2024 (2) TMI 1297 - HC - Indian Laws

Wrongful representation of poor landless slum dwellers - illegal and unauthorised constructions on the government land - U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, all these showrooms/workshops, engaged in furniture and related businesses, exist on main road or are immediately adjacent to it. They are getting all benefits of any regular area of the city. They have widest road possible in the city. The main road is not filthy or lacks in any possible municipal facility. Their huge showrooms/workshops cannot be called filthy, run-down or unfit for humans. It is only that their address is shown as Akbar Nagar. The actual slum, covered by aforesaid definitions, begins behind these showrooms. Thus, petitioners are not suffering any of the challenges faced by the actual slum dwellers of the said slum. In the given circumstances, it is not possible for this court to accept that the showrooms/workshops of petitioners can be called as existing in a slum area. The documents were called for and considered to ascertain the status of Kukrail river/water channel next to the slum area and impact of slum on the said water channel. Once it is held that neither the petitioners are slum dwellers nor their establishments fall within the slum area, the said documents do not in any manner have any impact on the rights of the petitioners. Both before the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority petitioners represented themselves to be slum dwellers and did not place correct facts. Both the authorities have held proceedings and passed orders against petitioners on the basis of the said incorrect presumption. Looking into the entirety of the matter this Court finds no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of petitioners' claims as slum dwellers.
2. Compliance with natural justice in proceedings under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
3. Interpretation of the terms "slum" and "slum dwellers."

Summary:

1. Legitimacy of Petitioners' Claims as Slum Dwellers:
The court examined 24 writ petitions, segregating 25 petitioners who claimed to be slum dwellers but were found to have illegally occupied large pieces of government land, constructing multi-story commercial buildings and filing GST and income tax returns. The petitioners were not living in the slum but in posh areas of Lucknow, owning other properties. The court noted, "They have illegally occupied large pieces of land of State Government and raised multi-story furniture showrooms/workshops on the main Lucknow-Faizabad Road."

2. Compliance with Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the proceedings and appeal under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, violated principles of natural justice as documents were accepted without providing copies to them and appeals were heard on merits instead of stay applications. The court, however, found that the documents were called to ascertain the status of the Kukrail river/water channel and the impact of the slum on it. The court stated, "Once we have held that neither the petitioners are slum dwellers nor their establishments fall within the slum area, the said documents do not in any manner have any impact on the rights of the petitioners."

3. Interpretation of "Slum" and "Slum Dwellers":
The court referred to various dictionary definitions to conclude that "slum" typically refers to an area where poor people live in substandard conditions. The court stated, "The term slum relates to an area in a city where poor and needy people live in an unhealthy, unhygienic and in conditions not fit and suitable for human habitat." The court rejected the petitioners' claim that being in a slum area qualifies them as slum dwellers regardless of their economic status, emphasizing that the purpose of legislation is to protect those forced to live under inhuman conditions due to poverty.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all writ petitions, stating, "In the said background and looking into the entirety of the matter this Court finds no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of petitioners." The interim orders granted earlier were discharged concerning the petitioners. The court also highlighted the Supreme Court's caution against rewarding encroachers on public land, noting, "Rewarding an encroacher on public land with a free alternative site is like giving a reward to a pickpocket."