Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Mahadeo Laxman Bhuyal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Petitioners claim themselves to be tribals and are opposing implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the land occupied by them. They have questioned the Notification declaring the land as Slum Rehabilitation Area and are also aggrieved by orders directing their eviction from structures occupied by them. Petitioners are thus aggrieved by the action treating them as slum dwellers and desire themselves to be treated as allottees/owners of land occupied by them. Their opposition for implementation of slum scheme is thus premised on their claim as allotees of land as tribals. If treated as other slum dwellers most of the Petitioners are eligible to receive benefits of rehabilitation. But they are opposing their comparison with other slum dwellers contending that they are not mere encroachers, but are allottees of plots of land as tribals.
A. THE CHALLENGE
2) The challenge raised in the group of these Petitions can be broadly classified into three categories as under :
(i) Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025 is filed by 13 Petitioners involving a broader issue of challenge to the implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on land bearing Survey No.502/A. Petitio
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 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 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....
Petitioners' claim to cattle stables was rejected as unauthorized; their non-cooperation with the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme rendered them ineligible for benefits.
The court affirmed that unauthorized occupants of land are ineligible for benefits under slum rehabilitation schemes, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance and cooperation with authorities.
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.
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.
Court upheld the status of petitioners as slum dwellers under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, denying claims for larger commercial premises due to expired lease rights and unauthorized expansions, em....
Writ courts cannot re-appreciate fact-finding report of high-level committee on slum boundary demarcation encroaching reserved fish drying land; such evidentiary disputes for civil court; reservation....
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
