Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1954
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J
MANOJBHAI SANTOSHBHAI KORI and VINODBHAI SANTOSHBHAI KORI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13906 of 2019 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13909 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR PRATIK P THAKKAR
For the Respondents: MS JYOTI BHATT, AGP, MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI
Eligibility criteria for slum dwellers must be strictly adhered to, as insufficient documentation leads to rejection of claims for alternative accommodation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Petitioners sought alternative accommodation rejected by authorities citing lack of eligible documents as required by the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums Policy. The evidence provided did not satisfy necessary criteria established in the governing law. (Paras 2-8)
(B) Eligibility criteria for slum dwellers - Required documents include prior occupancy proof and domicile status - Court held that the petitioners were not compliant with obligations defined under the relevant policy despite their petitions. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, having lived on the subject land, sought alternative accommodation for slum dwellers but their application was rejected based on insufficient documentation.
Findings of Court:
The petitioners failed to provide necessary proof to satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the defined regulations.
Issues: Whether the documents submitted by the petitioners qualify to meet the eligibility requirements under the slum rehabilitation scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the required documents as specified were not satisfied and the decision by the respondent authority is justifiable and cannot be overturned.
Result: Both petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the petitions and issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by the petitioners. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. requirements for eligibility of slum dwellers. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court observations on document adequacy. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final ruling on the petitions. (Para 9) |
ORDER
1. Both these two petitions are filed by the brothers raising identical issues and therefore, at request of both the sides, are taken up for hearing and disposal. The facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.13906 of 2019.
2. Both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed by the petitioners with the prayer to set aside the order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.2, wherein the prayer of the petitioners to grant an alternative accommodation to the petitioners came to be rejected.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Thakkar appearing for the petitioners submitted that time and again, this Court has passed orders for taking into consideration the applications made by the petitioners for availing the alternative accommodation under the scheme prevailing, particularly either under the Rehabilitation and Redevelopment of Slums, 2010 read with Gujarat Slum Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Policy, 2013, which was made applicable at Balolnagar-Nava Vadaj Housing Scheme or at Jahangir Mill Awas Yojna. The petitioners were residing on the subject land with his brother and thereafter, the petitioner had purchased the subject land by way of a sale deed on Rs.20/- stamp paper in the month of July, 2002. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that there are cases like the petitioners who have been considered for allotment of an alternative accommodation despite their claim was initially rejected by the respondent-corporation.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners state that the policy is framed for the benefit of the likes of the petitioners and therefore, even technically if some documents are not available, then lenient view should be taken and the petitioners should be accommodated.
3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioners has also argued that the requirement of the documents required to be produced in support of the claim also includes “any other documents” that the authority may deem it fit to be considered and therefore, it is submitted that the documents like Aadhar Card, birth certificate of the children, etc., may be treated as one of the documents which confirms with the requirement to treat an individual as an “eligible slum dweller”.
4. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi appearing for the respondent-corporation has drawn attention to this Court to the impugned order by stating that the documents which are produced by the petitioners do not confirm with the requirement as per the policy, particularly the documents which are required are to be prior to the year 2011. However, the documents produced by the petitioners are subsequent to the year 2011 and the other documents, which are produced, are not the requirement for considering the case for the purpose of allotting alternative accommodation. It is also submitted that with regards to the case of the other individuals which the petitioner has sited, such individuals were able to confirm with the requirement of the policy by furnishing necessary documents which were within the prescribed time and hence, the case of such individuals was considered. Over and above, it is submitted that the mother of the petitioners – Shantadevi Santoshbhai Kori has already been allotted an alternative accommodation under the rehabilitation scheme.
4.1 Insofar as submission with regard to any other proof as decided by the prescribed authority, attention is drawn of this Court to Notification dated 18.07.2013, wherein in clause 4.1 the documents which are required to be treated as el
