The Bombay High Court has overturned a decision to cancel 517 slum development projects that were left unfinished since 2014. The court, consisting of Justices G S Patel and S G Dige, determined that the notice for cancellation was “not in accordance with the law and lacked a legal basis.” The court referred to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act of 1971 and stated that the provisions clearly require that every defaulting developer must be given notice and a chance to be heard.
.jpg)
The Bombay High Court has overturned a decision to cancel 517 slum development projects that were left unfinished since 2014. The court, consisting of Justices G S Patel and S G Dige, determined that the notice for cancellation was “not in accordance with the law and lacked a legal basis.”
The ruling stated that the law required individualized hearings for each case rather than a blanket notice. The notice had been issued by the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Satish Lokhande, in April 2022, following a statement made by the former housing minister, Jitendra Awhad, in the state assembly.
Lokhande stated in an interview with the Times of India that the high court’s decision did not limit the powers of the SRA and that individual notices will be issued. Only those developers who can deposit rent for 11 months and show financial capability will be allowed to continue with the project.
The court referred to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act of 1971 and stated that the provisions clearly require that every defaulting developer must be given notice and a chance to be heard. No rejection of a project can proceed, nor can the appointment of another developer or the SRA’s own action, without compliance with these provisions.
The court stated that the law required the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to address each project individually, pointing out specific deficiencies. The court noted that it was not possible for the CEO to group 500 projects together and assume that all delays were solely due to the developers without specifying the deficiencies and the required timeline for correction.
The court further stated that it was improper to threaten to reject the proposed slum schemes based on generalities that were impossible to meet. The bench emphasized that when a statute requires an authority to act in a certain way, it must either act in that manner or not at all.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
