Latest news with #MaharashtraRegionalTownPlanning
Indian Express
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Vile Parle Jain temple demolition: HC extends status quo of Jain temple for four weeks
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal by the Trust which runs Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle (East), that challenged an order of the city civil court refusing interim protection from the BMC's demolition action. On April 16 this year, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished most of the Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle that sparked outrage and protests from members of the Jain community. The HC observed that the BMC's action cannot be faulted with and there was no 'illegality' or 'perversity' in the impugned order of the city civil court . A single-judge bench of Justice Gauri V Godse issued an order, allowing the status quo it granted on April 16 against further demolition to continue for another four weeks. This came after the judge was informed that appellant—Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust— had given an undertaking to the BMC that it will remove the temporary shed constructed for protection from monsoon before October 31 this year. On April 7, a city civil court had rejected the temple Trust's plea against demolition action but it gave the Trust interim protection from demolition for seven days to allow it to file an appeal in the high court. On April 15, the city civil court rejected an application by the temple Trust, seeking extension of interim protection from demolition. On April 16, the Trust informed the HC that the BMC officials and police were present at the site to begin demolition, after which the HC passed an order that status quo in respect of the suit structure as of now shall be maintained, However, the court was informed that most of the structure had already been demolished. Senior advocate Surel Shah, representing the Trust, on Tuesday sought the HC's interference in the impugned order, stating that the BMC could not have initiated the action at the subject premises. However, advocate Drupad Patil for the BMC submitted that there was no restrictive order against it to take an action. The HC noted that two separate actions were initiated by the BMC in December, 2024, including one implementing its notice under Section 53 (notice against unauthorised development) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The notice issued by BMC under said provision was confirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Trust had withdrawn its challenge against the implementation of the said notice. The second notice was issued by the BMC under Section 488 (inspection of premises by civic authorities) under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act. The HC further noted that the BMC was not prevented from taking action of implementing notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as the same had attained the finality before the Supreme Court and the Trust 'would not be entitled to seek any relief'. 'Thus, the prima facie opinion expressed by city civil court in impugned order to refuse grant of any interim relief cannot be faulted. In the absence of any prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the reasons recorded in impugned order cannot be faulted,' the HC observed. 'I do not see any legality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed,' Justice Godse held. The HC said that it will pass an order on other appeals and contempt plea along with issue of removal of debris on Wednesday, July 9.
Indian Express
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
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.'
Indian Express
18-06-2025
- Indian Express
Portions of seven structures near airport removed for height violations, action will continue: State to HC
The state government on Wednesday informed the Bombay High Court that portions of seven structures in the vicinity of the Mumbai International Airport that flouted height norms have been removed and the suburban district collector has complied with the court orders. The government reply stated that the Mumbai Suburban Collector's office will coordinate with the BMC and Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for 'any action as may be required to be carried out in the future.' A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, in 2019, raising concerns about airport safety. The plea had sought actions against the owners or developers of high-rise buildings/structures around Mumbai airport, that created 'obstacles' and caused threats to take-off and landing of flights. In July 2022, the HC had directed the collector to take steps to remove 48 structures consisting of unauthorised portions of buildings near Mumbai Airport flouting height norms and are in the way of approach surfaces of runaways. On March 26 and May 6, the bench had asked the collector to remove the concerned portions from the seven structures including the portions at Faiz CHSL, Allwin Apartments CHSL, Fazal House CHSL and Farzaan Apartment CHS in Kurla. The offending portions also included those from two structures at Rizwi Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Wing C and E and an offending portion at Dheeraj Heritage Premises in Santacruz (West). The compliance affidavit filed through the Collector's office stated that all of the owners have removed the portions including water tanks, antenna, iron pipes and have also made changes in respect of the concrete structures. The affidavit further stated that the removal of structures was confirmed by Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) after an inspection. The affidavit further stated that in addition to compliance of HC directions, it has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the planning authority, to issue notices under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act to remove unauthorised structures. The bench took the affidavit submitted by Government Pleader Neha Bhide on record and posted further hearing after four weeks to be heard by an appropriate bench not consisting of Justice Marne, as he recused from hearing the matter.
Indian Express
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Take action against encroachments on Jewish cemetery land, Bombay HC tells Panvel civic body
The Bombay High Court on Monday directed Panvel Municipal Corporation (PMC) to remove unauthorised or illegal constructions on land belonging to a 200-year-old Jewish cemetery. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a plea by Jewish Heritage Trust, filed through its chief trustee Raymond A Gadkar alleging that certain encroachments in the form of unauthorised hutments and hoardings are made on its land reserved for Jewish community's burial rituals and repeated complaints to PMC have availed no action. The Trust, through senior advocate A S Khandeparkar, claimed that despite ongoing proceedings before legal forums, the PMC has repeatedly failed to take any action against the alleged encroachers despite it having identified them. The plea also raised grievances over the discharge of waste generated through the encroachments into the holy Israeli tank/lake. The petitioner Trust, which was formed to manage and protect Jewish heritage sites, said the tank is used to wash/clean the bodies prior to their burial as per Jewish rituals. 'Undoubtedly, under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act,1966 and Maharashtra Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, 1949, the Panvel Municipal Corporation is under a statutory obligation to remove encroachment and to keep the water bodies clean,' the HC noted. The court noted that whether the alleged construction was raised on a plot belonging to Subhan Shah Dargah or on the designated cremation ground of the petitioner Trust was 'a question of fact,' which it could not determine under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the court directed the ward officer of PMC to all persons or parties who may be in occupation of the concerned land and then take action against structures/encroachments as per law and the said exercise be completed within three months. The HC clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter and any person or party aggrieved due to demolition or removal action was at liberty to take recourse to the remedy prescribed under the law. The court then disposed of the plea.
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Maha restricts deletion of cemetery from urban DP
Mumbai: The state govt has issued directions under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act to all urban local bodies not to delete reservations for cemeteries/burial grounds from their development plans (DP). Any change of reservation of a plot reserved for cemeteries/burial grounds or deletion of such a reservation will now require cabinet approval. Maharashtra has 29 municipal corporations, 232 municipal councils, and 125 Nagar Panchayats. In an order issued early this month, the state urban development department (UDD) observed that several urban local bodies have issued notices under section 37(1) of the MRTP for modification of their DP to delete reservations for cemeteries/burial grounds. Section 37(1) empowers the Planning Authority to modify a final DP, but only if the changes do not alter the plan's overall character. Also, these proposals are being submitted to the govt for its approval. A senior govt official said the deletion of reservation for cremation/burial grounds is being increasingly sought from smaller municipal corporations and councils. "Often, these reservations are put on plots owned by private persons. Many do not want this reservation. We received proposals seeking change of use to Green Zone, Sewage Treatment Plant, and also deletion," said the official. The order states that as population in areas of urban local bodies is continuously increasing, reservation of graveyards/burial grounds is made in the development plan. "Exclusion of such reservations from DP deprives local citizens of the facility, hurts the religious sentiments of citizens, and creates law and order issues." The order further states that in public interest, the govt has issued a directive under section 154 of the MRTP Act to prevent encroachment on existing graveyards and burial grounds, not to regularise encroachment no matter how old it is, and no change to be made to reservation. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now Tips and Tricks Undo Advocate Gayatri Singh said a particular process is followed by local bodies before reservations are placed in a DP and a similar procedure is to be followed to delete/change a reservation. "By issuing such a directive, state govt is taking away the rights of local bodies and is opening doors for change/deletion of other reservations. It is completely illegal," she said.
