Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Galaxy Enterprises - Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra And Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2987 of 2018
Decided On : 03-06-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 – Sections 104, 113, 13 – Appointment of the petitioner – Termination – Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order passed the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, constituted under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 whereby the petitioners appeal/application against an order, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority stands rejected. – By the original order, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA, an application filed by respondent No.2- for change of the petitioner as a developer for the societys slum project, was allowed declaring that the appointment of the petitioner by the society as its developer, to undertake the societys slum redevelopment project, stood terminated and that the society was at liberty to appoint a new developer of its choice, as per law. – Held, It needs to be noted that the land in question is a land belonging to the State Government/MHADA and if the land is under slums and the occupants are suffering, whether it would also not be the responsibility of the MHADA considering the provisions of Chapter IX of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976, being a chapter on "Environmental Improvement of Slums", providing for Section 104 to Section 113 of the said Act, to take time to time actions and consider with utmost priority the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers?. – It clearly appears that in the present case, the entire re-development of the slums is left in the hands of the developer by the slum dwellers, who are struggling to appoint one developer after another. – MHADA appears to be an absolute alien when all these actions are being taken by the society. – Already, about three developers are appointed by the Society including the present developer M/s Bindra, as noted above, despite this whether the slum dwellers will at all see the light of the day, is a factor which is required to be seriously considered by the slum rehabilitation authority and the MHADA by having a compliance and a follow up mechanism. – It is high time that at least in regard to the slums on government lands or land belonging to a public bodies, the government needs to have a concrete and effective policy and which may include a panel of reputed contractors/developers, which would genuinely undertake and implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and bring a speedy and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers. – This is required to be observed for the simple reason that the record in the present petition would clearly show that the MHADA or the State authorities have not utilised and/or have turned a blind eye to the provisions of the law to take effective steps in the larger interest of the society, instead things were completely left at the hands of a private developer and the helpless slum dwellers. – Dealing with the Government land certainly involves dealing with the public largess. Surely the hands of the State and its authorities are not so weak. – What is required is a willingness and an able and authoritative guidance from those who wield these powers for public good. – As noted, it would be for the good wisdom of the State and its policy makers to deliberate on these issues which are "also" of immense importance to a city like Mumbai where large parts of the limited lands are under slums. Such approach also needs to be timely adopted for the other fast developing cities in Maharashtra, where the government land is scarce, before it is too late. – Court find that the petition is wholly misconceived. – No ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Chief Executive Officer of SRA and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. – Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. – The dismissal in the facts and circumstances cannot be unconditional. – It is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the National Association for the Blind within two weeks from today. – Writ Petition Dismissed
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Prelude:-
1. This is yet another proceeding concerning a 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme' on Government land, wherein the slum dwellers since the year 1997 have nurtured an unfulfilled dream to be rehabilitated in a permanent roof over their head and live in human conditions.
2. Before adverting to the case in hand, I may at the outset express concern on such issues which inhibit and hamper the Slum Redevelopment Schemes.
3. There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers, who live in inhuman conditions, so as to achieve in letter and spirit, the object and intention of a fairly old State legislation namely the "Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971". Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stake holders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and skepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before Courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.
Can the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not have a robust panel of bonafide developers who have genuine business interest to redevelop slums, of course with commercial benefits as conferred under the rules, and who can be appointed by an open and fair scheme of selection and allotment of slum projects and who would be accountable to the Authority?
It is high time that, learning from the past experiences, the burden on the ill equipped slum dwellers to be responsible to appoint developers and pursue the redevelopment scheme is removed and to do away the ordeal of the slum dwellers to go on knocking the doors of different authorities for years together when the developers fail to perform. Redevelopment to be undertaken professionally and in a time bound manner is the need of the day, even to fulfill the ideals, which the Government intends to achieve. What is necessary is the initiative of a redevelopment, by genuine, honest and trustworthy developers appointed through the Slum Authority or any other Special Body created for the said purpose and not to leave it to the slum dwellers to re-develop the slums. This for the reason that the slum dwellers are supposed to be merely interested in their rehabilitation and can have no other interest. All these
efforts are necessary, as a step forward to achieve an object of having an ideal city free of slums. It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action
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
