauranic depictions 'are usually based on narrative and not on direct observation or testimony'.
