2

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF REAL

ESTATE
Assignment 1

RP20023-MANASVI SETHI
RP20023@nicmar.ac.in
2

1. Whether the procedure prescribed by section 314 is fair and reasonable?

Sec 314- Power to remove without notice anything erected, deposited or hawked in contravention
of section 312 the Commissioner may, without notice, cause to be removed.

fact checks – we run almost a 100 years behind a developed nation called “United State of America”
or the nation that is basically established by taking our country’s wealth called “United Kingdom”.
we also call it BRITAIN.
I feel the thought of strictness and equal treatment among the citizens of their country, irrespective
of their livelihood or status, is a major reason they have overcome poverty by almost more than
90%.
in India, the leniency towards the poor, encourages them to take illegitimate advantage and then
not work enough to gain equality in the society.
by allowing them the encroachment on streets or govt. lands, establishing the society, and passing it
on to the generations does not make them feel the need of proper pucca and cemented house. And
that of course leads it to never ending demeaning image.
if the strict laws against encroachment is stated, it would push them to work as much as the
affordability of the same. And this will most definitely increase the status of their lifestyle which
eventually will encourage them towards better.
this does not take away the fact that the daily wages in our country is so much low that this needs a
lot of change, and the inevitable social mentality.
but pure strictness to improve the nation and the lifestyle of its citizens is no harm.

2. Whether if the petitioners are evicted from their slum and pavement dwellings, they will be
deprived of their means of livelihood?

The Supreme Court of India took the view that right to life in Article 21 would not include right to
livelihood. In re Sant Ram Supreme Court ruled that right to life would not include right to livelihood.
The right to livelihood can only be included in Article 19 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India
and that too in a very limited sense. The Supreme Court reiterated this proposition in several cases
also. But then, the view of the court underwent a change. With the defining of the word ‘life’ in
Article 21 in a broad and expansive manner, the Court came to hold that the right to life includes
right to livelihood. This decision was made by the court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal
Corporation.

There is no doubt that for certain time period they will pe deprived of their livelihood and would
face a rough outway for the same.
but considering their lifestyle and their managerial capabilities, they will be able to wander a bit and
find out shelter in various ways.
but once they are removed from one place and not given a permanent shade on their head, this
problem will just shift from one place to another, since they will look for work on some other
capable site and the process will remain the same.
I strongly believe, that considering their problem for few next days, the action of finding the solution
should not be delayed. Because only a solution could help in for longer and farther better living
conditions.
I also support that if they be given warning of the same beforehand for a month or two, they will

RP20023-MANASVI SETHI 1
2

themselves migrate for their respective habitats, if also they be explained how unhygienic and life
risky it is for them having diseased infected cats and dogs wandering around, it is for them, they
will understand. And will willingly support the further measures.
How their children being malnourished and under nutrients already, their body not being immune
and vaccinated, even a small infection can cost them their children’s life.
The loss of livelihood on a temporary basis is much better than life risking lifestyle.

3. What will be the solution for the problem?

I would like to answer this question by also stating a a live example and would support my solution
through it.
as per right to livelihood by section.
stating the law – since the resides have officially encroached the land, over to which it is causing
problems to the by passers and other nearby residents
The solution needs to be diplomatic and should work in favour for the citizens of the country,
irrespective of their status.
I completely support the removal of huts under Sec 314- Power to remove without notice anything
erected, deposited or hawked in contravention of section 312 the Commissioner may, without
notice, cause to be removed
The habiters should be given a liveable area, pretty outskirts of the city, away from the societal area
of usual public, where the cost of the land and construction is not much.
token amount of 1 – 1.2 lc should be availed from each family for their unit. And they should be
given a bare minimum of 1bhk each.
knowing that they won’t be able to pay it at one go (considering their financial situation), govt
should provide them with a scheme of taking up a loan of minimal interest basis from the bank,
and they can pay back the loan on EMIs, they can afford.
through this, these unofficial residents will willingly leave the area, that benefits them and the
problems regarding the by passers will be solved.
In fact they can also be involved as the labour for the construction of the same which adds to their
daily employment and the wages fill help them repay the loan.
eg-
a similar case happened in the city of Kota, where this illegal encroachment problem was solved in a
similar manner, and they were then given a new establishment, with basic necessities, now known
as *Ajay Ahuja Nagar*.
the people happily agreed, and in fact have a possession under their own, where in there should be
a strict contract about how they cannot resale the property for their benefit and neither can they
put this on rent and earn from it, because then the entire agenda of encroachment will be blurred.

RP20023-MANASVI SETHI 2