Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhanudas Sitaram Khunte, filed a writ petition challenging two concurrent orders dated 06.12.2017 and 28.03.2019 passed by the First Appellate Authority (Respondent No.2) and the Second Appellate Authority (Respondent No.1) respectively, which upheld the determination of the petitioner as ineligible for grant of alternate accommodation under the slum rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner had purchased Hut No.97 by an agreement dated 04.04.2000, but the competent authority in Annexure-2 dated 30.05.2017 declared him ineligible. The petitioner argued that he was a lawful purchaser and entitled to alternate accommodation. However, the court noted that the petitioner purchased the hut after the cut-off date of 01.01.1995 and did not reside in the slum area. The court held that the eligibility criteria for alternate accommodation under the slum rehabilitation scheme required the claimant to be in possession of the hut as on 01.01.1995 and to be a resident of the slum. Since the petitioner failed to satisfy these conditions, the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities were upheld. The court dismissed the petition, finding no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Eligibility for Alternate Accommodation - Cut-off Date - Petitioner purchased hut after the cut-off date of 01.01.1995 and did not reside in the slum - Held that the petitioner was rightly declared ineligible for alternate accommodation as he failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (Paras 1-5). B) Judicial Review - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Scope - The High Court in writ jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the findings of the appellate authorities were based on material on record and not perverse (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was eligible for grant of alternate accommodation under the slum rehabilitation scheme, and whether the concurrent orders of the appellate authorities were perverse or illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent orders of the appellate authorities and the determination of the petitioner as ineligible for alternate accommodation.
Law Points
- Eligibility for alternate accommodation under slum rehabilitation scheme
- cut-off date for eligibility
- requirement of residence in slum area
- scope of judicial review of concurrent findings of fact
