Latest news with #SlumAct
Hindustan Times
a day 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.
United News of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC dismisses plea against slum demolition in Ahmedabad
New Delhi, Apr 28 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a litigant's plea challenging demolition undertaken for redevelopment purposes in a slum area of Ahmedabad in Gujarat, . However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority seeking "sympathetic reconsideration" for a larger alternative accommodation. A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh heard the matter. Earlier, while ordering the status quo, the Court had directed Advocate-on-Record (AoR) Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, representing the petitioner, to obtain instructions regarding relocation requirements for the redevelopment project. The Court had also suggested the petitioner accept the alternative accommodation being offered and assured it would consider the issue of any rent differential. During the hearing today, Choudhary submitted that the petitioner had not been informed why their objections to a Public Notice concerning the slum area were rejected. Justice Kant, however, pointed out that 508 beneficiaries had already shifted to alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation scheme. "You allow this project to continue," Justice Kant told Choudhary. Government Pleader Gursharan H. Virk, appearing for the State, informed the Court that out of 741 occupiers of unauthorised slum structures, 740 had accepted the rehabilitation offer, and only the petitioner's family continued to object. Highlighting the grievance, Choudhary argued that the alternative accommodation being provided was merely 225 sq ft compared to the petitioner's existing 2,000 sq ft residence, questioning, "How is it rehabilitation fit for human...?" Justice Kant responded, "That, we can't satisfy everybody's claim." Dictating the order, the Court said, "We are not inclined to interfere with the ongoing project. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it will not preclude the petitioners from submitting a comprehensive representation to the competent authority for sympathetic reconsideration of the requirement of a larger area to be offered to them. Such representation shall be examined in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme." The matter pertains to 49 slum dwellers occupying premises in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad, who had approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a Public Notice dated January 29, 2025. The notice had directed the slum dwellers to vacate within 30 days under Sections 11 and 13 of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1973. The petitioners sought quashing of the notice, application of the State's Slum Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy to their cases, and action against officers responsible for demolitions carried out on March 20, 2025. They alleged that notices were not served individually, but only published generally, and claimed insufficient time was provided to vacate, violating the Slum Act. The State countered that the area had been declared a "slum area" in 2019 due to unsafe living conditions. Following this, a redevelopment project was initiated, objections were invited and duly considered, and the Chharanagar area was declared a "Slum Clearance Area." It was contended that the petitioners approached the Court belatedly to delay the project, whereas most residents had already accepted rehabilitation. The Gujarat High Court, rejecting the plea, found that the action taken was in accordance with the Slum Act, noting that 508 beneficiaries were already residing in rented accommodations awaiting permanent housing. The High Court emphasised that construction of new residential blocks was well underway, and eligible slum dwellers would receive quality housing post-redevelopment. Nevertheless, showing some indulgence, the High Court had granted 30 days to the slum dwellers willing to vacate voluntarily, provided they submitted an undertaking to the competent authority. UNI SNG SSP
United News of India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
SC orders status quo in Ahmedabad slum demolition case, Assures to pay rent differential
New Delhi, Apr 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday directed that status quo be maintained at a slum site in Chharanagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, where demolition was allegedly being carried out despite the Court's earlier protective order. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing a plea by 49 slum dwellers who claimed that they were being forcibly evicted without proper notice or rehabilitation, in violation of the Gujarat Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1973. The matter was first mentioned before the Court on Thursday, when temporary protection from demolition was granted till Monday (April 28). However, after reports emerged that demolition activities had resumed at the site, the petitioner's counsel, AoR Sumitra Kumari Choudhary, urgently mentioned the matter again, seeking enforcement of the interim relief. The Bench questioned the petitioner's counsel regarding relocation of slum dwellers as part of the area's redevelopment plan. When it was submitted that the rent compensation offered of Rs 6,000 per month was insufficient even for a slum accommodation, the Court advised the petitioners to accept the available alternative housing, and assured that the Court would address the rent differential if necessary. Posting the matter for detailed hearing on April 28, the Court emphasized that no further demolition should take place in the interim. The petitioners had earlier approached the Gujarat High Court challenging a public notice dated January 29, 2025, which required them to vacate their homes within 30 days. They contended that individual notices were not served, and only a public notice was issued, violating their rights under the Slum Act. They also alleged that demolition began on March 20, 2025, without proper procedure. The State of Gujarat, in response, argued that the area had been declared a 'Slum Clearance Area' in 2019, and that all structures were unauthorized. A work order had been issued to a private developer, and multiple public notices were pasted at the site. The State maintained that the petitioners were attempting to stall a long-pending redevelopment project, which had already benefited hundreds of residents. The High Court had rejected the slum dwellers' plea, holding that due procedure was followed and over 508 beneficiaries were already relocated and awaiting new housing. It further observed that seven residential towers had already been constructed, undermining the claim that the petitioners were unaware of the redevelopment process. The High Court had granted 30 days' time for voluntary vacation, provided the petitioners filed an undertaking. Now, with the Supreme Court stepping in and indicating sympathy toward the plight of the slum residents, particularly on the issue of inadequate rent compensation, the case is set to be further heard on April 28, with the Court's assurance of balanced relief keeping the demolition in abeyance till then. UNI SNG SJC
