Bombay High Court
Thakur Babubhai Patel vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority ... on 29 January, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
502-OSWPL-2765-2024.DOC
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2765 OF 2024
Thakur Babubhai Patel & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) ...Respondents
Mr RR Tiwari, with SK Mishra, Vasnik Surjit & MP Mishra, for the
Petitioner.
Mr Ashutosh Mishra, for the Respondent-UOI.
Mr Jagdish G Aradwad (Reddy), for Respondent No 1-SRA.
Ms Vaishali Choudhari, Addl GP, for the Respondent-State.
Ms Rupali Adhate, for the Respondent-MCGM.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Digitally Kamal Khata, JJ.
signed by AMOL AMOL PREMNATH DATED: 29th January 2024 PREMNATH JADHAV JADHAV Date:
2024.01.30 PC:-
10:26:56
+0530
1. The matter was mentioned this morning on the basis that in the slum rehabilitation project at Kurar village, Malad (East) the Petitioners were being unauthorisedly evicted although the slum schemes did not cover CTS Nos 391-A which is said to be of the ownership of the 1st Petitioner and on which the other Petitioners have rooms.
Page 1 of 329th January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2024 04:53:12 ::: 502-OSWPL-2765-2024.DOC
2. To begin with, the Petition is unacceptably framed. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA") is the 1st Respondent, but individual officers are hand-picked shown as Respondents. We do not permit that. The Petition is to be amended immediately and the individual names are to be deleted. This is also true of the 2nd Respondent, the developer. We are not concerned with the individuals.
3. The Petition is also incomplete. What is annexed at page no 73 is an appellate order under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slums Act"). This is at Exhibit "D" and the reference in the Petition is in paragraph 30. The order in original is not annexed. The Petitioner's case about the location of the land was rejected. The Petitioners were found ineligible and found all to be occupying upper floor structures that are per-se ineligible.
4. We find to our very great surprise that immediately on this, allegations are made under almost every available statute including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. There is no forest in Kurar. The fact that a person belongs to a particular tribe or a caste does not mean that he or she is exempt from the application of the Slum Act. It does not mean that when actions are taken in accordance with law under that Act, that these actions can be called into question under the Atrocities Act either.
Page 2 of 329th January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2024 04:53:12 ::: 502-OSWPL-2765-2024.DOC
5. We do not see any ground made out before us for the grant of ad-interim relief. The prayer for ad-interim relief is rejected.
6. Affidavits-in-Reply by the SRA and by the developer are to be filed within two weeks. A Rejoinder is permitted within one week thereafter.
7. List the Petition as per CIS.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 3 of 3 29th January 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2024 04:53:12 :::