Sure! Here’s a rewritten version of the content:
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently addressed the understaffing issues at the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), deeming it a serious concern. The court instructed the state government to ensure timely approval for adequate staffing to prevent recurrent issues from reaching the courts.
A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe highlighted, “It is unacceptable for the Chief Executive Officer, with significant authority, to operate ineffectively and lack oversight of matters within their jurisdiction, particularly in cases where no occupation certificate has been issued for nearly 15 years.” This comment was made in a ruling dated September 11.
The court pointed out the prevalence of illegal transfers and allotments of SRA properties, questioning the SRA’s inaction against major illegalities despite being a prominent planning authority in the city. The ruling stemmed from a petition by Chandu Waghela, whose attorneys, Amogh Singh and Prateek Kharwar, argued that following his mother’s death in 2007, her heirs had not received the allotment letter, which was allegedly fraudulently assigned to another party.
The High Court also listened to arguments from advocates Aarushi Yadav and JG Aradwad Reddy representing the SRA, Prayog Joshi for the builder, and Aditi Naikare for a slum society. They emphasized that, despite the building being occupied since 2010, it still lacked an Occupancy Certificate, and “illegal transfers are ongoing.” The court condemned this lawlessness, emphasizing that there is no fundamental right to occupy property without the necessary legal documentation. It reiterated a previous ruling that rights to property must align with public interest.
The High Court underscored that the SRA’s Chief Executive Officer must exert proper control over these illegal activities. The court was highly critical of the SRA’s “casual approach” regarding its staffing constraints. Consequently, it instructed the SRA’s CEO to submit an affidavit detailing the reasons for the delayed Occupancy Certificate and to identify the responsible officers. The court also mandated that the SRA take action against illegal occupants in the building and scheduled a follow-up on September 25 for compliance.
In a prior case, the High Court noted that an individual’s property rights must be balanced against the greater public good. These rights do not grant an individual the freedom to occupy a property without an occupation certificate, as doing so would unfairly benefit unauthorized occupants.
This version maintains the original meaning while clarifying and rephrasing certain sections for conciseness and readability.
