In slum rehabilitation schemes HC upholds decision for open spaces, says 35% be strictly reserved for public park
The Bombay High Court on Thursday upheld the state government's 2022 regulation permitting non-buildable open spaces exceeding 500 square metres in the city to be used for slum rehabilitation (SR) schemes.
However, it has directed that at least 35% of the vacant space on such lands used for SR Schemes must be treated as a public amenity, such as a functional and usable public park, and not as a private area for residents only.
The HC was hearing the plea, challenging the consistent use of public open spaces (POS) that are reserved for recreational purposes to implement SR schemes.
Such public open spaces used for SR schemes are those which are otherwise non-buildable and reserved under the Development Plan for parks, gardens, playgrounds, etc.
The HC also directed the BMC to complete the GIS-based mapping and geo-tagging of all plots designated as open space in the sanctioned development plan and the same be published on its website within four months.
The bench said that once the SR project is completed, 35 % of its open space must be handed over to civic bodies for management within 90 days of obtaining occupation certificate for the project, unless the corporation permits joint maintenance with housing a society and such space shall not be enclosed or restrict entry of local public. 'No portion of the open space shall be reserved exclusively for any private group, resident association, or developer,' it noted.
The HC directed the state government and Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to form a dedicated committee or appoint a senior officer to oversee implementation of regulation on the ground and quarterly reports be submitted to the SRA and Urban Development Department (UDD), which shall be uploaded on their websites.
A division bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan passed a verdict on a plea by NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) and others, argued through senior advocate Shiraz Rustomjee.
The petitioners had challenged the Regulation 17 (3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034 under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act inserted in the year 2022.
The impugned decision allowed that non-buildable open spaces of over 500 square metres can be used for SR schemes, provided 35 % of the ground area is kept vacant and continued to serve the designated public reservation.
However, the petitioners argued that the said regulation in effect legalised the diversion of up to 65 % of land from the reserved public use and permitted its use for construction. Therefore, the said regulation diluted the purpose of reservation and was robbing Mumbai of its much-needed green and open spaces,' they added.
Rustomjee argued that public parks and open spaces 'should not be sacrificed to accommodate encroachments or private development, even under the banner of welfare schemes.'
The petitioners further argued that the 2022 decision was an extension of the 1992 notification, They added that that while the 1992 notification sought minimum plot size of 1000 square metres, the 2022 regulation reduced it to 500 square metres, which will lead to more smaller open plots available for construction and further reducing already scarce open space in the city.
In a 191-page judgement, Justice Borkar for the bench observed that the impugned decision 'tries to achieve the balance' that the government has to strike between its duties to protect, improve urban environment and to ensure shelter and safety for weaker sections of the society.
Upholding the validity of the regulation in question, the HC also said disciplinary action be taken in case of any violations and projects retaining more than 35 % vacant space should be encouraged. It also directed the BMC to give ward wise action plans listing all reserved open spaces to UDD and conduct quarterly inspections to identify encroachments.
Among a slew of directions, the court also asked the state government to undertake a comprehensive policy review of the impugned regulation within two years. It said that HC verdict should not be 'read as giving a free hand to the State to reduce open spaces in the city.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Mumbai now loudspeaker-free after CM intervened, say police
EVEN AS the issue of removal of loudspeakers from mosques by police in the past few weeks led to opposition by some religious organisations, Mumbai Police Saturday said the city is now 'loudspeaker-free'. Officials said that it was Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis who held a series of meetings with delegations from the two communities to amicably resolve the issue. Confirming that its personnel successfully completed a comprehensive crackdown on public address systems at all religious structures, Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti on Saturday said that Mumbai is now 'loudspeaker-free from all religious structures'. Earlier this year, the Bombay High Court had directed the government to ensure that action was taken against loudspeaker violations. The police commissioner, refuting claims of selective targeting, made it clear that religious structures of a particular community were not singled out. While the ban on permanent loudspeakers is now in effect, the police commissioner clarified that temporary permissions for the use of loudspeakers will be granted during religious festivals. In the past few days, however, some Muslim organisations had alleged that the police were taking down all loudspeakers irrespective of whether they were violating norms or not. Some delegations had also met senior police officers and also written to CM Fadnavis against it. Sources in the government said that CM Fadnavis held a series of meetings with delegations representing Hindus, Muslims and others to amicably resolve the controversial loudspeaker ban on places of worship'. An official said, 'Fadnavis had made it clear that the state government will strictly adhere to the rules and directives of the High Court. And it would be applicable to all.' He also indicated that the state will not allow any confrontation or law and order issue arising on the subject. 'Therefore, before initiating any action, Fadnavis who also holds the Home portfolio, held detailed discussions with top police officers in order to guide them how to go ahead with the drive,' the official said. Apart from that Fadnavis also spoke to Muslim leaders and impressed upon them the significance of adhering to Court orders on loudspeakers. On June 25, a group of Muslim delegation met Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, complaining that police were removing loudspeakers from mosques in the state. NCP leader Nawab Malik, along with former AIMIM MLA Warris Pathan, his party legislator and daughter Sana Malik, Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi, and others, had called upon Ajit Pawar to raise their concerns. The deputy CM assured them he would look into the matter. At the same time, he also brought to their notice Bombay High Court order, which prescribed permissible decibel limits mandatory for all places of worship. According to the Bombay High Court ruling, the permissible sound level for loudspeakers is 55 decibels during the daytime and 45 decibels at night. In addition, loudspeakers are not permitted between 10 pm and 6 am.
