Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, KAMAL KHATA
NEELESH RAMKARAN YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.S. GADKARI, J.
1) By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have impugned (i) Order dated 20th January 2025 (Exh.‘S’) passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (A.G.R.C.) i.e. Respondent No.3; (ii) Order dated 15th April 2024 (Exh.‘M’) passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) i.e. Respondent No.2 and (iii) Notice dated 23rd February 2024 (Exh.‘I’) issued by the Deputy Collector (Special Cell), Slum Rehabilitation Authority i.e. Respondent No.4 herein, under Section 33 & 38 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (S.R. Act) pertaining to the writ structure and for consequential interim reliefs.
2) Heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms. Sawant, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1, Ms. Bhosale, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 4, Ms. Goswami, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 and Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.5. Perused entire record produced before us.
3) Brief facts :
3.1) It is the case of the Petitioners that, they are in use and occupation of part or portion of larger piece of land or property, on which the Respondent No.3 h
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.
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 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 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 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 upheld the legality of notices for cattle seizure, finding the petitioners to be illegal squatters who suppressed material facts, thus dismissing their claims.
The court affirmed the legality of municipal actions against illegal squatters, emphasizing compliance with urban cattle regulations and the dismissal of petitions lacking clean hands.
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
