- Case
- EVERARD CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. v. AJAY MEHTA MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER MCGM AND 2 ORS (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Contempt of Courts Act, Constitution of India, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Facts: Everard Co-operative Housing Society filed a petition in 2000 regarding illegal hutments and toilet construction abutting their compound wall. The court ordered a status quo in March 2000 and later, in June 2015, directed the demolition of illegal structures. The Municipal Corporation (BMC) failed to comply, leading to a contempt petition. Subsequently, individuals claiming to be slum dwellers filed a writ petition in 2024 to prevent their demolition, asserting eligibility for rehabilitation. The Everard Society argued that the slum dwellers were illegally occupying land acquired for a Development Plan (DP) road and had suppressed material facts.
Procedural Posture: The case involves a Contempt Petition (No.8 of 2017) arising from non-compliance with a prior order in Writ Petition No.1434 of 2000. A new Writ Petition (L) No.29625 of 2024, filed by alleged slum dwellers, was tagged with the contempt petition. The court is considering both the contempt and the validity of the slum dwellers' claims.
Issue: (1) Whether the alleged slum dwellers are entitled to protection from demolition and rehabilitation, given the prior court orders declaring the structures illegal and the BMC's failure to act. (2) Whether the Assistant Commissioner is guilty of contempt of court for disobeying the court's orders regarding demolition of the illegal structures.
Holding: (1) The court dismissed the slum dwellers' writ petition, finding their claims of eligibility unfounded and based on suppression of material facts. (2) The Assistant Commissioner was held guilty of contempt of court.
Reasoning: The court found that the structures were declared illegal in 2015, and the BMC could not subsequently declare the occupants 'eligible slum dwellers'. The petitioners failed to provide evidence of their eligibility or lawful possession. The court emphasized that the illegal structures were erected on land acquired for a DP road and that the BMC had failed to take action despite repeated court orders. The court noted the Assistant Commissioner's disobedience of court orders and the need to uphold the rule of law. The court directed the BMC to demolish the structures, complete the DP road, and take action against those responsible for the inaction. The court also imposed costs on the slum dwellers and directed the Municipal Commissioner to file a compliance affidavit.
