Is state property paternal property of the executive: Bombay High Court Asks Maharashtra Government

Is state land 'paternal property' of executive? Bombay HC asks Maharashtra Government

Yesterday, the Bombay HC was hearing a suo motu PIL which was initiated in September 2020 because of the collapse of a building in Thane’s Bhiwandi which had claimed 40 lives. The bench also took cognizance of the recent building collapses due to “rampant” illegal constructions in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR), including the Malwani incident. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish S Kulkarni pulled up the Maharashtra government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for allowing illegal constructions to be built "blatantly" without following existing laws.

The Advocate General for Government of Maharashtra submitted that that structures of slum dwellers holding valid photo passes were protected Maharashtra government’s slum rehabilitation policies granting statutory protection against the demolition of structures constructed before January 1, 2000, and not higher than 14 feet, hence could not be demolished. “…it seems like the state’s property is the paternal property of the executive,” the bench said.

It was submitted on behalf of BMC that under state policy encroachers are protected, therefore the civic authority had a limited role as an “outsider authority” and was not in a position to take action against them

On the inclusion of government land under the ambit of Rule 33 (10) of Development Control Rules (DCR) Justice Kulkarni observed that “Biggest planning mistake is to include government land within the purview of Rule 33 (10) of Development Control Rules (DCR). Actually, it is a fraud on the constitution. Public largesse cannot be handled by slum redevelopment or such authorities,”

“The moment you (state) bring them under a beneficial scheme, state land, and corporation lands are written off,” the bench said.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog