Laxmi Teli, 60, is a physically challenged widow living on plot no 30 at Golibar slums in Santa Cruz (East). Having lived in the same house (serial no 152) in Sayunkta Jagruti SRA Cooperative Housing Society for 40 years, she has just been told that she is ineligible for a house under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
“I have electricity bills on this address since 1976 and voter’s ID since 1988. Now, Mhada tells me that my brother-in-law living on the floor above me (serial no 153) is eligible for rehabilitation, but I’m not.?”said Laxmi.
Before Teli’s husband passed away in August 2008, he made monthly payments towards the society’s maintenance from 1993 to 2007. But his name was excluded from the SRA list with the remark: “Serial no 152 and 153 are one structure” and “Serial no 153 – Eligible”. Serial number 153 is registered under the name of Teli’s brother-in-law Ankush.
Laxmi filed an appeal in the high court a few weeks ago, saying: “Serial number 152 was included by the state authority in the first proposal before slum rehabilitation in 1995 on serial number 214 in the name of my husband, who entered into an agreement with the society, ANPL Developers, for the SRA project.”
Determined to fight it out, Laxmi’s son Ramchandra said, “Most residents facing the same problem have left, but we will fight the builder, Mhada and SRA till the end.”
Stating that 15 people living on the ground floor faced a similar problem, Abha Tandel, an activist living in Golibar, alleged it was a ploy to split the movement against the builder, who has been implicated in forgery cases in the CAG report.
An SRA official, on condition of anonymity, said: “I am not aware of such a rule.”
Builders are using the divide-and-rule policy to prevent a major revolt and are sending demolition notices in batches, alleged Tandel, adding that so far, 10,000 families have been displaced.
“They have not completed phase one of the project, yet they are pushing for demolition for phase three,” said Sushant Gamre, another resident.
Builder Ramakant Jadhav of Shivalik Ventures was unavailable for comment despite repeated attempts.