Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Supreme Court has asked the Maharashtra government, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), and other concerned authorities to respond to a plea challenging a Bombay High Court ruling on slum rehabilitation. The case revolves around redevelopment projects on land reserved for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, with the High Court allowing such projects under conditions to restore a portion for public use. Petitioners argue the regulation legalises encroachment and reduces public open spaces, critical in a city where per capita greenery is limited and urban density is rising.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Maharashtra government, the MCGM, and other parties to respond to a plea challenging a Bombay High Court order regarding slum rehabilitation on land reserved for parks, gardens, and playgrounds in Mumbai. The petition questions the High Court's decision upholding Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which permits redevelopment on these reserved lands with a condition to restore a portion for public use. Advertisement
The High Court had justified this regulation as a way to balance the urgent need for housing with environmental and recreational needs, allowing redevelopment only when part of the reserved land is returned for public access. It had emphasized that plots entirely occupied by slums cannot remain unused and must be redeveloped in a structured manner, ensuring citizens retain access to open spaces.
Petitioners, including the NGO Alliance For Governance and Renewal (NAGAR), Neera Punj, and Nayana Kathpalia, argued that allowing redevelopment on up to 65 per cent of reserved land effectively legalises encroachment and undermines public trust. They highlighted Mumbai's critically low per capita open space in several localities, where it often remains less than one square metre per person, stressing the importance of safeguarding green spaces.
The High Court had issued detailed 17-point guidelines to ensure restored open spaces are functional and accessible. These included maintaining continuous plots rather than fragmented areas, providing standard park features like jogging tracks, landscaping, and playground equipment, and strict prohibition of any further encroachment. The arrangement aimed to strike a proportional balance 65 per cent of land for housing the urban poor and 35 per cent restored as usable public spaces.
Legal proceedings on this matter date back to 2002, challenging earlier policies from 1992 that allowed redevelopment on reserved sites if at least 25 per cent was encroached. The High Court had previously dismissed the original plea but upheld the regulation, stating it sought to achieve a constitutional equilibrium between shelter rights and environmental concerns.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, ensured that copies of the Supreme Court petition and notices were served to standing counsel, allowing the apex court to examine the matter in detail. The court's direction indicates a close review of whether the High Court's safeguards are sufficient to protect open spaces while addressing housing needs for Mumbai's urban poor.
Source PTI
FAQ
Q1. What is the Supreme Court examining in the Maharashtra slum rehabilitation case?
The Supreme Court has asked the Maharashtra government, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), and other concerned authorities to respond to a petition challenging a Bombay High Court ruling on slum rehabilitation. The case concerns redevelopment projects on land reserved for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, where the High Court allowed such projects under conditions requiring a portion of the land to be restored for public use.
Q2. What did the Bombay High Court rule regarding reserved open spaces?
The High Court upheld Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which permits redevelopment on land reserved for public amenities if a part of it is restored for public use. It justified this approach as a way to balance urgent housing needs for slum dwellers with the preservation of environmental and recreational spaces in the city.
Q3. What concerns have petitioners raised against the High Court ruling?
Petitioners, including the NGO NAGAR and activists Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia, argue that allowing redevelopment on up to 65% of reserved land effectively legalises encroachment and reduces public green spaces. They highlight Mumbai's low per capita open space often less than one square metre per person in many localities and stress the importance of protecting parks, gardens, and playgrounds for community use.
Q4. What safeguards did the High Court provide for restored open spaces?
The High Court issued 17-point guidelines to ensure that restored land remains functional and accessible. Key measures include maintaining continuous plots rather than fragmented areas, incorporating standard park features such as jogging tracks, landscaping, and playground equipment, and strictly prohibiting any further encroachment. This approach aims to balance 65% of the land for housing and 35% for public amenities.
Q5. What is the background of the legal challenge?
Legal proceedings on this matter date back to 2002, challenging policies from 1992 that allowed redevelopment on reserved lands if at least 25% had been encroached. The High Court had previously dismissed the original plea but upheld the current regulation, stating that it attempts to achieve a constitutional equilibrium between the right to shelter and environmental protection.
Q6. What does the Supreme Court's current direction indicate?
By seeking responses from the state and MCGM, the Supreme Court is examining whether the High Court's safeguards are sufficient to protect open spaces while allowing slum rehabilitation. The move indicates that the apex court will closely review whether public parks, gardens, and playgrounds are adequately preserved as redevelopment proceeds, ensuring the city's residents retain access to essential green spaces.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
