Observing that a slum society and a private builder grabbed property of an individual and “fraudulently” obtained consent decree to redevelop the 7,670 sqm property in Dindoshi, the Bombay high court has quashed the Maharashtra government’s 2016 order which permitted the land acquisition for implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme.
A division bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MM Sathaye, on April 13, quashed the November 2016 order of the state government which permitted Atlantic Construction Company to redevelop the property on which Shivneri Navgruh Nirman VithBhatti S.R.A. Co-operative Housing Society stood without ascertaining whether the landowner, Bharat Patel, was interested in the redevelopment
“Since the entire steps taken by Respondent Nos.4 and 6 in grabbing the property of the Petitioner are fraudulent and upon fraudulently obtaining the consent decree from the City Civil Court, the order passed by the Slum Authorities for acquisition of the writ property of the Petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside,” said the bench in a 65-page judgment.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Patel seeking quashing of the government notification dated November 17, 2016, under provisions of the Slums Act acquiring the property. Patel questioned the order for acquiring his 7,670 sqm land for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers, who encroached upon the plot, and fixing the compensation payable to the landowner at Rs1.40 crore.
His pela contended that he had objected to the said acquisition proceedings and even submitted that he would develop the said land himself and therefore the land should not be acquired. However, the SRA took neither his objection nor his proposal into consideration and submitted a proposal for acquisition.
The bench agreed with Patel’s contention that the land acquisition process initiated by then chief executive officer 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.
It further said that since the order for acquiring the property was obtained fraudulently, 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,” averred the bench while setting aside the land acquisition process.
