In this episode of Prop Personalities, we sit down with Hars...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Welcome to Prop Personalities by Prop News Time - a podcast ...
Airports play a much bigger role than just enabling travel -...
Why does the same hotel brand operate multiple properties in...
The Bombay High Court has upheld an order directing the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to pay INR 1 lakh compensation to a Jogeshwari resident whose structure was demolished without prior notice. The ruling affirms a decision by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, which found that the demolition violated procedural safeguards despite the structure being unauthorised. The court reiterated that the right to shelter forms part of Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be taken away without due process. The case pertains to a tenement in Oshiwara, Mumbai, removed during a redevelopment-linked clearance exercise. The judgment reinforces the requirement for civic authorities and housing agencies to follow statutory notice procedures before undertaking demolition actions.
The Bombay High Court has upheld a directive requiring the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to compensate a Jogeshwari resident with INR 1 lakh after his dwelling was demolished without prior notice, ruling that such action violated established legal procedure despite the structure being unauthorised.
The case relates to a tenement located in Oshiwara, Mumbai, which was demolished as part of a redevelopment exercise linked to a slum rehabilitation scheme. The resident had approached the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, alleging that the demolition was carried out without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity to respond. The commission, in its earlier findings, had held that the action amounted to a violation of human rights and recommended compensation.
In its recent judgment, the High Court affirmed the commission's view, observing that even occupants of unauthorised structures are entitled to procedural safeguards before eviction. The bench referred to constitutional protections under Article 21, which recognise the right to life as inclusive of the right to shelter. It held that such rights cannot be curtailed without adherence to due legal process, including prior notice and an opportunity for the affected party to be heard.
The court noted that the housing authority had taken the position that no notice was required as the structure was illegal and located on land earmarked for redevelopment. However, it found this reasoning inconsistent with settled legal principles. It observed that even in cases of encroachment or unauthorised occupation, eviction must follow a defined legal procedure rather than summary demolition.
The judgment also referred to precedent from the Supreme Court, which has underscored that demolition of residential structures without issuing a show-cause notice and allowing a response violates due process requirements. The High Court reiterated that administrative authorities must comply with these safeguards irrespective of the legal status of the construction.
The housing authority had submitted that the land formed part of a redevelopment project under a slum rehabilitation scheme and that the demolition was undertaken as part of a broader clearance drive. Despite this, the court held that the absence of procedural compliance rendered the action unlawful.
By upholding the compensation order, the court endorsed the findings of the human rights body and emphasised the need for accountability among officials responsible for such actions. It also indicated the necessity for sensitisation of authorities to ensure adherence to legal norms during demolition drives.
The ruling adds to a series of judicial interventions addressing demolition practices in urban areas, particularly in redevelopment contexts where disputes over unauthorised structures frequently arise.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023