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
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC initiates PIL on ‘tree felling' by a realtor in Gurugram
The Punjab and Haryana high court has initiated suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) on a news report about environmentalists and locals opposing reported felling of trees in Gurugram by a realtor. The report carried on June 12 by an English daily had stated that residents and environmentalists have launched protests over allegations of the process of felling of nearly 2,000 trees on an estimated 40 acre of land in DLF Phase 5 in Gurugram. The report said representatives of the Aravali Bachao Citizen's Movement also staged a protest outside a Haryana minister's residence and have also written to chief minister Nayab Singh Saini and union minister for environment for their intervention. The report had also quoted a senior officer of forest department of Haryana government claiming that it was not a forest land and was owned by the DLF for years. The HC vacation bench of justice Anil Kshetarpal and justice Aman Chaudhary while issuing notice for June 26, said that the issue raised in the petition was being taken up as PIL and listed it for June 26 for responses from the commissioner, municipal corporation, Gurugram and managing director, DLF Limited.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- 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.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Court rejects journalist Gautam Navlakha's plea, says he can't permanently stay in Delhi
MUMBAI: Observing that "permanently residing outside the court's jurisdiction is a completely separate matter from merely travelling beyond it", a special NIA court on Thursday rejected a plea by journalist Gautam Navlakha, an accused in the Elgar Parishad case, seeking permission to permanently reside in Delhi. Citing financial strain, unemployment, and an ailing 86-year-old sister, Navlakha moved the plea in April. "Since HC has not granted such liberty either to the accused or to this court as well, this unnecessary application deserves to be rejected," the judge said. Court said Bombay HC, while imposing conditions on the accused and releasing him on bail, directed him "not to travel outside the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission of the trial court." Navlakha, who was initially granted bail in 2023 but released from custody in 2024, is residing in Bandra (West). The plea said the 72-year-old and his partner, Sahba Hussain (73), are permanent residents of Delhi, where they have their home, employment, and social connections. Prosecution strongly opposed the plea. "Over time, it has become uneconomical and burdensome for him to cope with the increasing finances. He has been struggling to meet up with the basic necessities such as house rent, bread and butter, travel, etc. Both of them are surviving out of their savings," the plea said. Navlakha was arrested in Delhi on April 14, 2020, and has been living in Mumbai since release. Court directed NIA to submit its reply.
