TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Showroom owners falsely claiming slum dweller status under UP Slum Areas Act 1962 petition dismissed</h1> <h3>Syed Hamidul Bari, Samrat Furniture Manufacturing Shop Lko. Thru. Owner Smt. Najma Bano And Another, Sabiha Kausar, Suhail Haider Alvi And Others Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others</h3> Syed Hamidul Bari, Samrat Furniture Manufacturing Shop Lko. Thru. Owner Smt. Najma Bano And Another, Sabiha Kausar, Suhail Haider Alvi And Others Versus ... 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.'
TaxTMI 