Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KAMAL KHATA, G.S. PATEL, JJ.
Abdul Aziz, Son of late Ashraf Baig and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1048 Of 2024 with Interim Application No. 1843 Of 2024 writ Petition No. 859 Of 2024 with Interim Application No. 878 Of 2024 with Interim Application (ST) No. 5553 Of 2024
Decided On : 23-02-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. existence of a fraudulent affidavit impacts case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. confirmation of filed affidavit procedures (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's frustration with repeated litigation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. judicial review principles not upheld (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. importance of statutory compliance in redevelopment (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. definition and implications of slum redevelopment (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. recognition of legal authority in rehabilitation projects (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. requirement for correction and factual basis in filings (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. endorsement of previous judgments in continuity (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. solidifying the necessity of state involvement in land (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 11. clarification of slum declarations and eligibility rights (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 12. eligibility for rehabilitation remains clear under law (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 13. challenges to orders lack substantive support (Para 46 , 47) |
| 14. underlying frameworks reserve developer rights in slum zones (Para 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 15. legislative frameworks surrounding rehabilitation remain complex (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 16. inclusion in rehabilitation projects is conditional upon legal status (Para 54 , 55) |
| 17. competency in interpreting slum laws is essential (Para 56 , 57) |
| 18. contention against slums does not negate rehabilitation eligibility (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 19. disputes regarding tenant classification persist across litigations (Para 61 , 62) |
| 20. conclusive evidence supports redevelopment versus contested claims (Para 63 , 64) |
| 21. finality in legal disputes stems from precedent (Para 65 , 66) |
| 22. historical context informs current legal standings and decisions (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 23. arguments have been systematically dismissed in historical context (Para 71 , 72) |
| 24. continued litigation burden contradicts prior resolutions (Para 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
| 25. conclusion based on patterns of previous adjudications (Para 77 , 78) |
| 26. the systemic issues revealed through numerous petitions (Para 79 , 80) |
| 27. reaffirmation of previous cases upholds public policy integrity (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 28. rights and responsibilities dictated by existing legal frameworks (Para 85 , 86 , 87) |
| 29. final dismissal of petitions aligns with legal standards (Para 88 , 89 , 90) |
| 30. court orders guarantee compliance with established judgments (Para 91 , 92 , 93) |
JUDGMENT :
(G.S. Patel, J.) :
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5553 OF 2024
1. This Interim Application seeks reliefs inter alia under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC") on the basis that there has been a fraud on the Court, by persuading this Court to accept that the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (“MHADA”) had filed an Affidavit dated 17th February 2023, though no such Affidavit is found in the physical record and proceedings. According to Mr Kurle, the impeached Affidavit purports to say that MHADA had withdrawn its cancellation of a No Objection Certificate (“NOC”) granted to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (“SRA”). According to him, the land in question purportedly under a slum scheme is MHADA land, that the Petitioners are MHADA tenants and there is therefore no question of them being included in a slum scheme or of MHADA giving any NOC to the SRA. Certainly, there is no question of MHADA literally cancelling any NOC it may have granted in the past. All this is, Mr Kurle submits, based only on a non-existent MHADA Affidavit, one that was never filed and is not to be found in the record. He points to a response from the Registry confirming that no such Affidavit is found in the record and proceedings.
2. Mr Lad on behalf of MHADA has taken instructions. He says that the Affidavit dated 17th February 2023 by MHADA regarding the NOC to SRA was indeed affirmed. A copy of that Affidavit in Writ Petition (L) No 2217 of 2019 is at Exhibit “C” to this Interim Application. The Affidavit is dated 17th February 2023. It was affirmed by
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.
Landowners possess a primary preferential right to undertake redevelopment under rehabilitation schemes; however, this right is subordinate to statutory procedural compliance, including the mandatory....
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 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 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.
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.
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
