Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

31] In the aforesaid regard, reference is first required to be made to the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Slum Act, which empowers the competent authority to declare any property or area as 'slum area', where it is satisfied that such area is source of danger to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area or of its neighbourhood, by reason of the area having inadequate or no basic amenities, or being insanitary, squalid, overcrowded or otherwise. Such power can also be exercised where the buildings in any area, used or intended to be used for human habitation are in any respect, unfit for human habitation, or by reasons of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light of sanitation facilities or any skc judgment 165-07.doc combination of these factors, detrimental to the health, safety or convenience of the public of that area. Before, declaring any area as 'slum area', the competent authority, is also required to have regard to the condition of the buildings, repairs, stability, freedom for damp, natural light and air provision for water-supply , provision for drainage and sanitary convenience, facilities for the disposal of waste water and such other parameters set out in Section 4(2) of the Slum Act.

34] The Slum Tribunal, in its judgment and order dated 12 December 1997, whilst dismissing the Petitioners' appeal no. 87 of 1997, questioning slum declaration dated 20 August 1997 has recorded findings that the said property comprised about six chawls having about 339 occupants. The structures, the rooms and the roofs in particular were decayed and in dilapidated conditions.

There is reference to about eight W.Cs., out of which almost five were rendered unusable. Two W.Cs. had no doors and three were over flooded with human excreta. There were no septic tanks and the waste was drained in open nallaha, which itself, was over flowing with filth and constituted health hazard. The entire area skc judgment 165-07.doc emitted foul smell and pollution was writ large. The internal roads were narrow and not properly maintained. There were no street lights. The height of the structures, denied its occupants natural light. In short, there were no basic amenities, the conditions were insanitary, squalid, overcrowded. There was no proper ventilation, there was foul smell and pollution, the conditions constituted serious health hazards and the area was unfit for human habitation.

     skc                                                                      judgment 165-07.doc




            36]      The learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment and

order dated 17 April 2001, has upheld the judgment and order dated 12 December 1997 made by the Slum Tribunal and consequently, the declaration dated 20 August 1997. The learned Single Judge of this Court has noted that there was due compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play before the slum declaration dated 20 August 1997 was made. Besides, there is record that on two occasions earlier, there were attempts to declare the said property as 'slum area' under Section 4 of the Slum Act. However, the attempts were frustrated on some technical grounds. The learned Single Judge has observed that from the defects pointed out, it was quite clear that there was absolutely no improvement of any nature undertaken by the Petitioners to improve the condition of the said property and the structures therein, so as to render the same habitable. The learned Single Judge specifically rejected the Petitioners' contention that there were no specific notices issued to the Petitioners to remedy the defects or the conditions by observing that on two occasions earlier, the show cause notices had been issued to the Petitioners; reports were prepared in presence of the Petitioners ; accordingly, there was no necessity of sending them special notice to make good the defects. The learned Single Judge has observed that the Petitioners never made any efforts to provide basic human needs for reasonable habitable condition and despite skc judgment 165-07.doc being made fully aware of the conditions and they did not set right the defects and the conditions. The learned Single Judge, in this context, has observed that "he had more than ample opportunity to take every necessary steps to provide for basic amenities to avoid third time the action by the authorities". With all such observations, the Petitioners' writ petition no. 851 of 1998 was dismissed.