The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition filed by slum dwellers from Chinchpokli East who opposed their relocation to Bhandup under a redevelopment project, ruling that they had no enforceable right to insist on in-situ rehabilitation.
A division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Advait Sethna passed the order on August 25 while hearing a plea by Mangesh Parave and others. Their 44 tenements in Chinchpokli East were included in a slum redevelopment scheme.
Under the rehabilitation plan, 30 of the 44 tenements spread across 394.15 sq m of land were to be rehabilitated by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), while 11 were to be handled by developer J Gala Enterprises. Three structures used as a society office were also proposed to be demolished.
The redevelopment proposal dates back to 2007. The developer had subsequently stated in 2008 that eligible slum residents occupying the land would also be accommodated under the scheme. The issue later resulted in multiple rounds of litigation involving the residents, BMC and developer.
The residents had challenged BMC allotment letters dated February 3, under which they were assigned permanent alternate accommodation (PAA) in Bhandup as Project Affected Persons (PAPs). After the BMC Assistant Commissioner rejected their challenge, they approached the High Court.
Before the bench, the petitioners argued that the developer had a “binding obligation” to provide them with in-situ rehabilitation. They also claimed they had not been treated equally compared with residents who had received in-situ rehabilitation in another matter involving the same developer.
The developer’s lawyer informed the court that the other case cited by the petitioners was itself under litigation before the High Court.
The BMC submitted that rehabilitation buildings had already been constructed on civic-owned land in Bhandup. It also pointed out that a road passing through both the civic and developer-owned plots had been taken over by the BMC Roads Department for widening.
The court observed that this circumstance further weakened the residents’ claim for in-situ rehabilitation. Referring to the “avalanche of disputes” arising under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the bench noted that such claims “find no justification within our constitutional scheme and is unconscionable (sic)”.
The judges also rejected the residents’ reliance on promissory estoppel and “legitimate expectation”, observing that they had not demonstrated any specific promise that could create an enforceable right to remain at the original location.
Source: Hindustan Times
