In slum rehabilitation schemes HC upholds decision for open spaces, says 35% be strictly reserved for public park
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
New Indian Express
4 hours ago
- New Indian Express
2006 Mumbai train blasts: Unpacking Bombay High Court's order
CHENNAI: In July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court issued an interim stay on a Bombay High Court judgment acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The order, delivered by a bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh, underscored that the high court's verdict would not serve as a judicial precedent for other cases, particularly those under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). However, the court emphasised that the accused, who had already been released from captivity, would not be re-arrested till further proceedings. The order came following an urgent appeal by the Maharashtra government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The state argued that the high court's ruling could set a problematic precedent, potentially undermining trials under MCOCA, a stringent law to combat organised crime and terrorism in Maharashtra. Mehta stressed that certain legal findings in the high court's judgment could weaken the prosecution's ability to secure convictions in similar cases. The SC bench acknowledged the rarity of staying an acquittal, noting that such an action would be a 'rarest of rare' occurrence. The Maharashtra government's swift appeal was driven by political and legal pressures. Bombay High Court's acquittal On July 21, the Bombay High Court acquitted all accused, overturning a 2015 special court judgment that had sentenced five to death and seven to life imprisonment. The 671-page ruling by Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak cited the prosecution's 'utter failure' to prove guilt, citing unreliable evidence, coerced confessions, and systemic investigative lapses, including 'inhuman and barbaric' custodial torture. Within 24 hours, the Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court, which, on July 24, stayed the order.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Key documents went missing, original statements were lost
1 2 Mumbai: In the 2008 Malegaon blast case , a special NIA court that acquitted seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, heavily scrutinized the prosecution's handling of crucial evidence, particularly the mysterious disappearance of key documents. The core of the court's reasoning revolved around the prosecution's failure to present original statements of crucial witnesses, recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the subsequent mishandling of attempts to introduce secondary evidence. The witnesses, two of whom later turned hostile, claiming coercion by ATS, were connected to conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims, a separate constitution for a 'Hindu Rashtra' complete with a distinct 'Bhagwa Flag' and formation of a Central Hindu Government ('Aryawart') and the exile govt concept in Israel and Thailand, were held. 39 witnesses in all had turned hostile. The statements recorded before the magistrate are admissible as evidence and have corroborating value and would have aided the prosecution's case against the accused. Statements of 13 witnesses had been recorded by a magistrate during the initial investigation by ATS. The witnesses were related to the accused's participation in the conspiracy meetings. However, it came to light in April 2016 that these critical documents were found to be missing from the court records. Despite several searches, the documents remained untraceable. In Nov 2016, ATS filed an affidavit with court, stating it had three certified photocopies of some of the missing statements and sought permission to use them as secondary evidence. The accused opposed this move. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai On Jan 2, 2017, the special NIA court initially allowed the prosecution to use these copies as secondary evidence. However, this decision was challenged by one of the now-acquitted accused, Sameer Kulkarni, in Bombay high court. In 2019, HC stayed the special court's order, observing that the copies produced by prosecution had not been compared with originals and there was nothing on record to prove they were prepared from the originals. The HC instructed the prosecution to file a fresh application and conduct an inquiry to verify authenticity of copies. Despite this HC directive, the NIA court said the prosecution failed to file a fresh application or conduct the necessary inquiry. Instead, the prosecution proceeded with the trial, merely asking witnesses during their examination if their statements had been recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. While witnesses answered in the affirmative, the court found this to be insufficient. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
HC denies pre-arrest bail to man accused of replacing Tricolour on mosque with saffron flag
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday refused anticipatory bail to a man accused of removing the national flag from a mosque in Gurgaon and replacing it with a saffron flag. "The gravity of the offence and its potential impact on public order and communal peace cannot be overlooked. No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record by the petitioner that would warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly in light of the serious communal and constitutional implications of the alleged conduct," HC observed in its order. "The fact that a deeper and proper probe is required… This court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is a must and no ground for granting anticipatory bail is made out," said Justice Manisha Batra in the order. The bench noted that the allegations against the petitioner were not vague or general in nature but "specific and substantiated by initial investigation", including purported conversations between the petitioner and co-accused when the alleged crime was being committed. Justice Batra dismissed the plea filed by Vikas Tomar of Gurgaon, who was booked at Bilaspur police station in Gurgaon on July 7 for hurting religious sentiments. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is this legal? Access all TV channels without a subscription! Techno Mag Learn More Undo He faces charges under the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971, as well. It's alleged that on July 7, Tomar and some other persons removed the national flag from atop a mosque in Gurgaon's Uton village and erected a saffron flag. Some of the accused even threw away the national flag, says the complaint. The complainant provided a video recording of the incident to police, alleging the co-accused had removed the Indian flag in connivance with Tomar. However, Tomar's counsel, while seeking anticipatory bail, argued that he was falsely implicated and had no role to play in the incident. Opposing the plea, the counsel for the state and the complainant submitted that the accused intended to stir communal tension and that he is shown to have had a conversation with the co-accused when they were involved in removing the national flag and hoisting the saffron flag. After hearing all the parties, HC dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail, keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that there were no exceptional circumstances for pre-arrest bail. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Friendship Day wishes , messages and quotes !
