a day ago
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.
