Mumbai: In a scathing comment on the protection provided by the sequential government for Slumdweller, Bombay High Court Judge Datta Datta on Tuesday said it seems that government land is the “executive father property”.
“I’m new to all this.
But it looks like the country’s property belongs to the executive father,” CJ said from Bengal.
He and Justice Gires Kulkarni heard Suo Motu Pills about the building collapsed with a focus on Malwani’s accident last month which killed 12.
CJ comments came after advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni clarified that protection for January 1, 2001 and cut-off was not extended until January 1, 2011.
” Those who are in these (these dates) we will try to accommodate subject to the availability of plots and on ownership or rent, “he added.
The judge said there was an “absolute recognition” for Slumdweller from 2001-2011 considering the index of large floor space if the country committed rebuilding.
They noted that from 1976, the state has legitimized shrimp in government land.
“When you take them under a profitable scheme, government land is abolished, corporate land is abolished,” said Justice Kulkarni.
The bench observed that the biggest planning error was entering government land in development control regulations.
Also, while there are Snums Act, the government brings slums, owners, and developers under DCR.
“It is a fraud in the constitution.
Public Largesse cannot be handled by slums and others.
The government is the guardian of the public interest.
It cannot be done when you have a complete code,” said Justice Kulkarni.
CJ added, “If you make a developer category under the DCR, Land Shark Enter.” Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy with Advocate Joel Carlos for BMC to question how BMC as “outside authority” can take action when a structure is protected by the SUMMAT law.
Chinoy said only competent authority – representative collectors – who have a record of photo licenses issued for the structure.
“If I go as BMC, I can’t ask them to produce a photo permit.
Providing water and electricity is not necessarily knowledge about the structure.
This will cause absurdity if we begin to ask,” he added.
But Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate Sharan Jagtiani, said there was no defective BMC question about details of photopasses.
“What it does in non-seedy cases will apply the same way,” he added.
“This is what happened here (in Malwani),” said Justice Kulkarni.
With this, the trial of jurisdictional issues about who competent authority to act against illegal structure in the slums ended.