The Bombay High Court has expressed its disapproval of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for giving only a two-day notice to a petitioner's family to vacate their tenement, which they had been allotted in 2017. The petitioner was told to vacate the alternative residence provided to him as part of a redevelopment project by MMRDA without any warning. The court's directed MMRDA to remove the lock they had placed on the room and to prohibit them from taking any coercive action until the next hearing on 16th March 2023.
The Bombay High Court has expressed its disapproval of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for giving only a two-day notice to a petitioner's family to vacate their tenement, which they had been allotted in 2017. The court directed the MMRDA to remove the lock they had placed on the room at 2:30 pm, two hours after being served with the petition, failing which the petitioner was at liberty to break the lock.
MMRDA is constructing a building for project-affected persons (PAP) through Samudaya Nirman Sahayak (SPARC). The petitioner S R Singh and his family possessed a 150 square feet house on land known as Sunka-bai Chawal that came under the purview of the PAP housing project by MMRDA. Although Mr Singh did not qualify as a PAP through the SPARC program, his tenement would be demolished as per the rehabilitation plans to create a water tank. Therefore, MMRDA served Mr Singh a notice in March 2017 asking him vacate the premises and was provided alternative accommodation at project room 117 until the tank work was to be completed.
On February 8, 2023, the MMRDA pasted a notice on room 117, demanding that Singh vacate immediately, else face eviction with police assistance. In spite promising Mr Singh alternative accommodation, the condition upon which Mr Singh willingly vacated his house which has since been demolished, MMRDA did not provide any explanation or warning for the eviction notice. Therefore, Mr Singh approached Bombay High Court to intervene.
The High Court expressed its displeasure with the MMRDA for giving such short notice and locking Singh's family out of their only residence. The court also noted that the MMRDA knew about the slum rehabilitation project and the construction of the underground water tank, and that Singh had been assured that he would be provided with permanent alternate accommodation.
The court's decision to direct the MMRDA to remove the lock they had placed on the room and to prohibit them from taking any coercive action until the next hearing on March 16 reflects its concern for the welfare of Singh and his family. The court's tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the MMRDA foot the bill for the family to stay at the Taj Mahal hotel underscores the court's view that the MMRDA must take responsibility for its actions and their consequences.
The court's decision also highlights the need for government agencies to be more sensitive to the needs of citizens, especially those who are vulnerable, such as slum dwellers. The MMRDA's actions in this case appear to have been arbitrary and insensitive.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
