SANDESH MAHADEV LAVNDE AND 3 ORS v. COLLECTOR MUMBAI-SUBURBAN DISTRICT AND 4 ORS
Discusses slum dweller rights, environmental law, and application of natural justice principles in demolition cases.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:8408-DB
Decision Date: 06-06-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slums Act’); Environment Protection Act, 1986; The Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888; Right to Information Act, 2005; General Principles of Law
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment refers to Article 226, under which the Writ Petition was filed, and Article 21, stating that the right to live with human dignity, including basic shelter, is guaranteed under it. The petitioners invoked Article 226 seeking writs of mandamus. The court also notes that the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226. The judgment also mentions paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India in the context of scheduled areas excluded from the applicability of the Maharashtra Slums Act.
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (‘Slums Act’): The judgment extensively discusses the Maharashtra Slums Act, 1971. It refers to the petitioners claiming rights as 'protected occupiers' under this Act. Section 3Z-1(1) is mentioned concerning notices issued to hutment dwellers. Section 3Z-2(4) is cited regarding the removal of encroachments within 50 meters of the mangrove buffer zone. The judgment analyzes Section 3X(c), defining 'protected occupier', and Section 2(c-b), defining 'eligible slum dweller'. Chapter 1C of the Slums Act, providing special provisions for in-situ rehabilitation housing schemes, is also discussed. Section 3Z-3(b), defining 'housing scheme', and Section 3Z-6, stating the provisions of Chapter 1C will not apply in certain cases, are analyzed. Section 4, regarding the declaration of slum areas, is also mentioned. The judgment also refers to Section 3B, which refers to the slum rehabilitation scheme prepared by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Section 3C refers to the declaration of a slum rehabilitation area. The judgment also mentions Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slums Act, stating that the demolition was contrary to these sections. The judgment also refers to Section 3Y of the Slums Act, which is a provision for the issuance of photo-pass and maintenance of Register. The judgment also refers to sub-section (9) of section 3Z (2) of the Slums Act stipulating penal consequences under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for non production of document including photo-pass.
- Environment Protection Act, 1986: The judgment discusses the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in the context of the petitioners' encroachment on mangrove areas. It mentions that demolition drives were conducted in accordance with the law and the provisions of this Act. Section 3(2)(b) is mentioned in the context of Coastal Regulation Zones. Section 15(1)(2) is cited regarding the registration of an FIR against the petitioners for constructing illegal tenements in mangrove areas. The judgment also refers to Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- The Forest Conservation Act, 1980: The judgment mentions the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, in the context of forest areas excluded from the applicability of the Maharashtra Slums Act.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the context of sub-section (9) of section 3Z (2) of the Slums Act stipulating penal consequences under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for non production of document including photo-pass.
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: The judgment refers to Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, regarding the demolition of structures posing imminent danger.
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The judgment mentions the application of the petitioners made under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI' for short).
- General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principles of natural justice, particularly in the context of the demolition undertaken by the respondents. It also mentions the clean hands doctrine, stating that the petitioners breached it by suppressing facts. The judgment also discusses the public trust doctrine.
🔒 For Members Only