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.

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. Petitioners therein had filed Appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) for seeking exclusion of land admeasuring 3.39.0 Hectare at Survey No.502/A from the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 7 December 2022. In their Appeal they had also challenged (a) Notification dated 27 October 2016 by which declaration was made as Slum Rehabilitation Area in respect of the land inter alia at Survey No.502/A, (b) Corrigendum to the said Notification dated 30 May 2018, (c) Annexure-II in respect of structure occupiers (d) Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 7 December 2022 and (e) all permissions granted for implementation of SRS. The Appeal has been dismissed by AGRC by order dated 12 March 2025, which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025.

(ii) Writ Petition Nos. 755 of 2025 and 756 of 2025 challenge eviction orders passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) and the Order passed by AGRC dated 4 December 2024 confirming the same. The Petitioners in these two petitions have also challenged the Notification dated 27 October 2016 declaring the land bearing Survey No. 502/A as Slum Rehabilitation Area on the ground that it is impermissible to implement slum scheme on a Gairan land.

(iii) The rest of the seven Petitions challenge eviction orders passed by the Competent Authority under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act and orders passed by AGRC dismissing their Appeals by orders dated 4 December 2024.

B. FACTS

3) Petitioners claim to be tribals, who are occupants of structures on plot of land bearing Survey No.502/A (part) situated at Village Panch Pakhadi, Taluka and District Thane, which admeasures 3.39.0 Hectare. The said land at Survey No.502/A was initially recorded in revenue records as Gairan (Gurcharan) land. According to Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025, the State Government had allotted portion of lands individually in their favour by passing various orders in the year 1949. That the said land was divided into plots of various sizes and names of 22 Tribal persons were recorded in respect of said plots of land. It is contended that the allotment of plots was for construction of houses and that therefore orders were passed by the Collector on 27 March 1950 and 30 March 1950 granting permission for non- agricultural use of the said plots of land. Reliance is placed by the said Petitioners on Village Specimen No.2 Extracts issued by Talathi Village Panch Pakhadi in which allotment of the plots in favour of Petitioners/their ancestors has been evidenced. It is their case that despite availability of such direct evidence of allotment of plots, names of the concerned Petitioners were deliberately not record