Latest news with #GirishSKulkarni
Hindustan Times
20 hours ago
- 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.
Hindustan Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC deprecates revenue authorities for ‘harassing' 1971 war veteran
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has strongly criticised the Maharashtra revenue department for harassing an 82-year-old retired Army Naik who was wounded in the 1971 India-Pakistan war, over the delayed allotment of land promised to him more than five decades ago. A division bench of justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna, hearing a plea filed by Vithoba Maruti Parbalkar, observed that the revenue authorities had not only failed to treat the decorated war veteran fairly but also appeared to have misled the court regarding the status of alternate land being offered to him. 'It is shocking when Revenue Officers claim they are unaware of the status of land that houses their own office,' the bench remarked in an order dated May 9, warning that if the court finds it was deliberately misled, it would consider initiating contempt proceedings against the officials concerned. Parbalkar, represented by advocates Avinash Fatangare and Archana Shelar, was injured during shelling on December 12, 1971, while serving as a Naik in the Indian Army. In recognition of his service, the state government issued a resolution in 1971 directing that land be allotted to injured or disabled soldiers for cultivation or residential use. In 1972, the Army sent a letter to Raigad revenue authorities asking for compliance. In 1973, Parbalkar was given possession of a plot in Rele village, Mangaon taluka. However, in 2016, during a boundary measurement request, officials informed him he had been mistakenly allotted a different parcel, which had since been encroached upon. A probe was launched, but due to opposition from villagers, the encroachments could not be cleared. Authorities then offered him alternate land, which also fell through. In 2020, a second plot proposed as an alternative was denied on the grounds that it was reserved for development. On April 21 this year, officials told the court that another piece of land in Sale village was unavailable as it was classified as forest land. However, Parbalkar submitted an affidavit stating the land in question had several existing structures, including a fully functioning Talathi office and a resort, contradicting the claim that it was forested. 'The authorities are presenting a totally false picture for extraneous reasons,' the court observed. 'If this land were truly forest land, such constructions could not exist. It is incumbent upon the state to remove or demolish such illegal structures instead of denying land to a war veteran.' The bench noted that it was 'being taken for a ride' and that the treatment meted out to the petitioner was 'glaring and unfair.' It demanded an explanation from the revenue department and posted the matter for further hearing on June 10.
Indian Express
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Land allotment: Bombay HC slams revenue authorities for ‘harassing' ex-armyman injured in 1971 war
The Bombay High Court last week pulled up state revenue authorities for 'harassing' an 82-year-old former army personnel, who got injured in 1971 India-Pakistan war over allotment of land in Raigad district under the state policy for wounded soldiers. The court expressed displeasure over revenue authorities misleading the court that the land could not be allocated being reserved for forest purpose, while the petitioner claimed that the same had certain constructions, including revenue office and a resort on it. The HC said if it is proved that the court was being misled, it would consider initiating contempt proceedings against the revenue officers. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna on May 9 passed an order on plea by Vithoba Maruti Parbalkar, former Army official argued through advocates Avinash Fatangare and Archana Shelar. It noted that petitioner is 'being harassed by the respondent revenue authorities in allotment of an alternate land'. Parbalkar, who was a 'Naik' in the army, got injured in shelling during India-Pakistan operations on December 12, 1971. In 1972, Army authority issued a letter to Raigad district revenue authorities to allot land to the petitioner as per state revenue department Government Resolution (GR) of 1971 for allotment of land for cultivation and residential purposes for wounded or disabled soldiers. A year later, he was given possession of a piece of land in Rele village in Mangaon Taluka. However, in 2016, when he applied for its measurement to fix the boundaries, the petitioner was told that he was actually allotted an adjacent land and the same had encroachments on it, after which the probe was initiated. The encroachments could not be removed as villagers opposed it, prompting authorities to offer an alternate land to the petitioner. The plea said the alternate land too was not allotted as the local body in 2020 claimed the same was reserved for development purpose. On April 21, the state authorities informed HC that another alternate land in Sale village could not be allotted as it was reserved for forest. On May 9, the HC noted that it was 'being misled and/or taken to a ride at the hands of the revenue officers in Raigad district'. 'In fact, we are of the clear opinion that the Revenue Officers have not meted out a fair treatment to the senior citizen, who has devoted his life for the country, and who was serving in the Army,' the bench noted. The bench said it was 'more glaring' from the petitioner's affidavit that the survey number of the concerned land in Sale village had several properties, including full-fledged Talathi office and some resort and the same was 'contrary' to authorities' stand of it being forest land. 'Once such substantial development is seen and according to the petitioner, for such reason the land can never be categorised as a forest land,' HC noted, adding that 'totally false picture' was being presented to it by authorities for 'extraneous' reasons. The HC said authorities should not suppress details and added, 'If it was to be forest land, such construction could not have been undertaken and it was incumbent that all such structures be removed/demolished.' 'In fact it is shocking when the Revenue Officers claim that they are not aware as to what is the status of the land on such developments, as also, they do not know their own Talathi's office, which they intend to verify,' the bench observed. 'In the event, if it is found that the Court is being misled, we are of the clear opinion that this would be a fit case for contempt proceedings to be initiated and an appropriate action would be required to be taken against the concerned Revenue Officers, in whatever position they stand,' the HC added. Seeking explanation from revenue authorities, HC posted the matter to June 10.
