[ad_1]
MumbaiExpressing shock at the “appalling” levels of fraud, a slum rehabilitation plan But BKC, the High Court deplored the overall state of affairs relating to slum redevelopment and called for efforts “to prevent smuggling and profiteering”. Tenancy rights for slum units had earlier exchanged up to Rs 2.3 crore, the HC was informed by a developer working in BKC.
The HC said there was a need to revisit the policy and re-look at the law, which has an “in-built assurance of free-of-cost capital asset for trespassers on public land”. It suggested that slum dwellers should enjoy rights to use the allotted flats instead of ownership rights that can be transferred or sold.
SRA should be delinked from political ties: HC
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it is suggesting a review of the policy as the city has not become slum-free even 50 years after the Slum Rehabilitation Act came into force.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale said, “The Slum Act dates back to 1971. It was supposed to create a huge stock of affordable housing in 2-3 years.” Slum free… So we only suggest that the policy needs to be reconsidered appropriately at the highest level.
The high court was hearing petitions filed by slum dwellers of a large slum scheme at Kolekalyan in Bandra Kurla Complex and a new developer-Budhpur Buildcon Pvt Ltd, which was being developed earlier. HDILWhich is now facing bankruptcy proceedings.
While slum dwellers were demanding transit fare arrears and complaining of “illegal occupants”, the new builder, an Adani group company, said the slum dwellers’ 2019 petition suppressed data that showed that 64 out of 111 of them had transferred their tenancy rights. In 2006-2008, one slum unit was ‘purchased’ by the Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) for Rs 2.3 crore, while two others were bought for more than Rs 1 crore each.
The HC remarked that as a “long term” step, it would be necessary to “insult” the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) cases from political connections. The HC on Tuesday appointed a court receiver to take notional possession of the slum rehabilitation project at Kolekalyan and passed several directions, including that an SRA special officer should identify the trespassers and the number of people shifted. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, appearing for the SRA, said the slum scheme has a lock-in period of 10 years, only after which the allottees can sell or transfer their rights to third parties.
Recording the order, Justice Patel said, “We would be grossly derelict in the discharge of our duty if we do not point out that there is now a need to revisit the policy.” He suggested that instead of free flats, which are essentially a property that can be sold irrespective of the lock-in period, what if eligible slum dwellers are given a place with only the right to use and reside, not owned, and they pay a premium to the SRA for each further transfer of such rights.
Budhpur Buildcon, through advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, sought modification of the March 2022 HC order which said that the SRA need not re-evaluate the eligibility of slum dwellers whose eligibility has already been accepted. Its application was filed in response to a petition by 31 slum residents seeking arrears of transit fare. The builder, Budhpur, said documents obtained from the HDIL resolution professional – an officer appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal in the insolvency proceedings against HDIL – revealed that 64 of the 111 slum dwellers had already shifted their tenants to former developer HDIL. transferred or received substantial amounts around 2006 and 2007, some other petitioner slum-dwellers received more than Rs.1 crore.
The HC said, “These numbers are not only appalling but they point to what we can only describe as a fraud on the law.”
There were other groups of slum dwellers from the BKC project, one represented by advocate Akash Rebello and the other by advocate Gulnar Mistry, who also filed a petition in the High Court. He claimed that transit fares for 30-odd eligible residents had not been paid for a decade. He said that “illegal occupants” were included in the scheme, while in a counter-claim, Khandeparkar said that many of them were earlier paid a lump sum amount for tenancy rights. A group of petitioners, through advocate Karl Tamboli, submitted that they had been transferred rights in the new rehab homes. Original character slum dweller.
[ad_2]
Source link