|
MUMBAI: Observing that lakhs of slumdwellers will be affected, the Bombay High Court has sought the state government's reply on a petition challenging the exclusion of those living in lofts/upper floors of hutments in the slum rehabilitation scheme. A division bench of Justice Sharad Bobde and Justice Mridula Bhatkar was hearing petitions challenging the government resolution (GR) dated July 11, 2011, which states that occupants of lofts/upper floors are excluded from rehabilitation. One petition was filled by Gunaji Pagade, a resident of Panchsheel Housing Society at Bandra (E), which is to be redeveloped. On July 28, 2011, the slum rehabilitation authority ( SRA) held him ineligible for rehabilitation on the grounds that he is an occupant of the upper floor/loft structure, even though he claims he has been staying there since before 1976. While the order noted that Pagade's photo pass and other documents are in order, his claim was being rejected only on the basis of the GR. According to Pagade's petition, the GR is ultra vires and contrary to the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971, which states that the dwelling structure is inclusive of a loft/upper floor. It points out that under the Act, a 'protected occupier' means an occupier of a dwelling structure who holds a photo pass, while a 'dwelling structure' means a structure used as a dwelling or otherwise and includes outhouses, sheds, huts or other structures, whether of bricks, masonry, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever. Thus, states Pagade, he is a protected occupier. Pagade's petition also states that the GR was meant for the purpose of issuing a photo pass and he has been issued one in 1976. His name is also reflected in voters' list of January 1, 1995. Pagade urged the court to quash and set aside the SRA's order, the GR and to direct his name to be included for rehabilitation. Advocates Anil Anturkar and Sugandh Deshmukh argued, "The parent statute includes provision for a loft. Can a GR nullify the parent statute?" The judges said that they would like to know the state's response. "After all, it will affect lakhs," added Justice Bobde. The judges have granted the state two weeks to file a reply. Petitioner Gunaji Pagade's claim was being rejected only on the basis of a GR that states that a slumdweller is not entitled to be rehabilitated if he stays in the loft. |
| SOURCE: The Times of India |
