MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed an April 2021 ruling by the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), which mandated that the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) pay Rs 1 lakh in compensation to a Jogeshwari resident. This ruling stems from allegations of human rights violations after the demolition of his structure without prior notice, despite it being labeled as an “unauthorized tenement.” The High Court referenced a Supreme Court decision underscoring that the right to shelter is a fundamental aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution—the right to life and liberty— which can only be revoked through proper legal processes. In a prior case in Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court emphasized that residential properties cannot be demolished abruptly without allowing the owner of the alleged unauthorized structure a chance to be heard, highlighting the necessity of issuing a show-cause notice.
The High Court noted that Mhada’s actions contravened established legal protocols.
Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande stated, “The demolition executed without adhering to due process is deemed utterly illegal and infringes upon the right to shelter,” noting that a report from Mhada indicated that since the complainant, Sujeet Shukla, was in unauthorized possession, no notice was considered necessary.
Mhada contended that the Oshiwara land is theirs and that they had provided a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) for a rehabilitation project. An initiative called the Adarsh Nagar Colony in Jogeshwari West was launched for Economically Weaker Sections. Mhada further argued that as an unauthorized tenement was built on the Development Plan road and they were conducting a “demolition drive,” advance notice was unnecessary.
The SHRC remarked that Mhada should take disciplinary actions against the “responsible officers” and implement a program to educate personnel on adhering to rules while demolishing illegal structures and respecting the “law of right to shelter.”
The High Court found no flaws in the SHRC’s recommendations and conclusions, asserting that, “It is well-established that even a trespasser or an encroacher can only be evicted after following due legal procedures. This conclusion is sound.”
