Is state property paternal property of the executive: Bombay High Court 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.