Back
NITIN JAMDAR, SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH
Deena Pramod Baldota – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Housing Department – Respondent
No, the judgment does not establish or hold that it is mandatory for the CEO to conduct a site visit before declaration of any area under Section 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
JUDGMENT :
Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and is heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, Petitioner challenges the notification dated 26/5/2022 issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra under section 14(1) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)Act, 1971 (Slum Act), acquiring Petitioner's land bearing CTS No.355 (part), 355/267 to 307, 355/352 to 357, 355/411 to 443, 491 (Part), 491/1 to 4 admeasuring near about 5115.2 sq. meters situated at village Kurar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District.
3. The factual matrix of the matter is as under:
Petitioner is owner of the property which is subject matter of the impugned notification dated 26/5/2022. On 2/9/1976 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Slum Act declaring the subject property as "slum", which was challenged by the Petitioner, on 7/11/2011, before the Slum Tribunal, the proceeding whereof is still pending. On 10/8/2015, the Society of slum dwellers ‘Sahyog SRA CHS (Proposed)”-Respondent No 4 submitted an application to the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO/SRA) requesting t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the preferential right of the owner to redevelop the property under the Slum Act, the starting point for commencement of 'reasonable time' for rede....
The court reaffirmed a landowner's preferential right to redevelop slum areas under the Maharashtra Slum Act, necessitating notice to the owner before acquisition proceedings, rendering subsequent ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to submit a redevelopment scheme, despite an opportunity granted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, did not entitle the petitio....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that once land is acquired by the State Government under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, it vests absolutely in the State Government free from all ....
State cannot acquire private land for slum rehabilitation without recognizing and allowing landowners' preferential rights to develop the land.
The court reaffirmed that the preferential right of a landowner over slum redevelopment schemes must be respected before any acquisition is initiated under relevant legislation.
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
