Latest news with #DevelopmentControlandPromotionRegulations
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Activist opposes Bandra Reclamation project, says MSRDC can't act as private landholder
MUMBAI: Activist Zoru Darayus Bhathena on Tuesday filed a rejoinder in the Bombay high court with regards to his April 2024 petition questioning the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation's (MSRDC) decision to allocate 24 acres in Bandra Reclamation to Adani Realty for commercial development. The plot is located close to the Bandra Worli Sea Link (HT Photo) The rejoinder contended that the 24 acres were part of a 57-acre plot which comes under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and thus, cannot be exploited for commercial use. The MSRDC cannot act as a private landowner as the land came into being for the purpose of the Bandra Worli Sea Link – a public project, it said. The original petition, filed in April 2024, was also in force to restrain the MSRDC and other respondents from using the plot in a manner that was legally impermissible and contrary to public interest, the rejoinder stated. The rejoinder was necessitated as the Adani group firm that won the bid to develop the plot had claimed in court that the land belonged to the MSRDC and the corporation had allowed its commercial exploitation. The MSRDC too had contended that a writ directing it to use the land in a particular way was not maintainable as the land no longer fell within the CRZ area. The prime land parcel located along the Bandra Worli Sea Link approach road faces the Mahim Bay and is valued at an estimated ₹ 30,000 crore. It currently houses a casting yard and the MSRDC office, and it has been allocated for commercial and residential use as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034. In the detailed affidavit submitted on Tuesday, Bhathena disputed claims in the tender for commercial development of the plot, which said the project area was confined to 24 acres of land 'freely available for development'. The 24 acres were part of the 57-acre plot which Bathena's original petition had mentioned, and commercial exploitation of even the 24 acres was not allowed as the entire plot was located in the CRZ area where such development was prohibited, the affidavit said. Bathena claimed that the land was previously owned by the state government and it was vested with the MSRDC via an order dated January 30, 2018. Several conditions were imposed on MSRDC when the land was transferred, including obtaining prior approvals for any development on the plot from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF). 'By seeking to restrain MSRDC from acting contrary to the conditions, which were clearly intended for public benefit and which are now brazenly being breached by MSRDC, I merely seek to enforce against MSRDC covenants on the basis of which the land was granted to it,' Bhathena submitted in court. The affidavit further stated that the MSRDC was permitted to reclaim the land on the express assurance that it would be kept open and developed as a 'green area'. Conditions were incorporated in the environmental clearance on the ground that only a road would be constructed and the remaining portion would be left open. Bhathena told the court that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) had, in its reply to the court on March 6, 2025, stated that the land was under the Coastal Regulation Zone. The civic body had referred to the land as 'no development zone' within the CRZ II-Greater Mumbai area. 'Even assuming whilst denying that the land falls outside the CRZ area, the commercial exploitation of the land still remains prohibited,' said Bathena. He submitted that Mumbai has just 1.1 square meters (about 1 square foot) of open space per person as compared to the recommended 10 square meters. If commercial exploitation of the land which was reclaimed on the express assurance that it would be kept open and green was permitted, yet another precious public resource would stand appropriated in favour of private interests, he said. HT reached out to the Adani group for comments on the development, but there was no response from the company.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
BMC issues public notice on special provision for ‘iconic buildings'
MUMBAI: The state government's move to create 'iconic buildings' in space-starved Mumbai is beginning to take shape. Amid concerns that these structures could lead to an FSI windfall for developers, the civic administration has issued a notice inviting objections and suggestions from the public on a special provision introduced by the state in the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. BMC headquarters (Hindustan Times) The special provision, under Regulation 33(27), allows for the creation of structures of 'architectural excellence'. It defines what an iconic building is and the eligibility criteria for developers to construct such a structure. The objections and suggestions have been invited by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as it will be the primary planning authority for such proposals in Mumbai. Under the proposed new regulation, iconic buildings are those that display exceptional uniqueness in shape, size, aesthetic appeal, architectural or structural design, urban integration, or conceptual and thematic innovation. HT was the first to report on iconic buildings on October 1, 2022. To qualify to submit a proposal under this regulation, the builder should have developed at least 1 million square metres of built-up area in previously completed projects, or should have recorded an annual turnover of not less than ₹ 5,000 crore in any one of the last three financial years. In exceptional cases, if a proposal is submitted by a renowned architect who has previously designed and delivered a globally recognised iconic building, the selection committee may consider relaxing these eligibility norms. The notice states that the permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) will be in accordance with the provisions of DCPR 2034. However, subject to committee recommendation, the state may grant additional FSI upon payment of a premium that will be divided between the BMC and the state government in a two-thirds to one-third ratio, respectively. Moreover, architectural or elevational elements that contribute to the building's iconic nature but are non-habitable in nature may be considered for exemption from FSI calculation, with no premium levied, subject to government approval following committee scrutiny. Each proposal will be evaluated by a specially constituted committee led by the municipal commissioner. 'The committee will comprise distinguished individuals from various fields, including global architecture, visual arts, business and urban planning. The municipal commissioner will also appoint two more experts from the academic or professional domains of architecture and urban design. Only five proposals can be recommended each year, and these will be announced officially on significant national days such as January 26, May 1, or August 15,' the notice states. The project must be located on an independent plot and at least 40% of its space must be accessible to the public, either for free or through tickets or bookings. The developer will be responsible for the lifelong upkeep and maintenance of the building or premises. All statutory regulations concerning environmental clearance, heritage conservation, coastal zone regulation, aviation, and archaeology must be complied with by the developer. The concept of iconic buildings is already raising eyebrows. 'The definition of 'iconic building' in the regulation is vague and open-ended. Contrary to the commonly understood meaning of iconic structures as culturally or historically significant landmarks, the regulation appears designed to benefit a select few developers,' said advocate Godfrey Pimenta from Watchdog Foundation. Pimenta told HT, 'The eligibility conditions requiring a minimum of 1 million sq m built-up area or ₹ 5,000 crore turnover effectively restricts access to a handful of large developers. Furthermore, the state government would be an unchecked authority to grant additional FSI at 50% of ASR land rates, with no upper cap, raising concerns of arbitrary and preferential treatment,' he said.
