Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demolition of unauthorized structures at Laxman Bhandari Chawl, Kandivli, Mumbai, which were located on government land marked as reserved forest and within the prohibited 50-meter buffer zone around mangroves. The Court found that the petitioners had encroached on public land and did not meet the legal criteria to be eligible for rehabilitation under the Maharashtra Slums Act or the government resolutions dated May 16, 2015, and May 16, 2018. The Court concluded that the actions taken by the respondents were lawful, and no relief could be granted to the petitioners.
Facts:
- Location of the Chawl: The Laxman Bhandari Chawl, where the petitioners resided, was located on land bearing Survey No. 39 in Charkop, Kandivli (West), Mumbai, an area marked as reserved forest in government records. The total area of land was approximately 55 hectares and 1900 sq. meters, with part of it falling within the 50-meter buffer zone around mangroves, where construction is prohibited.
- Demolition History: The petitioners had illegally constructed their hutments on government land, and their structures had been demolished multiple times, including during 2017 and 2021. Despite previous demolitions, the petitioners continued to rebuild their hutments, leading to the demolition on April 9, 2021.
- Government Resolutions: The petitioners claimed to be protected occupiers under two government resolutions:
- 2015 Resolution: For hutment dwellers residing in structures built before January 1, 2000.
- 2018 Resolution: For hutment dwellers residing between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2011, provided they paid construction-related costs for rehabilitation.
Issues:
- Whether the petitioners qualify as protected occupiers under the Maharashtra Slums Act, and whether they are entitled to rehabilitation as per the 2015 and 2018 government resolutions.
- Whether the demolition action taken by the respondents violated the petitioners’ rights under the Constitution, especially the right to shelter under Article 21.
- Whether the respondents’ actions were in violation of natural justice due to the lack of notice or opportunity to be heard before demolition.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Protected Occupiers Status: The petitioners argued that they were “protected occupiers” under the Maharashtra Slums Act as they met the criteria of residing in structures before the cutoff dates specified in the 2015 and 2018 resolutions. They claimed they were entitled to alternate accommodation as part of the rehabilitation program under these resolutions.
- Violation of Natural Justice: The petitioners contended that the demolition action taken by the respondents violated principles of natural justice because they were not given a chance to present their case, nor were they given a proper notice or opportunity to prove their eligibility as protected occupiers.
- Health and Safety Concerns: The petitioners also argued that the demolition and forced eviction, coupled with the harsh living conditions following their eviction, violated their fundamental right to life and shelter, exposing them to dangerous weather conditions.
- Claim for Rehabilitation under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY): The petitioners further argued that they were eligible for alternate housing under the PMAY scheme, as stipulated in the 2018 government resolution.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- Unauthorized Encroachment: The respondents contended that the petitioners had illegally encroached on government land, specifically within the 50-meter mangrove buffer zone. They emphasized that such encroachments were prohibited under environmental and forest laws, including the Environment Protection Act, 1986, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
- Non-Eligibility as Protected Occupiers: The respondents argued that the petitioners did not qualify as “protected occupiers” under the Maharashtra Slums Act, as their structures were located on reserved forest land, which fell under the exclusionary provisions of the Slums Act (Section 3Z-6). Moreover, the petitioners had not produced the necessary documents to prove their status as protected occupiers, particularly the photo-pass, a key document for eligibility under the Act.
- Compliance with Legal Procedures for Demolition: The respondents maintained that the demolition was carried out in accordance with the law, including issuing a public notice and following due procedures as required under the Maharashtra Slums Act. The respondents cited the minutes of meetings and official notices that were issued to the petitioners, detailing the scheduled demolition and procedures followed.
- Environmental Concerns: The respondents emphasized the importance of preserving the 50-meter mangrove buffer zone and argued that the petitioners’ encroachments were not only illegal but also harmful to the environment and public health. They referred to the public interest in maintaining the buffer zone around mangroves as per the Supreme Court’s decision in PIL No. 87 of 2006, which prohibits any construction or encroachment within 50 meters of mangroves.
Analysis of the Law:
- Maharashtra Slums Act and Its Applicability: The Court analyzed the provisions of the Maharashtra Slums Act, particularly Section 3X, which defines “protected occupiers,” and Section 3Z-6, which excludes certain areas, such as reserved forest and coastal regulation zones, from the scope of the Act. Given that the petitioners’ structures were located within the mangrove buffer zone, the Court found that they did not qualify as protected occupiers under the Slums Act.
- Public Trust Doctrine and Mangrove Protection: The Court recognized the importance of preserving the mangrove ecosystem as a matter of public interest and referred to the directions issued in PIL No. 87 of 2006, which imposed a freeze on development in the 50-meter buffer zone around mangroves. The Court emphasized that the state has a duty to protect such environmentally sensitive areas.
- Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness: The Court considered the petitioners’ arguments regarding the violation of natural justice, particularly the lack of notice or opportunity to be heard. However, the Court found that the respondents had complied with the statutory requirements, including issuing public notices and verifying the legal status of the encroachments before carrying out the demolition.
Precedent Analysis:
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation: The Court referred to the principles established in this landmark case, particularly the requirement for prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before eviction. However, the Court distinguished this case based on the specific legal and factual circumstances, emphasizing that the petitioners had no legal right to occupy the land in question.
- PIL No. 87 of 2006 (Mangrove Protection): The Court also cited this case, which mandates a freeze on construction and encroachment within the mangrove buffer zone. The Court held that the petitioners’ encroachments were in violation of this order and could not be protected.
Court’s Reasoning:
- The Court found that the petitioners’ structures were located on reserved forest land, which fell under the exclusionary provisions of the Maharashtra Slums Act. Thus, they were not eligible for protection or rehabilitation under the Act or the government resolutions.
- The Court concluded that the respondents followed the due legal process for demolition, including issuing public notices, conducting surveys, and verifying the petitioners’ eligibility. The petitioners had failed to produce the required documents, such as the photo-pass, to prove their eligibility as protected occupiers.
- The Court recognized the environmental significance of the mangrove buffer zone and upheld the prohibition on construction in such areas as per the Supreme Court’s directions.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioners, as encroachers on government land within the protected mangrove buffer zone, were not entitled to rehabilitation or protection under the Maharashtra Slums Act or the relevant government resolutions. The Court also rejected the claim of a violation of natural justice, finding that the demolition had been carried out in accordance with the law.
Implications:
- Reinforces the principle that illegal encroachments on protected land, especially in environmentally sensitive areas like mangrove buffer zones, cannot be legitimized under slum rehabilitation schemes.
- Strengthens the legal framework protecting public lands and the environment from unauthorized construction and encroachment.
- Highlights the importance of complying with the due process of law in demolition actions and upholding the principles of natural justice, where applicable.
