Bombay HC Dismisses Tribals' Plea To Halt Thane Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, Says No Proof Of Ownership

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, on Friday, emphasised that the claims of a few individuals cannot impede large-scale urban redevelopment, dismissing petitions filed by a group identifying as tribals who sought to block a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) in Thane.

The court noted it cannot risk further stalling the slum scheme of such magnitude only because petitioners “desire of getting a larger pie” than other slum dwellers from the developer – Jagdale Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

Justice Sandeep Marne dismissed a batch of petition by tribals occupying land in Panch Pakhadi in Thane challenging a 2016 notification declaring the 3.39-hectare plot as a Slum Rehabilitation Area. They also contested the eviction notices issued under the Slum Act, claiming they were rightful allottees based on alleged allotments made by the State in 1949 and 1950.

However, the Court held that no valid allotment orders issued by the Collector were produced, and that occupation alone did not confer ownership. “Mere social background of Petitioners as tribals would not be a reason for raising a surmise that occupation of structures would automatically mean allotment of lands in their names,” the Court said in a detailed judgment.

Petitioners’ advocates, SR Nargolkar and Rajendra Kamble, argued that the land was wrongfully declared as a slum area and claimed petitioners were being treated as unauthorized occupants despite being lawful owners. Also, the land was originally Gairan (grazing) land and that the petitioners, as permitted occupants, could not be evicted under the SRS.

The Court, however, noted that the ‘Gairan’ entry had been removed from revenue records through Mutation Entry dated October 11, 2021, and the land was now recorded in the name of the Government of Maharashtra. “Thus, land… which is infested with as many as 1,848 slum structures is no longer treated as Gairan land,” it observed.

The High Court also found fault with the timing of the petitioners’ opposition. “It is only when the scheme started taking shape by appointment of a developer that Petitioners thought of opposing the same by creating hurdles in implementation of SRS,” it said.

Highlighting the scale of the project, the Court noted, “Minuscule number of structure occupiers are holding up implementation of the subject SRS where 2,255 structures have already been demolished.”

On rehabilitation, the Court noted that a survey had already been conducted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, and most petitioners would qualify for flats. “What Petitioners expect is actually a larger pie in implementation of the SRS… no special treatment can be granted to them on account of failure to prove ownership,” it said.

Dismissing the petitions, the Court concluded: “This Court cannot put implementation of slum scheme of such massive magnitude to risk only because Petitioners want to fulfil their desire of getting a larger pie than other slum dwellers.”