The Supreme Court will hear a petition on February 25, challenging the Gujarat High Court order, which had given directions for the eviction of over 10,000 slum dwellers.
A bench comprising Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice C.T. Ravikumar will hear the matter.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioners had apprised the Apex Court on the last date of hearing on August 24, that the concerned authorities were poised to start demolition of the slums.
The petitioners did not dispute that the structures were standing on the Railway properties, but their plea was that the slum dwellers inhabiting those properties be provided with suitable rehabilitation in lieu of those premises that they previously occupied.
The respondents had contended that encroaching on Railway property was an offence in itself and such unauthorised structures on its premises had prevented the Railways from beginning construction on an essential public project – linking of railway line between Surat-Udhna up to Jalgaon (Third Railway Line Project), that though sanctioned in 2018, had remained incomplete.
While the Respondent-Railways held that prevention of encroachment on any property was the responsibility of the local government, but given the powers afforded to the Railways, it could have invoked the provisions of special enactment, including the Public Premises Act or utilised the services of the police force that the Railway authorities maintain. Yet none of these things had been done, the Supreme Court found.
The Court ruled that the respondent had to immediately issue notice to the occupants of the concerned structures within the requisite premises, so that work on the remaining projects can commence.
A similar notice was to be issued to the occupants of other premises, all within a week and if the occupants refused to move, the Railways could take appropriate action.
Additionally, it was ordered that the Railways and the local government would be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs 2,000 per month per demolished structure for a period of six months from the date of demolition of their structure as ex-gratia amount to the head of the family/occupants of the concerned unauthorised structure removed during the demolition action.
All necessary efforts would be made to rehabilitate the dwellers, under any relevant scheme. If necessary, the concerned authorities were directed to take civil or criminal actions against the unauthorised dwellers as required.
Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses plea challenging bail granted to man accused of cheating
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Corporation on Friday, submitted that 177 forms have been taken but none of them have been filled and submitted.
Justice Khanwilkar – is your grievance about the availability of forms?
Sr adv, Colin Gonsalves – No. It is that they say that you must pay 20,000 when you take the form. These persons are not even economically weaker section which is upto 3L income.
They are BPL which are up to Rs one lakh income per year. So, they cannot pay 20,000. We filled up 2600 forms.
Khanwilkar-you can not get it free of cost. If some amount is specified in the scheme you will have to pay.
Gonsalves: The PMAY stops its eligibility at Economically Weaker Sections and doesn’t have a provision for the BPL.
In Koregaon the houses were given at 3.75 lakhs. Here they are saying 5.5 lakhs , so I don’t know how they will pay. For the railway Lands in Delhi under the DUSIP (Delhi Improvement Shelter Improvement Programme) to which the Railway Board agreed, there it is 1.42 lakhs for a small habitation. it is in the Order of the High Court in the year 2019 in Ajay Mathur’s Case and the Lt. Governor agreed to this.
Khanwilkar: His grievance seems to be that you apply different parameters at different locations. Why is there difference? The poor of Gujarat are richer than poor of Delhi and Haryana. If it is one scheme (PMAY), why different rates?
KM Nataraj, ASG: If it is from our side we will definitely respond to it otherwise it must be…to states.
Also Read: Madras High Court disposes of PIL with Rs 5,000 cost for misusing court to settle personal score
Khanwilkar: Under this scheme the condition is that you have to deposit 20 thousand while depositing the filled form. That condition we will say till the application is processed and eligibility is decided they will submit 20,000, so far as this particular railways are concerned. It is not waiver. It is only prolongation till eligibility is decided.
Khan: In the Status report, the pan India action that you have mentioned has been filed by the director wherein it is stated that there are number of proceedings pending due to which they were unable to take action. Is there any injunction order? Did you take steps to point out our order to that court? Arrangements that we directed in our order can be directed there. And if it is not permitted you have to bring it to our notice then.
ASG: we have been taking steps. He submitted that the Apex court order that the Hon’ble justices have been referring to is applies to Delhi only.
Order: We have heard counsel for the parties. the 1ts grievance of Mr gonsalves is about the onerous condition insisted upon by the authorities while accepting the forms of eligible persons for grant of alternative accommodation. They submit that the authorities are Insisting for depositing Rs. 20000 at initial stage itself and in most of the cases the persons are not in the position to fulfil that requirement. Keeping that mind we direct the Authorities concerned to accept the forms given by the desirous applicants for grant of alternative accommodation in lieu of demolished house. Without insisting deposit of Rs. 20,000 as pre-conditions. However, after the authorities process the applications under the scheme, the applicants eligible for allotment of some residential accommodation may intimate the concerned person who in turn must deposit the amount within 3 months subject to all other req as per the governing policy. The status report filed by the director Land and…..Court, new delhi …..it is mentioned in the said report that in approx. 40,995 encroachments, 35,000 pertaining to delhi division of northern railway cannot be removed due to pendency of proceeding , the authorities are directed to avoid the directions given by this court in WP civil 13029/1985, dated 14th September 2020. Even if the authorities are not in a position to take any further steps with regard to the encroachments on the railway property pertaining to Delhi division of Northern railway, there is no reason why the other petitions will not proceed with other encroachments. Directed the authorities to speed up the process of clearing encroachments on the railway property for the expansion projects.
Also Read: Educating Our Teenagers
Gonsalves: State of Haryana has not complied with the previous order of the SC and has not provided the ex-gratia payment.
Arun bhardwaj- aag- Haryana- We have constituted a committee and we will pay within 15 days.
Order- The counsel on behalf of the state submitted that a committee has been constitutes on 15th Feb 2022 to verify the eligibility of the concerned persons to whom ex-gratia amount needs to be paid in terms of direction given by this court. Process will be complete within 2 weeks from today and amount will be disbursed. Submitted that SDM Faridabad nominated as Nodal officer. The desiring persons must contact nodal officer.
Matter listed on 25th February.
Case name: UTRAN SE BESTHAN RAILWAY JHOPADPATTI VIKAS MANDAL vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.