Disposed

Naman Associates v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Jun 2011WP/10108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition concerning slum redevelopment in Pune. It recorded an undertaking by the developer to provide transit accommodation and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to obtain police assistance for enforcing pending eviction orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's undertaking regarding transit accommodation accepted; Slum Rehabilitation Authority directed to seek police assistance for enforcing eviction orders.

Naman Associates Vs the State of Maharashtra — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

PNP 1

¶2

WP10108-10.6.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10108 OF 2010

¶6

Naman Associates ..Petitioner.

¶7

versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶9

.....

¶10

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. V.A. Sonpal, A Panel counsel for Respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Deepak R. More for Respondent No.3.

¶11

......

¶12

CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶13

10 June 2011.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The Petitioner is the owner of a property bearing C.T.S. No.934 and 935/B-1, final plot 318 and 319/C at Shivajinagar, Pune. The property has been declared as a slum rehabilitation area under Section 3-C(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 on 31 December 2008. The property was in the occupation of about 102 structures. The Petitioner entered into a development agreement and it has been stated that 72 hutment dwellers entered into agreements with the developer. An on site survey was conducted for finalizing the list of eligible occupants and Annexure II certifying the names of such occupants was issued on 9 July 2009. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though a transit camp has been constructed for housing the eligible slum dwellers pending the redevelopment, many of the

¶16

PNP 2

¶17

WP10108-10.6.sxw

¶18

occupants have not shifted. The Petitioner sought action under Section 33 so as to enable the implementation of this scheme.

¶19

An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for Pune. During the course of the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has tendered a statement which shows that out of 102 slum dwellers 84 have been found to be eligible. 55 slum dwellers out of those found eligible have already shifted either to transit accommodation or against the payment of rent in lieu of such accommodation. According to the statement 42 slum dwellers are required to be shifted, out of which 24 are eligible for alternate accommodation, while 18 are ineligible. Learned counsel has relied upon the annexures to the affidavit in reply which contains orders passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 4 January 2011 under Sections 12(8) and 38 of the Act. It has been stated in the affidavit in reply that it would take the Slum Rehabilitation Authority at least one month to evict the slum dwellers subject to police force being made available by the Commissioner of Police. Though the affidavit was filed on 16 April 2011, no steps have been taken in the meantime for enforcing the orders passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Presently it has been stated that 22 persons have to be evicted for the purpose of constructing a rehabilitation building, of whom 12 are eligible and 10 are ineligible to receive alternate accommodation. We therefore take on record the assurance which has been submitted before the Court on behalf of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority that necessary steps would be taken in accordance with law for enforcing the orders of eviction passed under Section 12(8) read with 38. We

¶20

PNP 3 WP10108-10.6.sxw

¶21

direct that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall move the Commissioner of Police, Pune for necessary assistance in enforcing the orders of eviction and if such an application is made, the Commissioner of Police shall afford necessary assistance for executing the orders which have been passed under the provisions of the Act.

¶22

Counsel appearing on behalf of the developer has stated before the Court that all the eligible hutment dwellers whose names have been certified in Annexure II shall either be provided transit accommodation or rent in lieu of transit accommodation. The undertaking which has been tendered in those terms in paragraph 6 of the order is accepted. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

(Anoop V. Mohta J.)

Naman Associates v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman Associates v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Parul Builders and Developers Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sakharam Anand Maladkar and Ors. Vs the Chief Officer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Board, and Ors.

M/S Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd., and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Manilal Patel Clearing and Forwarding Private Limited Vs the Union of India and Ord.