Maharashtra
,
,
Mumbai Suburban
Published : 12 July, 2014   |   Last updated - 24 Jun, 2024
Hundreds rendered homeless amid monsoon after eviction drive in Powai's Jai Bhim Nagar
Reported by
Shubham Kothari
Legal Review by
Anmol Gupta
Updated by
Anupa Kujur
650
Households affected
3120
People Affected
2017
Year started
Land area affected
650
Households affected
3120
People Affected
2017
Year started
Land area affected
Key Insights
Sector
Infrastructure
Reason/Cause of conflict
Other Kind of Infrastructure
Conflict Status
Ongoing
Ended
Legal Status
Region Classification
Urban
Ended
1
Summary

Kantabai curses the rainfall for destroying her remaining belongings, as she continues to keep fighting for the land she was evicted from on 6 June, 2024. She now lives on the footpath adjacent to the demolished Jai Bhim Nagar.

The residents of Jai Bhim Nagar were anticipating demolitions since the public notice was posted near their settlement on 3 June, 2024. They sent a legal notice to the assistant municipal commissioner of S-ward of Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation on 5 of June. The notice mentioned of government resolution of Maharashtra government 2021, prohibiting eviction of all residential structures during monsoon period (1st June to 30 September). It further stated that the procedures laid out on eviction and rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the Maharashtra Slum Act 1971 were not being followed in the current demolition. Even after such a notice, the houses were demolished on 6 June 2024.

The settlement started emerging in 1994 when the area was sparsely populated. In 2007, Lake View Developers had lost in the Bombay High Court a case seeking the ownership of land (Appeal from order no. 320 of 2007). While the court denied Lake View Developers ownership rights, the developers sought permissions from MCGM to develop labour camp on the said land in the same year. These permissions were granted to them but were later revoked in 2014. The land was then [reserved for construction of Government offices](https://dpremarks.mcgm.gov.in/dp2034/reports/DP_SHEETS/SM Sheets 2034 08.05.2018/03 Eastern Suburbs/ES 37.PDF). However, the labour camps continued to exist.

In 2017, the MCGM ordered Lake View Developers to remove encroachments from the land for the construction of government offices. While the land records do not mention Lake View Developers as the owners of the said land, the MCGM continues to address them as the owners.

A case in the State Human Rights Commission in 2023, declared that Hiranandani builders was trying to encroach and occupy the land by settling a labour camp on the said land. On 3 June 2024, a public notice was issued declaring the hutments as illegal encroachments, leading to the evictions and violent clashes between police and residents on 6 June 2024.

On 6 June 2024, hundreds of policemen along with demolition squads of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) arrived in Jai Bhim Nagar to evict the residents. The residents claimed that the bouncers of Hiranandani builder had been harassing the locals for the past few days. On 6th June, the residents claimed that these bouncers started breaking into homes and attacking residents including children and women. This led to retaliation by locals.

The police, however, lathicharged and started beating the residents including women and children and trampling the portraits of Dr BR Ambedkar. This further escalated the violence, leading to stone pelting. As many as 20 police personnel, including an ACP rank officer, and five engineers of the BMC, were among 35 injured in the stone-pelting incident.
The police filed charges against 200 people and arrested 61 people under 19 different sections of IPC including Section 324 and 326. 

Since then, the evicted people have been braving the rains and living in plastic houses on the footpath trying to fight against the eviction through hunger strikes, protest marches and negotiations with Hiranandani and BMC officials.

2
Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Author
Reported by
Shubham Kothari

Maharashtra

Kumar Sambhav is a social entrepreneur and award-winning journalist, leading innovative research in accountability investigations. He is the founder of Land Conflict Watch and is currently working as India Research Lead with Princeton University’s Digital Witness Lab.

Read More

Latest updates
Gujarat
Gujarat

Amid protest, Gujarat scraps Par-Tapi-Narmada river-linking project

Himachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh

Protests by Kinnauri tribes halt hydro electric project in Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu

Villagers oppose greenfield airport for Chennai in Parandur, Tamil Nadu

Himachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh

Landowners affected by Renukaji dam project await fair compensation

Arunachal Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh

Hydroelectric projects on Subansiri river continue despite public outcry, disasters, and persistent floods

Gujarat
Gujarat

Farmers divided over Mandal-Becharaji Special Investment region in Gujarat

Gujarat
Gujarat

Farmers protest against GIDC in Gujarat, demand promised jobs, compensation

Goa
Goa

Proposed construction in Goa village blocks residents' access to agricultural fields, river

Fact sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Hundreds rendered homeless amid monsoon after eviction drive in Powai's Jai Bhim Nagar

Reported by

Shubham Kothari

Legal Review by

Sourabh Rai, Anmol Gupta

Edited by

Anupa Sagar Kujur

Updated by

Updated by

Published on

August 8, 2024

August 9, 2024

Edited on

August 8, 2024

Sector

Infrastructure

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Other Kind of Infrastructure

Government office construction

Starting Year

2017

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Households Affected by Conflict

650

People Affected by Conflict

3120

State

Maharashtra

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

3120

Households Affected by Conflict

650

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

ha

Starting Year

2017

Location of Conflict

Mumbai Suburban

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Other Kind of Infrastructure

Government office construction

Land Conflict Summary

Kantabai curses the rainfall for destroying her remaining belongings, as she continues to keep fighting for the land she was evicted from on 6 June, 2024. She now lives on the footpath adjacent to the demolished Jai Bhim Nagar.

The residents of Jai Bhim Nagar were anticipating demolitions since the public notice was posted near their settlement on 3 June, 2024. They sent a legal notice to the assistant municipal commissioner of S-ward of Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation on 5 of June. The notice mentioned of government resolution of Maharashtra government 2021, prohibiting eviction of all residential structures during monsoon period (1st June to 30 September). It further stated that the procedures laid out on eviction and rehabilitation of slum dwellers in the Maharashtra Slum Act 1971 were not being followed in the current demolition. Even after such a notice, the houses were demolished on 6 June 2024.

