Latest news with #SomasekharSundaresan
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- 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
10 hours ago
- 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.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- 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.'
Time of India
7 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
HC dismisses Leela Group appeals against AAI eviction proceedings in Mumbai
MUMBAI : The Bombay high court has dismissed appeals filed by the Leela Group against eviction proceedings initiated by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) over its Mumbai plots leased out for building a hotel. The court observed that the lease period expired long ago, and eviction was not an issue amenable to arbitration under the lease agreement between AAI and Leela. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the Leela Group's appeals and imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh to be paid in four weeks to AAI. The judge cited Leela's "prolonged enjoyment" of the expired leasehold land and his "assessment of the lack of reasonableness in some of the contentions raised on behalf of Leela" as reasons to impose the costs. In 1983, AAI leased two plots, together measuring 18,000 square feet, to Hotel Leela Venture Ltd (Leela Group) to construct a hotel and flight kitchen, with the lease expiring in July 2012. Another lease for an AAI-owned plot of 11,000 square metres to construct a hotel wing expired on March 31, 2024. The plots were deemed public premises under the Public Premises Eviction Act. AAI initiated eviction proceedings in 2017 for the two plots. However, on a request by senior counsel Rafiq Dada for the Leela Group, the high court, which had directed the eviction officer to begin eviction on merits swiftly, day-to-day, stayed the start of the process by four weeks. The Leela Group, represented by Dada with advocate Vivek Menon, argued that the matter must be decided only by an arbitrator as private lands were amalgamated into the 18,000 square feet and could never thus be 'public premises'. The AAI, represented by former AG Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that under the agreement, eviction and rental dues were excluded from arbitration, and also since the plots were 'public premises'. The Leela Group "continued to enjoy the usage of the premises on expired lease rental terms and despite the expiry of the very lease periods" on the basis of a statement that no precipitate steps would be taken pending proceedings, said Justice Sundaresan. The high court noted that Leela is itself not keen to retain the 11,000 square metres land and offered to return it. HLV Ltd, formerly known as Hotel Leela Venture Ltd, petitioned the high court this year against the AAI. The core issue raised was whether disputes over eviction under the lease deeds governing two plots leased by AAI would fall within the scope of arbitration agreements. The disputes, the high court noted, led to an "intricate and strategic web of filings of various proceedings" by Leela across tribunals and courts. The high court noted that the parties explicitly agreed to the land leased to Leela as being public premises. Hence, one need not look beyond the contract to determine if eviction is excluded from the scope of arbitration. The Leela Group is at liberty to proceed with arbitration on any facet of the lease except eviction from the leased land. The high court appointed former Madras high court Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala as the sole arbitrator for all issues barring eviction.
Time of India
13-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
HC dismisses Leela Group appeals against AAI eviction proceedings in Mumbai
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has dismissed appeals filed by the Leela Group against eviction proceedings initiated by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) over its Mumbai plots leased out for building a hotel. The court observed that the lease period expired long ago, and eviction was not an issue amenable to arbitration under the lease agreement between AAI and Leela. Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan dismissed the Leela Group's appeals and imposed costs of Rs 10 lakh to be paid in four weeks to AAI. The judge cited Leela's "prolonged enjoyment" of the expired leasehold land and his "assessment of the lack of reasonableness in some of the contentions raised on behalf of Leela" as reasons to impose the costs. In 1983, AAI leased two plots, together measuring 18,000 square feet, to Hotel Leela Venture Ltd (Leela Group) to construct a hotel and flight kitchen, with the lease expiring in July 2012. Another lease for an AAI-owned plot of 11,000 square metres to construct a hotel wing expired on March 31, 2024. The plots were deemed public premises under the Public Premises Eviction Act. AAI initiated eviction proceedings in 2017 for the two plots. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 5 Wealth Management Firms in The United States SmartAsset Learn More Undo However, on a request by senior counsel Rafiq Dada for the Leela Group, the high court, which had directed the eviction officer to begin eviction on merits swiftly, day-to-day, stayed the start of the process by four weeks. The Leela Group, represented by Dada with advocate Vivek Menon, argued that the matter must be decided only by an arbitrator as private lands were amalgamated into the 18,000 square feet and could never thus be 'public premises'. The AAI, represented by former AG Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, argued that under the agreement, eviction and rental dues were excluded from arbitration, and also since the plots were 'public premises'. The Leela Group "continued to enjoy the usage of the premises on expired lease rental terms and despite the expiry of the very lease periods" on the basis of a statement that no precipitate steps would be taken pending proceedings, said Justice Sundaresan. The high court noted that Leela is itself not keen to retain the 11,000 square metres land and offered to return it. HLV Ltd, formerly known as Hotel Leela Venture Ltd, petitioned the high court this year against the AAI. The core issue raised was whether disputes over eviction under the lease deeds governing two plots leased by AAI would fall within the scope of arbitration agreements. The disputes, the high court noted, led to an "intricate and strategic web of filings of various proceedings" by Leela across tribunals and courts. The high court noted that the parties explicitly agreed to the land leased to Leela as being public premises. Hence, one need not look beyond the contract to determine if eviction is excluded from the scope of arbitration. The Leela Group is at liberty to proceed with arbitration on any facet of the lease except eviction from the leased land. The high court appointed former Madras high court Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala as the sole arbitrator for all issues barring eviction. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
