Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.KARNIK, S.M.MODAK
Danda Koli Masemari Vyavasayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit – Appellant
Versus
Urban Development Department Government of Maharashtra Through Additional Chief Secretary Mantralaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M. S. KARNIK, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive reliefs.
“(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24.02.2026 at EXHIBIT- B on page 59-86 passed by the Court Appointed Committee;
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the CEO, SRA and the notification dated 17.05.2022 which is annexed hereto at EXHIBIT- M on page 233-348 to the extent that the Developer has been permitted to encroach upon the land in excess of 2397.70 sq. mts. by taking over land including the wall, the road and the two structures, situated on the land reserved for fish drying yard and allied activities;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from carrying out any development work on the land covering the wall, road and the two structures as shown in map at EXHIBIT-O on page 279 herein;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directi
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....
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 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 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 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 central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the State to declare an area as a slum under the Karnataka Slum Areas (Development) Act, 1973, and the importance of rehabilita....
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
