- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Bombay High Court Expresses Concern over Unfinished Development Projects States it is 'Alarming Situation as Many Citizens Are Homeless'
Bombay High Court Expresses Concern over Unfinished Development Projects States it is 'Alarming Situation as Many Citizens Are Homeless' The Bombay High Court (HC) was hearing a plea filed by thirty-seven persons who had been homeless since 2015. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that developers have failed to complete slum schemes/redevelopment projects in time, leading to a spate...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Bombay High Court Expresses Concern over Unfinished Development Projects States it is 'Alarming Situation as Many Citizens Are Homeless'
The Bombay High Court (HC) was hearing a plea filed by thirty-seven persons who had been homeless since 2015. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that developers have failed to complete slum schemes/redevelopment projects in time, leading to a spate of litigation in this respect.
The HC bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni said, "This has created an alarming situation, to the effect that a large number of citizens are homeless and are made to suffer at the hands of such developers."
The HC took up a plea filed by Shakil Mohammad and thirty-six others. The dispute was that the tenants of corporation land were handed over to a developer in 2015 for the construction of a building. The original building was demolished to make way for the new one.
It was contended that the construction on the proposed building progressed only to the plinth level despite the passage of five years. The Court expressed concern that the petitioners are homeless and still the project has not been completed.
The Court further observed, "Such developers have no wherewithal to undertake a redevelopment project." The HC called upon the Municipal Corporation to file an affidavit on the steps it proposed to take regarding the project in question.
The HC further put more queries to the Corporation its policy on the redevelopment of the building, it asked whether-
- The existing policy that allowed tenants of corporation land to hand over the property to developers unable to such a project can be sustained,
- Any need to draw up a new policy where only bona fide, genuine and competent developers who could fulfill expected norms and complete the construction were allowed the appointment
- Appointment of developers only by the municipal corporation.
The HC further enquired from the Government of Maharashtra to consider maintaining a panel comprising of competent developers who could be entrusted with the work of development/re-development.
The Court added that the panel would ensure that the project should be completed soon and ensure that citizens have a roof over their heads and they are not homeless anymore. The HC gave directions to the State Government and the Municipal Corporation to file affidavits.