The settlement started emerging in 1994 when the area was sparsely populated. In 2007, Lake View Developers had lost in the Bombay High Court a case seeking the ownership of land (Appeal from order no. 320 of 2007). While the court denied Lake View Developers ownership rights, the developers sought permissions from MCGM to develop labour camp on the said land in the same year. These permissions were granted to them but were later revoked in 2014. The land was then [reserved for construction of Government offices](https://dpremarks.mcgm.gov.in/dp2034/reports/DP_SHEETS/SM Sheets 2034 08.05.2018/03 Eastern Suburbs/ES 37.PDF). However, the labour camps continued to exist.

In 2017, the MCGM ordered Lake View Developers to remove encroachments from the land for the construction of government offices. While the land records do not mention Lake View Developers as the owners of the said land, the MCGM continues to address them as the owners.

A case in the State Human Rights Commission in 2023, declared that Hiranandani builders was trying to encroach and occupy the land by settling a labour camp on the said land. On 3 June 2024, a public notice was issued declaring the hutments as illegal encroachments, leading to the evictions and violent clashes between police and residents on 6 June 2024.

On 6 June 2024, hundreds of policemen along with demolition squads of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) arrived in Jai Bhim Nagar to evict the residents. The residents claimed that the bouncers of Hiranandani builder had been harassing the locals for the past few days. On 6th June, the residents claimed that these bouncers started breaking into homes and attacking residents including children and women. This led to retaliation by locals.

The police, however, lathicharged and started beating the residents including women and children and trampling the portraits of Dr BR Ambedkar. This further escalated the violence, leading to stone pelting. As many as 20 police personnel, including an ACP rank officer, and five engineers of the BMC, were among 35 injured in the stone-pelting incident.
The police filed charges against 200 people and arrested 61 people under 19 different sections of IPC including Section 324 and 326. 

Since then, the evicted people have been braving the rains and living in plastic houses on the footpath trying to fight against the eviction through hunger strikes, protest marches and negotiations with Hiranandani and BMC officials.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for rehabilitation

Complaint against procedural violations

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Legislations/Policies Involved

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Section 33 [Planning authority may prepare comprehensive plans for development of particular areas, including slum areas. Such plans must go through the same procedure of public consultation]
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971
Section 3(1) [Declaration of an area as a 'slum area' by state government]; Section 3A [Appointment of a slum rehabilitation authority for areas falling under the Act. Such officials to ensure rehabilitation scheme for slums is implemented.] Section 3Z [State government must consider relocation and rehabilitation of occupants falling under this Act before eviction] 
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
Section (3)(1)(g) [Wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or interference with the enjoyment of his rights over any land will constitute an offence under the Act and is liable for punishment]
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Section (3)(1)(g) [Wrongful dispossession of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or interference with the enjoyment of his rights over any land will constitute an offence under the Act and is liable for punishment]
Sudama Singh v. Deepak Mohan Spolia (C.A. No(s). 21806-21807/2017, Supreme Court)
The High Court in the case had directed that before any eviction, the relevant authority must identify evictees eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. The state authorities must also ensure that basic civic liberties are ensured at the site of relocation. The Supreme Court confirmed this decision and stated that the directions passed in the High Court judgment must be complied with precisely.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, A/HRC/RES/43/14, dated July 6, 2020
The Guidelines state that the government must provide just compensation and sufficient accommodation to evictees immediately. At a minimum, the government must provide access to basic facilities such as food, water, and shelter, among others.
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

No

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Forced evictions/dispossession of land

Non-rehabilitation of displaced people

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

Yes

Name of the adjudicatory body

State Human Rights Commission

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

12462/CR/2023

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

The State Human Rights Commission of Maharashtra took up the complaint on December 28, 2023. The complaint was filed by a private person alleging that encroachments had taken over government land. The SHRC stated that the government authorities had failed to take appropriate action as per the complaint and issued summons to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. On June 27, 2024, the matter was disposed of by the SHRC. The counsel for the corporation stated that they had removed unauthorized labour hutments following the due process of the law.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Arrest/detention/imprisonment

Physical attack

Displacement

Lathicharge/teargas/pellets

Reported Details of the Violation:

On 6th June 2024, hundreds of policemen along with demolition squads of BMC arrived in Jai Bhim Nagar to evict the residents. The residents claimed that the bouncers of Hiranandani builder had been harassing the locals for the past few days. On 6th June, the residents claimed that these bouncers started breaking into homes and attacking residents including children and women. This led to retaliation by locals. The locals formed a human chain holding photos of Dr. BR Ambedkar. The police, however, lathicharged and started beating the residents including women and children and trampling the images of Dr BR Ambedkar. This further escalated the violence leading to stone pelting. Amidst this stone pelting, the police were informed about a women resident, Asha Chaure, who was locked in a house and claimed that her life was under threat from the attacks by residents. The residents refuted this claim. However, the police conducted a rescue operation to protect her and this led to use of excessive force from police. The police filed charges against 200 people and arrested 61 people under 19 different sections of IPC including Section 324 and 326.

Date of Violation

June 5, 2024

Location of Violation

Powai

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Stone pelting

Protests/marches

Referendum and other local consultations

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Public campaign

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Lake View Developers

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

No

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Stone pelting
Protests/marches
Referendum and other local consultations
Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)
Public campaign

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Lokmat Mumbai

Other Land Conflicts in Maharashtra

cross
    Not a member yet?
    Sign up now
    Conflicts Map
    Conflict Database
    About Us