India Today
20-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Judiciary shouldn't override public policy: Court backs slum rehab on open land
The Bombay High Court has refused to strike down a provision under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which allows the use of public open spaces for slum redevelopment projects. The court said that decisions related to urban planning should be left to the authorities and not the judiciary unless there is a clear violation of legal or constitutional bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sunderasan delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by an alliance of NGOs in 2002. The petition challenged the use of open spaces, meant for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, for slum rehabilitation schemes. The petitioners argued that the policy went against the principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, which protects public assets from private court examined regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the DCPR 2034, which permits reserved open spaces above 500 square metres to be used for slum redevelopment. The policy requires that at least 35 per cent of the ground area be left vacant and continue to serve public purposes. The bench said, "The regulation shows a sincere attempt to balance two competing rights, exactly as the Constitution requires. It supports a vision of environmental well-being that also respects human dignity, and promotes a model of urban growth that includes the poor, rather than pushing them to the city's margins."advertisementIt also said that courts must respect the limits of judicial review. "This does not mean that courts have no role. As constitutional protectors, courts must step in where a policy violates the law, infringes fundamental rights, or is arbitrary and unfair," the bench added."But, even while doing so, the court must remain within the boundaries of judicial review and avoid functioning as a policymaking authority, particularly when the government has followed due process and attempted to balance competing interests in an open and fair manner," the court further the High Court had passed an ad-interim order restraining the government from approving any new slum rehabilitation schemes on such lands without court permission. The interim order remained in effect for nearly two decades, during which time several developers and housing societies had to approach the court to seek Watch IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Hindustan Times
20-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
HC upholds in-situ rehab of slum dwellers on 65% of encroached open spaces
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday upheld the validity of a clause in Mumbai's development plan that permits 65% of encroached land reserved for public open spaces to be utilised for in-situ rehabilitation of slum dwellers occupying the land. A bench of justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to strictly ensure that the remaining 35% of the reserved land remains available as public open space. The bench was ruling on a petition filed in 2002 by NAGAR, a Mumbai-based nonprofit that had challenged Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. The regulation allowed the use of 65% of encroached public open spaces that are not otherwise buildable and measure over 500 square metres in area for the in-situ rehabilitation of the encroachers via a slum rehabilitation scheme. The remaining 35% area is to be retained as public open space, according to the regulation. Refusing to interfere with the regulation, the bench said, 'It is a balanced policy that aims to recover a part of the land while also ensuring humane rehabilitation. This approach is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional.' The bench added that the regulation reflects a practical solution to a difficult and long-standing issue between encroachments and the need for preserving public open spaces to protect the fundamental right of citizens to a healthy environment. Although the regulation reduces the reserved open space existing on paper, it ensures that at least 35% of the encroached land is freed and developed as a public amenity, the judges said. At the same time, it provides better housing and infrastructure to slum dwellers, they added. 'This approach does not destroy environmental values. It tries to recover some environmental benefit from already encroached lands, while also recognising the housing rights of the urban poor,' the bench said. What petitioners said NAGAR's petition, filed through its trustees Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia, challenged a notification issued by the state urban development department in 1992 and Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034. The petitioners contended that the notification and the regulation, in effect, legalised the diversion of 65% of the land for construction. This significantly diluted the purpose of the land's reservation and stripped the city of its much-needed green and open spaces, they said. According to the petitioners, the regulation went directly against the principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, which asserts that public assets such as parks and open spaces should be preserved for collective enjoyment of the community and should not be sacrificed to accommodate encroachments or private development, even under the banner of welfare schemes. The petitioners also highlighted that the definition of a 'protected occupier' under the Slum Act has undergone considerable changes over the years. A larger pool of slum dwellers on encroached land can now get in-situ rehabilitation, they said, as the original cut-off date for determining eligibility has been extended from January 1, 1976, to January 1, 2011. This has, in turn, increased the burden on scarce urban land, including reserved open spaces, the petitioners argued. The petition further pointed out that