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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge encroachment on reserved fish drying land (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. govt circulars protect fisherfolk open spaces (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. reservation upheld; housing modification rejected (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. sra declaration ignored reservation demarcation (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court appoints committee for rights demarcation (Para 19) |
| 6. committee ignored encroachments dcpr violations (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. dcpr allows sr on fish drying with bua (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. delay bars sra declaration challenge (Para 31 , 32) |
| 9. scope limited to boundary demarcation (Para 33 , 34) |
| 10. uphold committee site findings usage (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 11. writ court no fact re-appreciation (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
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 ap
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.
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
