Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, KRISHNAN VINOD CHANDRAN
Mansoor Ali Farida Irshad Ali – Appellant
Versus
TahsildarI, Special Cell – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
1. Delay condoned. I.A(s) seeking permissions to file Special Leave
Petitions are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals challenge the order dated 04.01.2023 where the High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition filed impugning a notice dated 06.12.2022, issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter ‘SRA’), directing appellants to vacate their respective premises located in the plot of land in question as the same is to be redeveloped.
4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
a) The SRA issued a notice dated 28.01.2019 under sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter ‘Slum Act’) and directed appellants to vacate their respective premises within 15 days for the reason that appellants were occupying a slum area which was to be redeveloped.
b) The challenge to the notice dated 28.01.2019 before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (hereinafter ‘AGRC’) under section 35(1A) of the Slum Act was dismissed vide order dated 12.06.2019.
c) Despite the affirmation of notice dated 28.01.2019 by the AGRC, appellants did not handover their premises to the developer for the redeve
The court upheld the authority of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue eviction notices under the Slum Act, affirming that redevelopment of censused slums does not require separate notification....
The court established that the absence of a Section 3C declaration does not prevent the execution of slum rehabilitation schemes, and the delegation of eviction authority to the Tahsildar was valid.
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority can terminate a developer's appointment for inordinate delays in scheme implementation, emphasizing the developer's obligation to act proactively.
Slum rehabilitation – Private agreements cannot be enforced in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes as against statutory mandate of SRA.
The court ruled that disputed questions of fact regarding land area and project delays are not suitable for Writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for timely completion of slum rehabilitation projec....
The court established that a notice under Section 13 is mandatory for the 120-day period to commence, affirming the landowner's preferential right to develop slum rehabilitation areas.
The court emphasized the statutory purpose of the Slum Act as a welfare legislation and rejected the petitioners' challenge to the Section 3C declarations and notifications.
The court affirmed that the Petitioners, claiming tribal allotment rights, failed to prove ownership of the land, thus upholding the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme's implementation and eviction orders.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
