Bombay High Court Dismisses Rehabilitation Plea by Alleged Slum Dwellers; Orders Immediate Demolition of Illegal Structures, Holds BMC Official in Contempt for Non-Compliance with Prior Orders

Court’s Decision

1. Petition Dismissed: The Court dismissed the petition filed by the alleged slum dwellers seeking rehabilitation, finding their claims baseless and their status ineligible under any slum policy.
2. Costs Imposed: Petitioners were ordered to pay ₹5,00,000 to the Everard Society within four weeks.
3. Immediate Action Ordered: The Court directed the BMC to:
   • Demolish all illegal structures immediately.
   • Restore the status quo ante of the property.
4. Contempt Held: The Assistant Commissioner was found guilty of contempt for non-compliance with prior court orders.
5. Compliance Reporting: The Municipal Commissioner was instructed to file an affidavit detailing actions taken against responsible officers and the status of the illegal structures.

Facts

• Background: The Everard Co-operative Housing Society filed petitions to address encroachments and unauthorized construction on a road adjacent to its compound wall. The structures were declared illegal in a 2015 court order.
• Court Orders Ignored: Despite being directed to demolish the illegal structures within six months, the BMC failed to act, prompting the society to file a contempt petition in 2017.
• Petition by Occupants: Alleged slum dwellers filed a separate petition in 2024, claiming rehabilitation rights and opposing demolition until alternative accommodation was provided.
• Administrative Lapses: The BMC repeatedly delayed action, citing monsoons, elections, and administrative hurdles. Notices for demolition were issued but not acted upon.

Issues

1. Were the occupants eligible for rehabilitation as slum dwellers under government policies?
2. Did the BMC’s repeated delays and failure to act constitute contempt of court?
3. Should the illegal structures be immediately demolished despite the occupants’ claims?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Eligibility for Rehabilitation: The petitioners claimed they were eligible slum dwellers and had been occupying the structures since 1985.
2. Environmental Concerns: They argued that the proposed relocation site at Anik Gaon was unsuitable due to proximity to Mahul, a region flagged for poor air quality by the National Green Tribunal.
3. Request for Interim Relief: The petitioners sought a stay on the demolition until a viable rehabilitation site was identified.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Illegal Structures: The BMC argued that the structures were unauthorized and not protected by any policy. The 2015 court order had declared them illegal.
2. Delays Explained: Administrative bottlenecks, elections, and monsoons were cited as reasons for the delay in compliance.
3. Efforts to Comply: The BMC assured the Court that demolition would be carried out, stating that eviction notices had already been served.

Analysis of the Law

• Illegal Structures: Under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, illegal constructions must be demolished unless protected by specific government policies.
• No Evidence of Eligibility: The petitioners failed to produce documentation proving their claims of eligibility as slum dwellers. Payment of taxes or rent receipts does not confer legal rights over unauthorized structures.
• Contempt of Court: The Contempt of Courts Act ensures that judicial directives are respected. The BMC’s repeated non-compliance undermined the rule of law.

Precedent Analysis

The Court relied on key judgments to reinforce its decision:

1. Hari Narain v. Badri Das (AIR 1963 SC 1558): Highlighted the consequences of suppression of material facts.
2. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994): Held that fraud and misrepresentation cannot be tolerated in judicial proceedings.
3. Arts and Commerce College, Pen v. State of Maharashtra (1993): Observed the increasing defiance of court orders by public authorities, emphasizing the need for deterrent measures.

Court’s Reasoning

1. No Protection for Illegal Structures: The Court reiterated its 2015 finding that the structures were illegal and could not be regularized under any policy.
2. Failure of Governance: The BMC’s prolonged inaction, despite clear judicial directives, demonstrated a failure of governance and accountability.
3. Public Interest and Rule of Law: Justice demanded the removal of the illegal structures to uphold the rights of law-abiding citizens and maintain the rule of law.
4. Contempt of Court: The Court condemned the BMC’s conduct, stating that disobedience of court orders strikes at the root of democracy.

Conclusion

1. Petition Dismissed: The petition by the alleged slum dwellers was dismissed as baseless.
2. Demolition Ordered: The BMC was directed to demolish the illegal structures and restore the property.
3. Costs and Accountability: Costs of ₹5,00,000 were imposed on the petitioners, and the Municipal Commissioner was directed to report on actions taken against responsible officers.
4. Contempt Proceedings: The Assistant Commissioner was found guilty of contempt and directed to submit a response on the quantum of punishment.

Implications

1. Rule of Law Restored: The judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring compliance with its orders, even against public authorities.
2. Accountability for Public Bodies: The ruling serves as a warning to municipal bodies about the consequences of negligence and defiance of court directives.
3. Deterrent Effect: By penalizing both petitioners and officials, the Court sends a strong message against misuse of judicial processes and encourages adherence to the law.

This judgment highlights the balance between protecting public interest and ensuring strict enforcement of the law. It is a landmark decision in holding municipal bodies accountable and safeguarding the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Quashes Supplementary Chargesheet Against Petitioner: Holds Reinvestigation Unauthorized and Allegations Unsupported by Evidence