Keywords: encroaching slum dwellers, relief, alternative housing
In a recent ruling in Vaibhavi SRA CHS Ltd v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Bombay High Court rejected a plea from slum inhabitants seeking free alternative accommodation, citing their impending eviction from their current homes, which were built on encroached land.
The Court noted that even salaried city workers who might be struggling financially are not eligible for this kind of relief.
We are informed that the slum dwellers who are in front of the court are able to make these demands, and that no one, not even an equity court, should care that there is no such provision in place for salaried city workers (which includes government and High Court employees). These paid workers are the ones that regularly deplete their savings and provident funds, among other sources, and who also bear the burden of making large loan payback contributions towards the EMI. No one offers them a free residence. According to the Court’s November 10 ruling, they get neither transit rent nor any other type of financial assistance.
The observation was Issued by a division bench consisting of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata in response to a request by the Vaibhavi SRA Co-operative Housing Society, who were facing eviction due to a land development project.
The housing association not only requested remedy such as transit rent and alternate housing, but also sought the Court to revoke the project developer’s appointment.
The petitioner-society was represented by senior advocate Milind Sathe and advocate Abhinav Chandrachud, who contended that the residents of the land had not received transit rent since September 2021 and that the outstanding amount was more than 10 crore.Representing the developer, attorney Simil Purohit said that the builder would cover the transit rent until December 2023. He did, however, clarify that this would only happen if society approved of the developers’ suggested plans.
The petitioner-society had previously objected to the developer and the plans it had proposed, the High Court noted.
The Court was taken aback by the demands made by the members of the society, which included determining the location and configuration of the rehabilitation units.
We have a society here that seems to have decided not only that it has to pay hefty transit rent, even to those who purposefully delayed the project, but also, and this is quite fantastical, that the slum society will choose the rehab units’ location, siting, and even their physical form. Excessiveness is a real concept. The Court stated, “We do not believe that these societies have this spectrum of rights.”
The case is scheduled to be heard again in January 2024.
References:
Anushka Shukla, Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, Intern at Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