even the basic safeguard in the 1992 notification—that at least 25% of the reserved open space must be encroached upon to trigger a slum rehabilitation scheme on it—was entirely removed in the new regulation. This opened up even slightly encroached parks, gardens, and playgrounds for slum rehabilitation, thereby completely defeating the purpose of reservation under the development plan, it said. The petition argued that open spaces are critical for the livability and ecological balance of the city. It added that there is no reason why the relocation policy adopted for infrastructure projects such as railways, roads, or metro corridors, which require the land to be cleared, should not be applied to slum dwellers on public open spaces, which are as essential for the well-being of citizens. What court ruled The high court found no 'clear legal or constitutional defect' in the policy and 'no procedural irregularity or legal flaw' in the procedure. However, it added that a proper balance between the two facets of the right to life—right to healthy environment and right to shelter and a dignified life—would be achieved only if the remaining 35% of these lands are strictly maintained as public open spaces. To achieve this balance, the court directed that the remaining 35% open space must be clearly demarcated in the final approved layout plan of the slum scheme. The plan should also reflect the precise location and dimensions of the open space, which cannot be subsequently modified or shifted, it said. The bench restrained the SRA from granting approval to any slum rehabilitation proposal unless this requirement is 'visibly and verifiably' complied with. The court added that slum rehabilitation schemes on public open spaces should be approved only if the encroachment existed prior to the date of reservation, and the collector issues a certificate that alternate land to rehabilitate the slum dwellers is not available. The BMC was directed to prepare a ward-wise action plan listing all reserved open spaces, complete GIS-based mapping and geo-tagging of all these plots in four months, and upload the data on its website, along with the plots' current usage status. The court also directed the state government to review the policy to evaluate whether the 35:65 ratio serves the goals of sustainable development and come up with a new policy framework, if necessary.
Time of India
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC oks slum rehab on up to 65% encroached open space
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Thursday upheld the validity of a development regulation that permits two-thirds of public open spaces reserved for parks, gardens, playgrounds, etc and which exceed 500 sq m in area to be used for slum redevelopment schemes subject to a condition to keep at least the remaining one-third area vacant. Referring to Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034, Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan said, "The regulation reflects a practical approach to a difficult and long-standing issue, namely that removing all slums may not be possible, and losing all open spaces is not acceptable. It is a balanced policy which aims to recover part of the land while also ensuring humane rehabilitation. This approach is neither unreasonable or unconstitutional." The verdict came on a 2022 PIL by NGO Alliance for Governance and Renewal (NAGAR) and Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia of CitiSpace which challenged the 1992 notification of the Urban Development Department on allowing encroached reserved open public spaces for in-situ rehab of slum dwellers and the regulation 17 (3) (D) (2) of DCPR which was brought into effect in 2022. The petition said the regulation significantly dilutes the purpose of reservation, denuding the city of much-needed green and open spaces. This is directly against the principles of sustainable development and public trust doctrine which require that public assets such as parks and open spaces be preserved for collective enjoyment of the community, and not be sacrificed to accommodate encroachments or private development, even under the banner of welfare schemes. The judges found no procedural irregularity or legal flaw in the rule. They said it was not arbitrary or discriminatory and does not violate Article (14) (Right to Equality). The policy is applied uniformly, guided by measurable conditions, and attempts to balance two important public concerns, they said. They explained that the distinction made between encroached open lands and non-encroached ones, and between plots above and below a certain size, is based on clear and logical criteria "to provide in-situ rehabilitation to slum dwellers and, at the same time, preserve open spaces where feasible. " The judges did not find the regulation going against environmental principles. They said although it does reduce the open space originally reserved on paper, it ensures that at least 35% of the land is kept open, developed as a public amenity, and preserved. At the same time, it provides better housing and infrastructure to slum residents. "This approach does not destroy environmental values, it tries to recover some environmental benefit from already encroached lands while also recognising the housing rights of the urban poor," they added. The judges directed that in every slum redevelopment scheme, BMC and Slum Rehabilitation Authority must ensure at least 35% of total plot area "is clearly marked, preserved, and developed" as open space, to be "used for parks, gardens or playgrounds'' and should be in one "continuous stretch and not scattered into unusable fragments." It must also be accessible to the general public. Any violation of the rule must be corrected and disciplinary action considered. The judges clarified that if future developments, such as ground-level data, environmental reports, or public grievances, show that the 35% open space is not enough, the State will be bound to revisit the policy.
