Latest news with #MCZMA
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Forest, BMC officials inspect SRK's Mannat over coastal regulation complaint
Shah Rukh Khan's residence, Mannat, faced a joint inspection by forest department and BMC officials following a complaint alleging Coastal Regulation Zone violations during ongoing renovations. The inspection, prompted by activist Santosh Daundkar's concerns, involved a review of the heritage building and its annex. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A joint inspection was conducted on Friday by the forest department and BMC officials at Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan's residence, Mannat, located at Bandra Bandstand , following a complaint alleging violations of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms during ongoing renovation property under review consists of the heritage building Mannat and a multi-storey annex. Since Shah Rukh Khan and his family have temporarily moved out during the renovation, the inspection team was received by staff members at the site. The staff assured officials that all relevant permission documents would be manager Pooja Dadlani clarified, 'There are no complaints. All renovation work is being carried out in accordance with guidelines.' Reportedly, prior clearances were obtained from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). The ongoing renovation includes the addition of two new floors to the annex building.A forest department official confirmed that the inspection was carried out following a complaint about the validity of renovation approvals. 'A report will be compiled based on the site findings and submitted shortly,' the official from the BMC's H-West ward, including teams from the building and factory department as well as the building proposal department, were present only to assist the forest team. 'Our participation was limited to supporting the forest department upon their request,' a BMC official complaint triggering the inspection was earlier filed by activist Santosh Daundkar regarding construction activities at former IPS officer and lawyer Y P Singh raised concerns about the legality of the property's structure. He claimed that the original heritage building, known as Villa Vienna, was renamed Mannat and that in 2005, a seven-storey extension was added behind it. At the time, due to restrictions under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, constructing a large private residence was not allowed. To navigate this, Singh alleged that permissions were sought for 12 smaller independent flats—typically intended for mass housing—by the owners Shah Rukh Khan and Gauri Khan. However, once approved, these flats were allegedly merged into a single expansive luxury residence for the family.[With TOI inputs]
Time of India
20 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Time of India
Forest depertment, Mumbai civic body visit SRK's home over complaints of CRZ violations
MUMBAI: A joint team of forest department and BMC officials inspected actor 's bungalow, Mannat, at Bandra Bandstand, on Friday following a complaint about coastal regulation zone (CRZ) violations during renovation of the property. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The property comprises Mannat, a heritage structure, and an annex structure, a multi-storey building. As Khan and his family have shifted to a nearby place due to the renovation, the officials were met by his staff who told them they would submit all documents concerning the permissions obtained. Pooja Dadlani, Khan's manager, said "There are no complaints. All work is going on as per guidelines." The property is undergoing renovation, and clearances were earlier sought from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for it. The renovation included adding two additional floors to the annexe structure. A forest department official said, "A team carried out a site inspection as we received a complaint about renovation permissions. A report will be prepared based on findings and submitted soon." An official, who was part of the team, said the staff present at the site told them they would submit all documents concerning the permissions obtained. The BMC's H-West ward building and factory department and the building proposal department officials were asked to accompany the forest team for carrying out the inspection. "Our officials were accompanying the team, based on a request by the forest department. We had no other role," said a BMC official. Activist Santosh Daundkar had earlier lodged a complaint with the BMC regarding the construction at Mannat. Former IPS officer and lawyer Y P Singh Friday alleged the layout of Mannat comprised one main heritage building called Villa Vienna as per the heritage regulations. "The name of this building was changed to Mannat later. In 2005, an extension building of seven floors was made behind the heritage bungalow and since at that time Urban Land Ceiling Act was in force, a large apartment could not have been made. To overcome this legal hurdle, approval for 12 small independent flats was taken from the BMC by the owners namely Shah Rukh Khan and Gauri Khan. However, once the approval was obtained, all these 12 small flats, which were essentially meant for mass housing under the Act, were merged and a super luxury accommodation of a single family was constructed," said Singh.
