Mumbai: Bombay high court has set up a three-member committee to resolve a dispute regarding land at Danda Koliwada, Khar West, on which a slum rehabilitation scheme is being implemented. A part of the land is used by the Koli community for drying fish and nets.Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe on Wednesday directed the additional principal secretary, urban development department, along with the collector (suburbs) and CEO, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, “to resolve the issue after hearing both parties and also after considering it appropriate to have a fresh demarcation of the land considering the traditional rights of the petitioners”.The judges said this is “imperative” as it is the state govt’s land and it would be its “obligation”, not only in relation to the slum scheme, to resolve such issues. “It cannot be that the owner of the land, state govt, is oblivious to what is happening to its prime land,” they added.Two Koli societies moved HC objecting to encroachment by the developer on part of the land reserved for fish drying in the development plan. The judges noted that the land is adjoining the petitioner’s land. It is being developed by Hanuman Nagar Shubh Shanti CHSL, a slum dwellers society, through Jasani Realty Pvt Ltd. “Thus, on one hand it is the rights of the encroachers who have proposed a slum scheme on govt land and on the other hand that of the petitioners who are asserting traditional rights. The impasse needs to be resolved by the state govt in accordance with law,” they said.Senior advocate Gayatri Singh said the fish drying land encroached by the slum scheme is about 1,500 sq m. Demarcation of the land has not taken place and even if done, it was without notice to her clients. Singh was contradicted by advocates for the society and the developer.The judges said, “The dispute is purely of demarcation and as to whether the traditional rights of the petitioners… are in any manner affected by the slum redevelopment.”They directed the committee shall, within 10 days meet the parties, undertake a site visit and “pass such appropriate orders which would consider the rights of both the parties”. Till demarcation is made and an appropriate order passed, “no coercive action shall be taken in respect of the land in the petitioners’ use”. They also directed a status quo till the committee takes an appropriate decision and directed the decision to be taken by Jan 10. If any decision adverse to the petitioners is taken, “the same shall not be given effect to for a period of ten days from the date of communication of such order”. Disposing of the petitions, the judges grant the petitioners liberty to revive the petition if “need so arises”.
