#Right to Shelter

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that demolition of homes cannot proceed until authorities conclusively decide pending applications under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, ensuring the right to shelter is protected by enforceable timelines. This binds revenue officials to act with urgency, preventing arbitrary evictions and giving legal teeth to procedural fairness in land disputes.

Madhya Pradesh High Court directs borrowers to deposit Rs. 1 lakh within 15 days while staying eviction, recognizing the right to shelter amid non-functional Debt Recovery Tribunal. The ruling sets a precedent for interim relief under SARFAESI Act when statutory adjudication is delayed.

Bombay High Court rules that under the MPID Act, residential properties cannot be prioritized for attachment if other assets (e.g., a Rs. 302 crore hotel) sufficiently cover depositor dues. The judgment reinforces the proportionality principle and the right to shelter, setting a precedent for asset attachment cases involving financial fraud.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that the right to shelter under Article 21 mandates rehabilitation of long-term encroachers on public land before eviction. The court directed the Nava Raipur Development Authority to decide rehabilitation applications within 60 days, staying evictions until a decision is made, setting a precedent for housing policy enforcement.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that encroachers on public land for extended periods cannot be evicted without rehabilitation, directing authorities to decide applications within 60 days. The judgment reinforces the state's obligation under Article 21 to provide shelter as part of the right to life.

Bombay High Court upholds that eligibility for slum redevelopment benefits under the Slum Act is strictly determined by official survey records (Annexure-II). Long-term occupation or self-declared room splits without documentary proof cannot override survey findings, reinforcing the primacy of statutory verification for shelter rights.

Telangana High Court ruled that eviction from a residential home housing minor children without prior notice is arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating principles of natural justice. The Court restored possession to the petitioner, emphasizing that statutory authorities must adhere to due process regardless of the forum involved.

Bombay High Court rules that authorities cannot demolish structures while a regularisation application is pending, ensuring procedural fairness and protection of housing rights under Articles 14 and 21. The court mandated timely disposal of such applications within eight weeks, preventing coercive action until adjudication.

Madhya Pradesh High Court directs supply of viscera report to enable health insurance claim for repayment of SARFAESI loan, protecting widow from homelessness.

High Court holds that District Magistrate must independently apply mind before evicting occupants; delegation of quasi-judicial functions violates natural justice under Act of 1997.

High Court of Telangana holds that authorities cannot demolish structures without due process, even if alleged to be non-compliant, affirming Article 21 rights and procedural fairness.