Indian Express
02-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
HC restores ‘protected forest' status of 120 hectares of Kanjurmarg dumping site
In a setback to Maharashtra government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the Bombay High Court on Friday restored the status of nearly 120 hectares of Kanjurmarg dumping ground site as a protected forest area under Forest Conservation Act (FCA) and the Forest Act. It quashed and set aside the 2009 decision that de-notified the 'protected forest' status of the said land for creation of dumping ground. The court said that any proposal to de-notify the same would need to be complied with the due process prescribed under the FCA. It granted three months' time to BMC, which runs the dumping site, to 'comply with consequences of the HC judgment.' After the government lawyer sought stay on the operation of the HC verdict, the court said the request need not be considered as a three-month time was given to BMC to comply with the order. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan passed a verdict on a plea by NGO Vanashakti filed in 2013 which claimed the Kanjurmarg landfill falls under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and causes health hazards. The HC order is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The NGO had challenged the denotification of 119. 91 hectares of land located in Kanjurmarg on the coast of Thane Creek for dumping ground/landfill of nearly 141.77 hectares created by BMC, which was earlier classified as 'protected forest'. The HC noted that the subject land was salt pan land and over the time witnessed growth of mangroves. It added that the lease for such land for production of salt expired around 2003 and thereafter, under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulations and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, it was notified and classified as CRZ-1 area. Senior advocate Gayatri Singh for Vanashakti contended that through impugned notification of December 29, 2009 issued by Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, the status of 'protected forest' has been modified without complying with due process stipulated under the FCA and same should be quashed. However, Advocate General Birendra Saraf for state government argued that the land in question is only marginally covered by mangroves, which are in two patches and are restricted to 20.76 hectares, as noticed in the report filed by Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and nothing in the rest of the area constituted as 'protected forest.' Saraf added that taking note of the MCZMA report, another bench of HC in May 2013 had directed that no further mangroves must be destroyed and had directed the BMC to ensure compliance with MCZMA recommendations. The state government said that the two patches in mangroves were excluded from the Kanjurmarg dumping ground. The government and BMC also argued that the impugned decision merely corrected an error in the Forest Notification. After perusing submissions, the bench observed that 'the subject land was clearly the land covered by the mangroves.' It noted that the HC in an order on an earlier PIL had explicitly declared a law that 'land covered by mangroves is automatically CRZ-1 land and indeed falls in the category of protected forest,' and 'prohibited dumping of garbage on mangroves.' 'The state had to conduct detailed satellite imaging of actual mangrove growth and coverage before it issued the Forest Notification,' the bench observed. 'The subject land, which indeed is salt pan land, attracts growth of mangroves and it is the violative construction of the wall by MCGM that led to mangroves being stunted and destroyed,' the bench held. It added that earlier Forest Notification was a 'product of actual verification of facts, satellite imaging and ground truthing and indeed an outcome of due process of law.' The court further held the impugned decision of 2009 was 'unsustainable' and that the Supreme Court order 'does not give cover to the argument that the Forest Notification was a mistake,' therefore it 'deserved to be quashed and set aside.'
Indian Express
21-04-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
Bombay HC says allowing divorced woman's surrogacy plea may have ‘repercussions' like ‘commercialisation', refuses interim relief
The Bombay High Court on Monday, while hearing a plea by a nearly 38-year-old divorced woman seeking to have a child through surrogacy, said granting relief to her may have wider 'repercussions' and questioned whether a single woman was entitled to have a child through surrogacy. The HC said it had to also consider rights of the child born and not just of the woman and wondered if granting interim relief to the woman, whose plea was rejected by the civil surgeon of a district hospital, would lead to 'commercialisation of surrogacy'. However, after it was pointed out that the larger issue of whether a single woman can avail surrogacy was pending before the Supreme Court, the HC said it was unable to grant interim relief and adjourned the proceedings till sine die and suggested the petitioner approach the SC. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna was hearing a plea for surrogacy by the woman whose two children are in custody of their father. Advocate Tejesh Dande, representing the woman, submitted that in 2012, she had undergone 'hysterectomy', and her uterus was removed. In 2017, she got divorced by mutual consent, however both children are in the custody of their father and she has not had access to them since 2017 and 'does not have any mother-child relation' with them. Dande said the petitioner is staying alone after divorce and being a working woman, she is capable of maintaining herself. He added that even though her uterus has been removed due to medical complications, she is capable of using her own eggs for surrogacy. Dande further said that as she desired for 'motherhood', she consulted her doctor for having a child through assisted reproductive techniques (ART), however, due to removal of uterus, the doctor suggested her surrogacy. In 2023, after examining her, the director of a private hospital wrote to the civil surgeon of the district hospital with a request to issue a certificate of medical indication to the petitioner to allow her to undergo the consequential procedures required for surrogacy. Earlier this month, as per HC directions, the medical board of the district hospital examined her and the civil surgeon held that the petitioner was 'not ineligible' for surrogacy. The district hospital referred to Section 4(iii)(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, which stipulated that any intending couple or intending woman is eligible to avail surrogacy only if they have no surviving child — biological, adopted, or born through surrogacy. As per the law, an exception is made in case the existing child is suffering from a life-threatening disease, physically or mentally challenged. The district hospital said in the present case the petitioner had two living and healthy biological children from previous marriage and 'custody status or remarriage does not negate her ineligibility under the Act'. When the matter came up for hearing during the pre-lunch session, the bench questioned what happens if in future an unmarried couple seeks to go for surrogacy but later they separate and if the same was the intention of the legislation. 'Whether such parenting is permissible? Who will be the father of the child?… This may lead to commercialisation of surrogacy. You want surrogacy as you are not capable of bearing a child… There are rights of the child once born too and we cannot just think about the woman's rights… It is a larger issue. The case may be genuine but look at the repercussions. You have to consider all this,' the bench orally remarked. After it was informed that the SC was seized of the 'larger issue', the HC said it was 'unable to grant interim relief'. It suggested the petitioner approach the SC. It granted liberty to the woman to apply to the HC again after the SC decision.
