Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Then there is an argument that Budhpur Buildcon should at the instance of this one society be removed from the project because its LOI was subject to conditions to be fulfilled in three months. But this society is not the only society on site and it makes no difference to us whether it is registered or is proposed. We are concerned with all the slum dwellers on site.

14. In the general scheme of slum rehabilitation law, no exception can be made for these persons. We do not propose to reinvent 4th August 2023 501-502-OSWPL-37570-2022+F.DOC settled law of several decades' standing. There is no dispute that a survey has been carried out of the structures. This is the initial requirement in any slum rehabilitation project. After this comes the process of determining eligibility. Eligibility is based on documents. It has nothing whatever to do with the continuance of structures on site. Those who are found eligible will receive according to the directions and under supervision of the SRA, transit rent from the date they vacate, Permanent Alternative Accommodation Agreements ("PAAA") after they vacate and other benefits as required under the Letter of Intent and under SRA law. Those who are found ineligible are not entitled to these benefits. In either case, demolition must proceed.

19th & 20th June 2023 KOLEKALYAN SRA PROJECT - BUDHPUR BUILDCON-HDIL 20230620-2-oswpl-7714-2023+-F4.doc

8. The Interim Application is rejected.

ISSUES RAISED

9. The various proceedings in the Mistry List deal with distinct aspects. There are some who complain they have not received transit rent for different periods of time. There are others who say that allotments of permanent alternate accommodation or the conduct of lotteries for permanent alternate accommodation have been incorrectly or improperly done. Then there are persons to say that they have not yet been allotted permanent alternate accommodation.

20. In Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari & Ors v Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors,1 a Division Bench of this Court of Dipankar Datta CJ (as he then was) and GS Kulkarni J made these observations:

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported their actions as assailed. It is their common submission that the petitioners, being encroachers on the Government land, only because of the beneficial policies of the State Government are required to be 1 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719 : (2022) 2 Mah LJ 382 19th & 20th June 2023 KOLEKALYAN SRA PROJECT - BUDHPUR BUILDCON-HDIL 20230620-2-oswpl-7714-2023+-F4.doc considered as protected slum dwellers for rehabilitation by providing of a permanent alternate accommodation at public cost. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot assert any right to remain on the same plot of land and in fact they ought to be content with their rehabilitation, being made at Hadapsar and Viman Nagar, which are also areas within the Pune Municipal Corporation limits. It is their contention that the petitioners are causing unnecessary obstruction in the execution of the public project in the absence of any legal right to remain on the land in question. It is submitted that this petition is also wholly untenable, as for the same cause the petitioner-Society has already approached this Court and the petition is pending. It is, therefore, submitted that this petition apart from not being bona fide is an abuse of the process of law, which deserves to be dismissed with cost.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at the outset, we may observe that the petitioners, who initially encroached on the Government land and who had remained on the same for sometime so as to fall within the beneficial policy of the State Government of being protected slum dwellers, cannot elevate their protection to such an extent that such slum dwellers have to be rehabilitated either on the same land, if any remaining after the project work is completed or they be provided a permanent alternate accommodation within the vicinity. In our clear opinion, any encroachment on public land at the threshold ought not to be tolerated and prompt action is required to be taken to remove such encroachment, more particularly when those who are custodians of the public land are well aware that encroachments for long periods will clothe the encroachers with rights to seek rehabilitation at public costs under the prevalent Government policies.