While acknowledging that the mass housing problem was a complex issue due to large-scale encroachment, the Bombay High Court remarked that Maharashtra was the only state providing free housing to encroachers.
“We are the only state, thanks to the wonderful policy of the government, where you encroach and get free housing,” a bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna observed. The judges noted that in one of their earlier judgments, they had raised the question of whether such a policy was permissible. “In one of our judgments, we had asked whether this would be permissible. Is this a constitutional policy recognised by the Constitution?” the bench questioned.
The court made these observations while hearing a suo motu (on its own) plea regarding a review of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, following a Supreme Court judgment on July 30, 2024. The apex court had earlier highlighted concerns about the Act’s implementation and directed the High Court to conduct a “performance audit.” This marks the first time the court will conduct an audit of an audit.
“Mass housing problem is a vexed problem due to encroachments. It is cascading.. You have state, private, municipal, central government lands,” the the bench observed, adding that the encroachments come up on mangroves too, eventually leading to it being declared as a slum area. “Slowly mangroves have gone and slums are created. Then these slums are declared as eligible slums,” the court lamented.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae (friend of the court) Darius Khambata emphasised the economic significance of keeping slum dwellers near their workplaces rather than insisting on in-situ rehabilitation. “The idea is not to give them an asset but to provide better living conditions and improve the surrounding area,” Khambata said.
Rehabilitating slum dwellers will benefit the entire community by mitigating issues and improving the overall environment. “It will help enhance the general health and well-being of the community — not just for slum dwellers, but also for those living nearby. Plus, you retain the workforce,” Khambata added.
However, he stressed that “no one has a right to trespass and squat,” even though economic realities force migrants into informal settlements due to the lack of affordable housing. Stressing the need to balance equities, Khambata said it was equally important to protect the interests of landowners, even if they had been negligent in safeguarding their land.
Khambata pointed out that redevelopment projects often prioritise maximising the free-sale component rather than ensuring livable conditions for slum dwellers. “What we are seeing are vertical slums — towers constructed in a way that leaves residents cramped in a corner while developers get more space to sell,” he said.
The court underscored the need for open spaces and playgrounds for future generations, warning that unchecked redevelopment could lead to an unbearable urban environment. It also reiterated concerns about Mumbai’s dwindling green spaces and sports facilities.
The HC has scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 27.
