Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Mahadeo Palvankar, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging a notice dated 2.12.2004 issued under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). The notice was served by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) informing the petitioner that a redevelopment scheme had been sanctioned for final plot CS No.882(pt) under DCR 1991, and that one Subhash Khedekar (respondent No.5) was held eligible for alternate accommodation. The petitioner was alleged to have unauthorisedly occupied structure GSM-13/3A, which was obstructing the development work. The notice called upon the petitioner to show cause within 15 days why he should not be evicted. The petitioner did not respond to the notice but instead filed the present writ petition. The court observed that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to show cause and therefore the petition was premature. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to respond to the notice and for the authority to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Eviction Notice - Section 33 of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Show Cause Notice - The petitioner was served a notice under Section 33 of the Slum Act calling upon him to show cause why he should not be evicted from a structure obstructing a slum rehabilitation scheme. The petitioner did not respond to the notice but instead filed a writ petition challenging the notice. The court held that since the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to show cause, the petition was premature and dismissed it, leaving it open to the petitioner to respond to the notice. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the eviction notice under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 without having responded to the show cause notice.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice and therefore the petition was premature. The court left it open to the petitioner to respond to the notice and for the authority to decide the matter in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 33 of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement
- Clearance and Redevelopment) Act
- 1971
- Notice to show cause
- Eviction for obstruction of slum rehabilitation scheme
- Failure to respond to notice
- No interference in writ jurisdiction
