Mumbai: Misconception that slum dwellers have vested ownership right, says Bombay HC – Free Press Journal

Taking note of the general “misconception” that slum dwellers have a “vested ownership right” in the land on which their structures stand or that their “structures cannot be removed”, the Bombay high Court has said that there is “no statutory recognition” to such a misconception.

The observations were made by a division bench of justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar while hearing a petition by three slum dwellers whose structures were affected due to redevelopment project for the Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road at Govandi.

The court noted that as per the Slum Rehabilitation Act, the eligible slum dwellers are rehabilitated in the redeveloped building and until that is done, they are entitled to transit rent.

Even, those who are initially found ineligible have an appellate remedy. If the appeal fails, then the person is ineligible.

“It is, therefore, not possible for any person to claim that a structure should not be removed or that an entire rehabilitation project should be held up because an individual structure is affected.

The judges noted that in all this, one should not lose sight of the fact that those slum dwellers who are found eligible have already vacated their premises and awaiting the redevelopment of the project which is held up by a few persons.

“In all these cases we are also mindful that there are often a large number of persons who have already vacated and who are anxiously waiting the redevelopment and completion of their promised permanent alternate accommodation. The obstructions by a few to slum rehabilitation projects delay and impede the completion of the project and therefore affect others who are eligible and entitled to permanent alternate accommodation,” observed the court.

The court further said that one has to balance the competing equities. “This, therefore, becomes a question of balancing competing equities,” added the judges.

In the present petition, two slum dwellers were found eligible whereas the third petitioner was found ineligible.

The court said that the 1st and 2nd petitioners would be entitled to all the benefits of rehabilitation in the SRA project including transit rent, the execution of a permanent alternative accommodation agreement and allotment of a rehab unit after an occupation certificate is obtained for the rehab building.

For the 3rd petitioner, the HC said that he has an appellate remedy, which he has already availed of.

Arun Panickar, advocate for the developer M/s build Square, gave an undertaking to the court that they will deposit 11 months’ rent in advance for the 3rd petitioner on a “without prejudice basis”.

The HC has asked the appellate authority to dispose of his appeal within three months. If he is found to be eligible then he will be treated on par with other eligible persons, said HC.

Sunil Kumar, advocate for the petitioners, gave an undertaking to the court that they would vacate their premises February 18, 2022.

Published on: Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:06 AM IST