Bombay High Court Constitutes Special Bench To Review Effectiveness Of Maharashtra Slum Areas Act
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued a notification constituting a special bench to hear the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition for conducting a comprehensive audit of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act of 1971.The notification issued by HM Bhosale, Registrar Judicial (I), states that the Chief Justice of the High Court has constituted...
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday issued a notification constituting a special bench to hear the suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition for conducting a comprehensive audit of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act of 1971.
The notification issued by HM Bhosale, Registrar Judicial (I), states that the Chief Justice of the High Court has constituted a special bench under Justice Girish Kulkarni to preside over the suo motu proceedings. The special bench will commence hearing the matter from August 16.
"The representatives of the Government, the Statutory Authorities under the Act 1971 and the necessary stakeholders including intended beneficiaries shall take note of the same," the notification reads.
This comes after the Supreme Court division bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar on July 31 ordered the Bombay High Court to initiate suo motu proceedings to review the effectiveness of the Act of 1971.
In its order, the bench had said, "The purpose of such review is to ensure that a law is working out in practice as it was intended. If not, to understand the reason and address it quickly. It is in this perspective that this court has, in a number of cases, directed the Executive to carry a performance/assessment audit of a statute or has suggested amendments to the provisions of a particular enactment so as to remove perceived infirmities in its working."
In it's order, the bench highlighted that a total of 1,612 cases under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act are still pending before the Bombay High Court.
Out of the data revealed, 135 cases are more than 10 years old. The data further suggests that in the last 20 years, 4,488 cases have been filed and disposed of by the HC. Whereas, the latest data suggests that 923 cases on the appellate side and 738 cases on the original side continue to be pending adjudication.
The bench therefore, raised five concerns regarding the statutory scheme of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, namely:
1. The process of identification and declaration of land as slum: "This problem involves an examination of the role of authorities in giving such recognition, insidious intervention of builders in the said process cast doubts on the independence and integrity in the decision-making process.”
2. Identification of slum dwellers: “This involves a complicated process of proof of such a status, the attendant problem of groupism, giving rise to competing claims inevitably leading to litigation.”
3. Selection of a developer: “The Act leaves this decision to the cooperative society of slum dwellers and the majority decision is manipulated by competing and rival developers.”
4. Apportionment of the slum land between redevelopment area and sale area: “This is yet another area where court has witnessed developers seeking to increase the proportion of the sale area, leading to contestation.”
5. Obligation to provide transmit accommodate for the slum dwellers pending redevelopment: “Invariably, we see instances where the developer does not provide transit accommodation within time or provides an inadequate alternative in the form of a quantified amount towards rent, On the other hand, there are instances where some slum dwellers refuse to vacate the premises on the ground that the transit accommodation is either inconvenient or the amount offered is insufficient.”
6. Lack of independence and objectivity in the functioning of statutory authorities: “This is a matter of serious concern. Courts have witnesses that the authorities have no independence and, their tenure is also short. Additionally, the functioning of these statutory authorities gives an indication that there could be a regulatory capture.”
7. Ineffectiveness of statutory remedies: “Statutory remedies are ineffective and at the same time, lacking in accountability.”
8. Judicial review under Article 226 (power of the high courts to issue certain writs) cannot be a long-term solution to sought remedy under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act.
Click Here To Read/Download Notification