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
BMC opens seafood plaza at Carter Road promenade despite residents' opposition
Mumbai: Despite strong opposition from citizens and civic groups, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has opened a seafood plaza at Carter Road promenade, citing cultural promotion of the indigenous koli (fisher) community. The food plaza, launched on May 2, will feature seafood stalls managed by koli women self-help groups and will be open on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. According to BMC officials, the initiative aims to preserve and promote the traditional coastal culture of Mumbai's original inhabitants–the kolis. However, several resident groups have raised concerns about the food plaza's legality and its impact on the environment and public safety. The Impact Group, a coalition of citizens from the Bandra-Khar-Santacruz areas, alleged that the plaza was established in violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. The group claimed the project proceeded despite repeated objections from local residents and people who regularly go for walks on the promenade, who view the development as an encroachment on public recreational space. Further raising the stakes, the group also accused the BMC of allowing illegal cooking practices at the site, including the use of gas cylinders and open flames, which they claimed are prohibited in public areas as per civic guidelines. They also claimed the food plaza is operating without mandatory permissions, such as a no-objection certificate from the fire department and a health department licence. 'Is the BMC actively promoting illegality?' questioned a spokesperson from the Impact Group, pointing to increasing litter and unmanaged waste along the promenade as signs of environmental degradation and mismanagement. Dinesh Pallawad, assistant commissioner of the BMC's H West ward, defended the initiative. 'We have allowed koli women to operate only thrice a week. There are no cooking arrangements on-site. Food is prepared off-site and sold at the stalls. We've taken into account citizen concerns and have deployed staff to ensure cleanliness and prevent littering. Alcohol is not permitted, and conditions have been laid down to regulate the operation,' he said. However, the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) has taken cognisance of the residents' complaints. On May 13, the authority directed the Mumbai suburban collector to conduct a thorough verification of the food plaza's compliance with CRZ regulations and past court orders. The MCZMA has requested a detailed report within 15 days and has asked for appropriate action if violations are confirmed. The matter has divided public opinion. While many residents have opposed the food plaza, some seasoned activists and longtime residents of the area have expressed support for it. 'The food plaza is on the extended part of the promenade, leading towards the koli area itself and, honestly, I see nothing wrong with it,' said a local activist, who requested anonymity. 'I distinctly remember reading a government resolution from the 1980s that stated the first right to the seafront belongs to the kolis, specifically for purposes like parking their boats, repairing nets, drying their catch, and other fishing-related activities.' The activist further said that this extended part of the promenade was built much later in 2018, essentially an afterthought, and came up on a reclaimed shoreline leading to the koli area. 'So if, for a couple of days a week, koli fisherwomen are allowed to sell their fresh catch here, giving citizens access to affordable seafood, far cheaper than what's sold at the food stalls across the road, I think it's completely fair. They're not occupying road space illegally like street hawkers. If they were doing this from mobile vans or obstructing traffic, I might have a different view. But in this context, I believe it's not only acceptable but it's empowering for these women, who are also the original inhabitants of Mumbai,' the activist added.
Indian Express
02-05-2025
- General
- Indian Express
HC restores ‘protected forest' status of 120 hectares of Kanjurmarg dumping site
In a setback to Maharashtra government and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the Bombay High Court on Friday restored the status of nearly 120 hectares of Kanjurmarg dumping ground site as a protected forest area under Forest Conservation Act (FCA) and the Forest Act. It quashed and set aside the 2009 decision that de-notified the 'protected forest' status of the said land for creation of dumping ground. The court said that any proposal to de-notify the same would need to be complied with the due process prescribed under the FCA. It granted three months' time to BMC, which runs the dumping site, to 'comply with consequences of the HC judgment.' After the government lawyer sought stay on the operation of the HC verdict, the court said the request need not be considered as a three-month time was given to BMC to comply with the order. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Somasekhar Sundaresan passed a verdict on a plea by NGO Vanashakti filed in 2013 which claimed the Kanjurmarg landfill falls under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and causes health hazards. The HC order is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court. The NGO had challenged the denotification of 119. 