Topic
Slum rehabilitation in India refers to legal frameworks governing the relocation, resettlement, and redevelopment of informal settlements, primarily under state housing policies and the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act.
Bombay High Court holds that delays in filing appeals due to illness or lack of knowledge of impugned orders must be condoned under slum rehabilitation laws, ensuring petitioners are not denied statutory remedies. The ruling directs authorities to reconsider eligibility afresh, setting aside eviction proceedings until merits are adjudicated.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that when a land-owning authority fails to respond to a NOC request within 60 days under DCPR 2034, approval is deemed granted - and any subsequent refusal without reasoned justification is arbitrary and unlawful. This sets a critical precedent for slum rehabilitation developers and housing societies facing bureaucratic delays in government approvals.
Bombay High Court rules that MHADA's demolition orders under Section 55 of the MR&TP Act become final if unchallenged within the prescribed timeline, barring subsequent legal recourse. The court rejected pleas for fresh hearings, reinforcing strict compliance with statutory timelines for property disputes involving government authorities.
The Bombay High Court ruled that under MOFA, a promoter who combines adjacent plots to maximize Floor Space Index cannot evade conveyance of the entire developed area simply because part of the land is classified as slum. The obligation to transfer title is mandatory, subject only to the existing rights of lawful occupants - reinforcing that FSI benefits do not override statutory conveyance duties to housing societies.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that transit rent for displaced slum dwellers must be paid from the date their dwellings are demolished, not from the date they are formally certified as eligible. This ensures that affected families are not penalized for bureaucratic delays in processing their claims, reinforcing the constitutional right to housing under Article 21 and placing a direct financial obligation on developers from the moment displacement occurs.
Bombay HC quashed a No Objection Certificate (NOC) denial for a slum rehabilitation project, ruling that administrative decisions under Clause 2.8 of Regulation 33(10), DCPR 2034 must be reasoned. The judgment reinforces the duty of transparency for landowning authorities, impacting developers and slum rehabilitation schemes across Maharashtra.
Bombay High Court stayed a slum rehabilitation declaration after finding the Slum Rehabilitation Authority violated principles of natural justice by failing to afford property owners a hearing. The ruling reinforces that administrative actions impacting proprietary rights must comply with audi alteram partem, setting a precedent for procedural fairness in slum rehabilitation schemes.
Bombay High Court holds that pendency of civil suits over FSI violations does not bar deemed conveyance under Section 11 of MOFA; statutory duty must be fulfilled based on recorded land title.
Bombay High Court holds that judicial findings in civil suits bind slum rehabilitation authorities; mere inclusion in Annexure II cannot override proven possession through family lineage.
Bombay High Court holds that eviction proceedings under Maharashtra Slum Act cannot decide private title disputes; remedy lies in civil court.
Bombay High Court holds that slum redevelopment must accommodate religious structures through alternative temple construction, not eviction, under Maharashtra Slum Act.
Bombay High Court directs landlords to provide alternate accommodation or transit rent before displacing tenants from C-1 category buildings, reinforcing housing rights under Article 21.
Bombay High Court directs halt to issuance of completion and occupation certificates until regulatory compliance is verified, reinforcing procedural safeguards in urban development.