Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

1. A Bench of this Court, by an order date 13^th February, 2025, had directed the respondents to consider the feasibility of rehabilitation of the persons who have been displaced on account of demolition of the buildings.

¶18

2. The aforesaid order was passed in view of the directions contained in the order dated 1^st October, 2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Civil Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).45052 of 2024.

¶19

1

¶20

10-PIL-25-2025.doc

¶21

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.1- State, wherein in paragraphs 4 to 6 following stand has been taken: -

¶22

“4. It is pertinent to note that, the demolition of the buildings which is in question in the present Petition were demolished pursuant to the Order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the Hon’ble High Court as the same were constructed on the reservation of dumping ground and sewage treatment plan (Exhibit D Page 41 to the Petition). The said order was thereafter challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same challenge was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 01.10.2024 (Exhibit C page 49 to the Petition). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said order observes a follows:

¶23

“In the circumstances, we are of the view that notwithstanding the dismissal of this Special Leave Petition, the occupants are at liberty to approach the Government Authorities (Respondent No.1 and 2) for commensurate scheme of rehabilitation. In the special facts of this case, the authorities should explore the possibilities of rehabilitation, of the affected occupants.”

¶24

Post passing of the said Order, the Respondent Corporation addressed letter dated 12.11.2024 to the State Government seeking their advice and guidance in this regard.

¶25

It is pertinent to note that the structures were demolished pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. This said order of the Hon’ble High Court was not at all interfered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As on date there is no scheme or policy of the State Government for rehabilitation of persons whose constructions have been demolished for the same being illegal and unauthorized. In view of this fact, a letter has been issued to the Commissioner, Vasai-Virar Municipal Corporation with respect to their letter dated 10.06.2025, a copy of this letter is annexed as ExhibitA. Accordingly, the prayers sought by the Petitioner ought not to be entertained.”

¶26

2

¶27

10-PIL-25-2025.doc

¶28

4. The respondent-State has taken a stand that they do not have the policy of rehabilitation of the persons who have been displaced on account of demolition of the buildings. However, the respondent-State has failed to consider the issue with regard to feasibility of rehabilitation of persons who have been displaced on account of demolition of the buildings.

¶29

5. At this stage, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the State, prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to enable her to apprise this Court with regard to the decision, which may be taken by the respondent-State regarding the feasibility of rehabilitation of persons who have been displaced on account of demolition of the buildings.

¶30

6. List after three weeks.

¶31

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

3

Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adv. Chetan Hemant Bhoir v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Prin. Sec. Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharmila W/O Sandesh Ghuge vs University of Mumbai through Registrar

Ruzbeh Dossabhoy Raja vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Naveed Farooque Shah Vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Others

Gorkhnath Ravanrao Patil Vs Union of India through Secretary and Others

Umesh Shankarrao Bhole and Others vs State of Maha., Thr.Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Husb., Dairy and Fisheries and Ors.

Ramchandra Dattatray Shelake and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Abhiijit Madhukar Garad and Anr. vs Pune Municipal Corporation Throu. Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Somesh Nagnath Kshirsagar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Arun Ramlal Yadav and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Homi Villa Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Risiraj Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Highspot Shelters LLP vs Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority Pune and Ors.

Santosh Goel and Ors. vs Land Acquisition Officer No. (1), Pune and Ors.

Gtl Infrastructure Limited vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.

Gtl Limited through Milind Bapat vs Central Bureau Investigation and Anr.