Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
-
unless the State assists them by providing access to shelter and food.
An expanded meaning of Article 21 must be adopted. Such a reading would cover a
The earliest housing programme was the rehabilitation of refugees after partition
Since then, various schemes for urban areas and rural areas have been framed
First housing policy in 1988, followed by New National Housing Policy in 1994
National Housing and Habitat Policy 1998- involved various stakeholders, dealt with
repeal of the Urban land ceiling act, permitted FDI in housing and real estate.
Policy of 2007 focussed more on challenges of shelter and growth of slums
A conference of CMs in 1996 included the provision of public housing assistance as
1985.
The major scheme for rural areas is the Indira Awas Yojana (1999)- aimed to replace
beneficiaries
Problems in selection- selection conducted by Gram Sabha leads to influential
families being selected only landed persons getting funds assistance inadequate,
leads to poor quality
Bharat Nirman Programme- Non targeted programme works for social inclusion
non-mission cities.
Two criteria had to be met for projects to be eligible for assistance- minimum area of
allotment
Rajiv Awas Yojana (Under the JNNURM) similar to IAY but for urban slum
dwellers state support to assign property rights to slum dwellers
Francis Coralie v UoI (SC 1981) Right to life means life with dignity includes
shelter
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (SC 1985)BMC sought to evict
street dwellers and squatters without law HELD that such an eviction from
dwellings would violate right to livelihood which is part of Article 21 close nexus
between right to life and livelihood if not possible to live then no livelihood. That
which makes life liveable must be fundamental right. (Allowed eviction with due
notice)
reasonable.
P Gupta v Gujarat (SC 1995) Right to residence and settlement fundamental
under Art 19 facet of meaningful right to life under Art 21 imperative that state
make provisions for permanent housing which would be within economic means of
the poor
Karnataka v Narasimhamurthy (SC 1996) Right is only meaningful id State
provides facilities Acquisition for this purpose is for public purpose
Recognised provision of housing as a public purpose which can qualify under the
urgency clause
Kasiredi Papaiah v AP (APHC 1975) Court appraised of appalling condition of
SC and ST houses in such a circumstance, emergency provision of land acquisition
was justified.
UP v Pista Devi ( SC 1986) Here, urgency clause justified due to problem faced by