In a recent court case, NESCO Limited challenged the State of Maharashtra's decision to take over their land in Goregaon, Mumbai, under the Slum Act. The court sided with NESCO, saying the takeover was not fair.
NESCO Limited owned private land in Goregaon, which was declared a slum rehabilitation area. The State wanted to take it over under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act. NESCO argued that as the landowner, they had the right to redevelop the land themselves.
"The land in question is a private land in respect of which NESCO enjoys valuable rights under Article 300A of the Constitution."
NESCO argued that they should have been given a chance to redevelop the land before the government stepped in. They cited previous court decisions that supported the idea that landowners have a first right to develop their own property.
"The Supreme Court recognized the position in law that the landowner would have preferential right to undertake development."
The issue began when the slum dwellers' society asked the Deputy Collector to take over the land, claiming NESCO wasn't providing necessary facilities. The government issued a notice to take over the land, but NESCO claimed they never received it.
The court found that the State did not follow the proper steps before trying to take over the land. They hadn't given NESCO a fair chance to propose their own redevelopment plan.
"The acquisition was, therefore, vitiated in law, falling afoul of the prescribed procedure."
Interestingly, the slum dwellers' society (Respondent No.6) later supported NESCO, agreeing that the takeover wasn't right. They even ended their agreement with the developer who was supposed to handle the redevelopment.
"Respondent No.6 has now approached NESCO so as to support NESCO in the redevelopment of the plot."
The court ruled in favor of NESCO, allowing them to keep their land and pursue redevelopment themselves. The judges emphasized the importance of fair procedures and protecting landowners' rights.
"Powers can never be undertaken at the behest of unscrupulous elements and discarding the legal rights of private landlords."
The court decided that NESCO could keep their land and do the redevelopment themselves. This case highlights the ongoing challenges between private landowners and government authorities in urban development, especially in areas marked for slum rehabilitation.
