E-Paper
HC strikes down acquisition of 7,670 sq-mtr private plot at Dindoshi for slum scheme
Bombay High Court struck down a 2016 order by the state government to acquire a private plot for a slum rehabilitation scheme, without ascertaining the landowner's interest in redevelopment. Landowner Bharat Patel had objected to the acquisition of his 7,670 square-meter property for the project and said he was willing to develop it himself under the Slums Act. The court accepted Patel's contention that the acquisition process was based on a fraudulently obtained decree from the City Civil Court. The court ruled the subsequent order for compensation also cannot be sustained.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Thursday struck down a November 2016 order of the state government to acquire around 7,670 square meter private plot at Dindoshi for implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme through a private developer, without ascertaining whether the landowner was interested in the redevelopment.
The landowner, Bharat Patel, had moved high court questioning the order for acquiring the 7,670 square-meters land owned by him for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, who encroached upon the plot, and fixing the compensation payable to the landowner at ₹1.40 crore.
He contended that he had objected to the proposal for acquisition of the property for implementing the slum rehabilitation project and expressed willingness to develop the property himself, as provided under the Slums Act. However, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) took neither his objection nor his proposal into consideration and submitted a proposal for acquisition.
The division bench of justice RD Dhanuka and justice MM Sathaye accepted his contention that the process of acquisition initiated by the then chief executive officer (CEO) of the SRA was based on a decree, fraudulently obtained by the proposed society of the slum dwellers and the developer appointed by them for undertaking the slum scheme.
“The entire process of the proceedings initiated by the CEO of SRA was based on such fraudulently obtained consent decree by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 from the City Civil Court,” said the bench.
The bench said since the order for acquiring the property under Section 14(1) was fraudulently obtained, the subsequent order for payment of compensation also cannot be sustained.
“In our view, the report of the SRA to the State Government that there was no objection raised by the Petitioner (landowner) in the redevelopment of the property is ex-facie contrary to the record and is misleading. The Petitioner had never refused to redevelop the writ property and had made an offer to redevelop the writ property which offer was on record before SRA,” the bench said.