91 hectares of land located in Kanjurmarg on the coast of Thane Creek for dumping ground/landfill of nearly 141.77 hectares created by BMC, which was earlier classified as 'protected forest'. The HC noted that the subject land was salt pan land and over the time witnessed growth of mangroves. It added that the lease for such land for production of salt expired around 2003 and thereafter, under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Regulations and the Environment Protection Act, 1986, it was notified and classified as CRZ-1 area. Senior advocate Gayatri Singh for Vanashakti contended that through impugned notification of December 29, 2009 issued by Divisional Commissioner, Konkan, the status of 'protected forest' has been modified without complying with due process stipulated under the FCA and same should be quashed. However, Advocate General Birendra Saraf for state government argued that the land in question is only marginally covered by mangroves, which are in two patches and are restricted to 20.76 hectares, as noticed in the report filed by Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) and nothing in the rest of the area constituted as 'protected forest.' Saraf added that taking note of the MCZMA report, another bench of HC in May 2013 had directed that no further mangroves must be destroyed and had directed the BMC to ensure compliance with MCZMA recommendations. The state government said that the two patches in mangroves were excluded from the Kanjurmarg dumping ground. The government and BMC also argued that the impugned decision merely corrected an error in the Forest Notification. After perusing submissions, the bench observed that 'the subject land was clearly the land covered by the mangroves.' It noted that the HC in an order on an earlier PIL had explicitly declared a law that 'land covered by mangroves is automatically CRZ-1 land and indeed falls in the category of protected forest,' and 'prohibited dumping of garbage on mangroves.' 'The state had to conduct detailed satellite imaging of actual mangrove growth and coverage before it issued the Forest Notification,' the bench observed. 'The subject land, which indeed is salt pan land, attracts growth of mangroves and it is the violative construction of the wall by MCGM that led to mangroves being stunted and destroyed,' the bench held. It added that earlier Forest Notification was a 'product of actual verification of facts, satellite imaging and ground truthing and indeed an outcome of due process of law.' The court further held the impugned decision of 2009 was 'unsustainable' and that the Supreme Court order 'does not give cover to the argument that the Forest Notification was a mistake,' therefore it 'deserved to be quashed and set aside.'
Hindustan Times
29-04-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Colaba residents move HC against controversial jetty and terminal project
MUMBAI: The Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents' Association (CHCRA), representing 400 residents, filed a writ petition in the Bombay high court on Monday against the Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB), the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA), the BMC's Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC), the traffic police and the contractor constructing the proposed 'passenger jetty and terminal facilities' in the sea. The project is approximately 280 metres from the Gateway of India, near the Radio Club end of the Colaba seafront. The residents have objected to the scale of the proposed project, calling it excessive, and have specifically contested the MCZMA's approval of March 2, 2023, which treated the project as a 'standalone jetty'. The petition states that the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification permits only consideration of 'standalone jetties'—a category that this large multi-functional structure does not fall under. The petition also contests the heritage NOC of February 7, 2025, granted by the municipal architect despite the fact that the project site lies within the buffer/vista zone of the Gateway of India, a Grade I listed heritage monument, and the Fort precinct. It also submits that access to the terminal reportedly involves the removal of a section of the Gateway promenade/sea wall, an area where even minor facade changes to private buildings are currently restricted. It states that the MHCC has nonetheless approved the project, which threatens to dwarf and visually disrupt the iconic Gateway structure. CHRCA has thus sought a review of the decision to build the jetty and terminal from the P J Ramchandani Marg footpath area into the sea, and urged the court to restrain MMB from demolishing the promenade wall, and proceeding with construction. It argues that the project threatens the character of the Gateway precinct and will obstruct pedestrian access along the popular seafront promenade. The citizens' group has also contested the traffic NOC issued by the Mumbai police on February 28, 2025. Its contention is that despite ongoing and severe congestion in the area, the Mumbai traffic police granted an NOC, considering only the construction phase and not the operational impact of the terminal and jetty. It also states in the petition that there was no public notice, hearing, or opportunity for objections afforded to the local residents at any stage of the approval process. Following the bhoomi poojan in March 2025, the state's minister for ports development publicly stated that the jetty would be used exclusively for VIPs, celebrities and cricketers' yachts, further reinforcing the project's exclusionary and non-public nature, says the petition. It submits that the proposed passenger jetty and terminal facilities, covering nearly 15 acres of sea area, with a jetty extending over half a kilometre into the sea and directly abutting a protected heritage site, is illegal, arbitrary, irrational, and destructive to the character and heritage of the Gateway of India precinct. CHCRA's advocate Prerak Choudhary told HT, 'We tried our best to have a dialogue with them but despite giving us assurances, they proceeded with the project and left us with no option but to move court.'
