Thread by @barandbench

Justice AM Khanwilkar led bench is hearing petitions filed challenging the rehabilitation policy including the eligibility criteria framed by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad with respect to the demolitions at Khori Gaon #supremecourt #khorigaon

#SupremeCourt is deciphering costs to be paid by those who will be allotted flats under the rehabilitation scheme.

AAG Arun Bhardwaj: if price of 3,77,500 had to be reduced/...we have filed a short note. Total land cost of two schemes is 2896 lands is 178.24 crores. Cost fixed by Corporation is to be paid in instalments. It’s already been reduced by 60% is subsided

AAG: we have maintained these flats. we are also incurring 17,000 for each flat It crosses 4 lakh even without land cost. We are not charging that maintenance from the allottees

Sr Adv Sanjay Parikh: in this scheme, they had to identify land and cost of construction came to 2 lakh something. this present construction is made to 4 lakh something....now they add market rate of the colony & come to these calculations how is this justified?

SC: are you disputing the land cost?

Parikh: project cost is the total project cost. land cost in the scheme will not come into picture

SC: But its like 3,77,000 at an installment for 20 years with 2 percent Rate of interest?

Parikh: if it is given it others at same rate then we will agree

SC: it was given in 2010 and you want that rate of 2 lakhs in 2021. are you seeking it free of cost?

SC: You have been displaced for squatting over forest land..still you are being provided a place for 3.7 lakhs at an installment of 20 years.

SC: The rate of 12 years back cannot be made applicable to you now.

SC: The break up is not even profiteering and it is still undervalued

Adv Srishti Agnihotri: it has to be seen how much has Municipal Corporation of Faridabad has contributed

SC: We are not going into those details

SC disallows the request of Sr Adv Colin Gonsalves to have the allotment scheme be advertised in regional media for more attention

SC: these writ petitions essentially challenge the validity of certain clauses of the rehabilitation scheme. broadly 6 issues have been raised before us. first challenge is to the clause providing for eligibility criteria.

SC: as per petitioner if flats are built under PMAY, the eligibility criteria cannot be restricted to the 3 parameters specified in clause A. It is urged that under the central scheme the incumbent can produce aadhaar or voter id or any other unique ID number

SC: As regards to documents required to substantiate the eligibilty under the corproation scheme refers to voter list and electric connection besides parivar pehchan patra. it will be open to aspiring persons for rehabiliatation to rely on documents referred to in central scheme

SC: However those documents by itself cannot be the basis of other vital facts that the structure referred to by applicant exists before the cut off date specified,

SC: the structure was demolished and no one else from family of occupant of such demolished structure has applied for allotment for rehabilitation..This has to be verified by the corporation.

SC: In our opinion the challenge to the scheme can be modulated only to this extent, even if the persons rely on central govt list documents for allotment, it has to furnish other documents as per the scheme for other purposes under the scheme

SC: Second grievance made is about the cost factor. as far as cost factor is concerned, clause F(8(A) cost of flat has been assessed at 3.77 lakhs ..this cost has been decided by the govt and not determined by the corporation.

SC: Cost of the 2013 flats cannot be the basis for the grievance of the petitioner what is relevant to note is that allotee will not be required to deposit entire cost of flat upfront but paying it over 20 years on subsidized rates on interest of 2.5 percent only

SC: Thus the monthly cost of this flat by a family would be 1572 only.. suffice is to observe that dispute on cost is rejected. the next challenge is to electricity and other charges.

SC: it will be open to allottee to make representation before authority so as to explain if a deafult was committed and is liable to pay an amount.

SC: We clarify that we are not dealing with all situations and it has to be dealt on case to case basis. so far we observe that the provision is reasonable if implemented in correct perspective.

SC: It is not possible to alter the cut off date and reopen the entire rehabilitation process. #supremecourt #khorigaon

SC: We do not wish to reopen the allotment process which is already delayed.

SC: Solatium has now been made part of this scheme and upper limit has been specified and in our reading is reasonable condition. provisional accmodation being provided paying solatium to such allottees does not arise

SC:Last challenge to this scheme was in respect of clause 11. according to the petitioner they used to carry on commercial activity in the premise...the eligible person allotted the flat can only use it for residential purposes. accordingly even this challenge does not impress us

AAG: Something else is happening on the ground

Parikh: dont say like that.. nothing is happening

SC: You may not be knowing it what is on the ground you are only here Mr Parikh. Mr Gonsalves must be already filing a PIL..

SC: We hereby dispose of all applications dealing with challenge to the rehabilitation scheme #supremecourt #khorogaon

#SupremeCourt now begins hearing the matter where the top court had clarified that no unauthorized construction can take place in forest areas

Sr Adv Vikas Singh: PLPA notification does not itself make it a forest land

Sr Adv ADN Rao requests to submit as Amicus Curiae: permit me to file a note. it has been repeatedly been held as a forest.. impact of PLPA will impact Shivalik and Punjab

Singh: Please look at TN Godavarman, MC Mehta and BS Sandhu cases.

Singh: List it on November 26, 2021
#supremecourt