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Abu Azmi moves Bombay High Court, seeks dismissal of FIRs over Aurangzeb remark
Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Azmi has approached the Bombay High Court seeking the dismissal of two FIRs registered against him for the Aurangzeb remark, leading to his suspension from the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha Assembly budget session in March this plea is to be heard by the bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil on plea, filed by advocate Mubin Solkar, states that Azmi had never made any derogatory remarks against the Maratha king or any other Hindu ruler. Azmi had alleged that his statements had been quoted out of context by his political opponents to draw political Azmi represents Mankhurd Shivaji Nagar assembly constituency from Mumbai's eastern suburbs. Azmi was booked by the Marine Drive police for his remarks hailing Mughal emperor Aurangzeb. The controversy erupted on March 3, when Azmi called Aurangzeb a 'good administrator', adding that during his reign, India's borders reached Afghanistan and Burma. Azmi further said that if Aurangzeb had destroyed temples, he had also destroyed mosques. The comments were made in the context of the release of the film Chhava which depicted the conflict between Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj and had made his comments to a media channel outside the Assembly which later snowballed in such a way that the Assembly Session was disrupted the next day and BJP leader and Higher Education Minister Chandrakant Patil moved a resolution seeking his suspension from the FIRs were registered against Azmi at Thane, which were later transferred to the Marine Drive police station. Azmi moved the Mumbai Sessions court for anticipatory bail. While granting bail in both the cases, the court had rapped the investigators for registering FIRs even before going through the contents of Azmi's court also asked Azmi to exercise restraint while giving interviews. 'Any irresponsible statement can cause riots and create a law-and-order problem. I hope the applicant, being a senior politician, will understand his responsibility,' the court observed.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
15 hours ago
- Indian Express
Laundering of Rs 540 crore of ‘drug money': Majithia's conduct was doubtful, says former ED deputy director
Former deputy director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) Niranjan Singh, who probed the alleged money laundering charges against former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia and also recorded his statement in connection with the Jagdish Bhola drug-racket case before being transferred, on Saturday said the conduct of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader in the entire case was 'doubtful.' This came a day after former Punjab director general of police (DGP) Siddharth Chattopadhyaya met a Vigilance Bureau team on Friday and shared his 'experience and knowledge' with its members regarding the drugs case registered against the former Akali minister in 2021. Singh, who appeared before the Vigilance Bureau in connection with their investigation into the alleged money laundering case against Majithia, said he had recorded his 'verbal statement' with the Bureau. 'Being with ED, I started the investigation in the case in 2013, and it went on till 2017. I was not able to complete that because I was transferred and promoted. I cannot reveal everything to the media as the investigation is pending. We gather a lot of evidence in financial investigations. I can just add that there is a doubtful conduct,' he said, referring to Majithia. The bureau on June 25 arrested Majithia in the case allegedly involving the laundering of Rs 540 crore of 'drug money'. The former Punjab minister was sent to a seven-day custody by a Mohali court on June 26. He also accused Majithia of getting him transferred out of Jalandhar when he was in the midst of the investigation. 'What the Punjab government is saying about linking drug money with disproportionate assets case, I have no link with that. There is no evidence of this link at this juncture. The investigation was delayed. The credit for the delayed investigation goes to Majithia. He got it done. I am saying this on record. I was transferred several times,' Singh said. 'The ED has a clear mandate: if an FIR is lodged under the NDPS Act case and recovery is made, then the agency enters into it and takes details about how crime money was generated, laundered and investigated. There were 102 accused, and they were investigated. I was not able to complete it. I had the support of the department for many years. When I summoned Majithia in 2014, I was transferred to Kolkata. The HC later cancelled this transfer. There was non-cooperation by the department after that, and some steps were taken by the authorities which do not go in favour of the investigation.' 'I told them that now I am retired. I have no documents. They can get copies of those documents from the ED. I will come and certify those,' Singh said. Recalling the case, he said, 'The initiation of investigation was done as a case of drugs. I investigated for the ED and submitted the status report to the high court. The HC examined the report and gave it to the STF. The STF examined it and gave its observation to the HC. The court then directed the Punjab government to take action, but the government did not take action.' He said the 2021 FIR was based on the status report filed by him and the STF. 'Now, the Vigilance is investigating the money laundering. Because the initiation of the investigation was done by me, they wanted me to come and help them. I can say the documents in both cases are the same. It is the same story and the same facts. The money laundering is linked. They have to do the investigation now,' Singh said. 'When we started the investigation, drug kingpin Jagdish Bhola's statement was recorded. Majithia's name is mentioned in his statement. Later, I investigated Bittu Aulakh. He, too, wrote his name. Bhola has been convicted. I got 17 accused convicted, and their illegal property was attached and confiscated. This case has the same ground. The guilty are behind bars,' Singh said. He said, 'The matter is still under investigation. Whatever is in the court and public domain, I can tell. Some people in contact with him were in Canada. We sought an investigation report about them from the Canadian government. The government never sent it to us. They were Satpreet Satta, Amrinder Singh Laddi, Parminder Singh Pindi and many others.' 'I have recorded statements in which his name figures. I have submitted the report to the court. Based on those statements only, 17 persons were convicted. That means the court agreed with my statements and evidence,' he said. He said, 'The challan was to be presented by the SIT, but they did not. I can only help whenever an agency seeks my help.' He said that the Vigilance had never contacted him earlier. 'I have given a verbal statement. The police have to record it. I gave the details of the Bhola drug case and what came into the investigations about Majithia. I had submitted the statements of Bhola and Aulakh in the trial court. The contents of their statement were required by the VB. I have told them about it.' 'I am neither in favour nor against anyone. I am only responsible for the investigation I have done. There is no politics as far as my investigation is concerned. There are many statements, there are revelations, and the accused has named him. Since the investigation is pending, it is not fair to say anything. The investigation is going on, and is live and in progress. It has not been closed,' he added.
