The High Court has rejected an appeal challenging the constitutional validity of the amended Development Control Regulation 33(5) that deals with eviction for redevelopment.
Five members of a cooperative society from Nehru Nagar had opposed a redevelopment scheme and their contention was that DCRs are framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the government cannot legally make the provisions of Section 95 (A) of the MHADA Act,dealing with eviction,applicable to a redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(5).
They argued the amendment was in violation of the Constitution and the MRTP Act itself. They also contended the summary powers of eviction under the MHADA Act were in violation of the Constitution as these powers rest with the administrative officers who had no legal acumen and are prone to pass cryptic orders.
MHADA counsel G W Mattos contended the DCR framed under the relevant section of the Town Planning Act had statutory force and are deemed part of the MRTP Act,and this had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a Pune Municipal Corporation case.
He argued that in view of this,provisions of one law can be validly incorporated into another and in this case the provisions of Section 95(a) incorporated in the amended DCR 33(5).
This contention was accepted by a division bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice D Y Chandrachud who also observed that 39 out of 40 members had given their consent for the redevelopment scheme,including four of the five petitioners.
The court rejected the appeal for protection on the grounds that four of the five petitioners had themselves consented to the redevelopment scheme and 34 members were residing at the transit camp for more than a year.