Latest news with #MaharashtraSlumAreas(Improvement
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Hindustan Times
HC upholds eviction of 48 slum dwellers for implementing rehab scheme
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday ordered the eviction of 48 slum dwellers, who had kept on hold a slum rehabilitation scheme meant for 689 hutment dwellers by challenging the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to evict them. (Shutterstock) The case arose out of a slum rehabilitation project under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, which dealt with 689 slum dwellers at the Aman Shanti Co-op Society. Out of this, 645 were declared eligible for rehabilitation, with 641 already vacating the premises to facilitate the construction. The SRA delegated a tehsildar to evict the remaining occupants. The tehsildar on August 22, 2024 passed an order, directing the occupants to hand over possession to the developer, India Construction. However, the occupants approached the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), which dismissed their appeal on May 20, 2025. Subsequently, they moved the Bombay high court, raising questions on the jurisdiction of the tehsildar in the matter. Senior counsel Girish Godbole submitted that the tehsildar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application, therefore the entire proceedings stand vitiated. He contended that despite a notification declaring the plot as a slum area was issued, the chief executive officer (CEO) of SRA cannot assume jurisdiction over it without a specific declaration made under the provision of the Slum Areas Act. Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for the developer, said, 'The proper execution of the slum rehabilitation scheme is being held at ransom by the petitioners, which ought not to be permitted.' He also submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are unsustainable. While they were seeking benefits under the slum rehabilitation scheme, they were also challenging the jurisdiction of the same authority to entertain the proceedings of the case. Dismissing the petition, the single judge bench of justice Manish Pitale held that a declaration under the Slum Areas Act was not necessary for sanctioning a scheme of slum rehabilitation governed by the Development Control Regulations. The judge said that since the petitioners are not opposed to the rehabilitation scheme, they cannot be permitted to turn around and pick and choose provisions of the Slum Areas Act at liberty to suit their convenience. 'The petitioners have conceded to taking benefits of the slum rehabilitation scheme being implemented by the SRA. Therefore, they cannot claim that the CEO of SRA or his delegate can have no role to play while considering their eviction for speedy implementation of the same scheme,' the court said. Directing them to vacate the premises by July 11, 2025, the court said that petitioners are holding on to possession, which is creating unnecessary hurdles in speedy implementation of the scheme. 'The petitioners cannot be permitted to hold such a vast majority of slum dwellers to ransom by raising such pleas of hyper-technical nature while challenging the impugned orders,' the bench concluded.
Hindustan Times
08-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Slum dwellers on mangrove land not entitled to rehab, rules HC
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court on Friday held that slum dwellers who have settled on protected forests — including mangrove land and buffer zones — cannot seek rehabilitation under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. A division bench of Justice Girish S Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna upheld the Maharashtra government's stance that Section 3Z-6 of the Slum Act explicitly excludes forest areas from its scope. As a result, encroachments on forest land are not entitled to the protections or benefits afforded to recognised slum dwellers. The court was hearing a petition filed by four residents of Laxminagar, a settlement located within mangrove forests and buffer zones in Charkop, Kandivali. The petitioners approached the High Court through advocate Ronita Bhattacharya Bector after revenue authorities demolished around 500 huts in the area — including theirs — in April 2021. The petitioners argued that the demolition was unlawful as they had been residing there since 1980 and were therefore eligible for rehabilitation under a government resolution (GR) dated June 16, 2015. That GR protects slum dwellers who settled before January 1, 2000, by entitling them to permanent alternate accommodation. They also cited a second GR dated May 16, 2018, which extends similar benefits to those settled between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2011. However, additional government pleader Uma Palsuledesai, appearing for the state, countered that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as they had encroached on protected mangrove land — classified as a reserved forest under Survey No. 39, spanning 57 hectares. She pointed out that Section 3Z-6 of the Slum Act expressly excludes such areas, including those falling under Coastal Regulation Zones (CRZ), from its purview. Agreeing with this submission, the bench observed, 'There is a clear exclusion for the applicability of the Slums Act set out under Section 3Z-6. The land in question falls within a protected forest. Therefore, the provisions of the Slums Act will not apply, and the petitioners cannot claim benefit as protected occupiers under the Act.' The court also noted that the area had never been formally declared a slum under the Act, and that the petitioners failed to meet the statutory definition of 'eligible slum dwellers' as laid out in Section 2(c-b) of the Act. 'This is a case where protection, relocation, and rehabilitation under Section 3Z of the Slums Act are not available to the petitioners, rendering their claim against the demolition legally untenable and unsustainable,' the court concluded, dismissing the petition.
