Latest news with #DevelopmentPlan2034
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC dismisses pleas against Bal Thackeray memorial
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed several petitions challenging the decision of the Maharashtra government to set up a memorial to Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray on the site of the old Mayor's bungalow at Shivaji Park, Dadar. The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. (Kunal Patil/HT Photo) The government had decided to erect a memorial – the Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Memorial – in honour of Thackeray in view of his contributions to the political landscape of the state, particularly in Mumbai. Accordingly, a committee was set up in December 2014 to scout for land for the memorial, generate funds and make recommendations for the memorial. In May 2015, the committee submitted it had considered eight different sites and decided that the Mayor's bungalow was the most suitable place for the memorial. Although the land would continue to be owned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, it would be leased to a public trust set up to build and oversee the memorial for a period of 30 years, on payment of a nominal rent of ₹ 1 per year. The government issued a resolution on September 27, 2016, approving the recommendations. Subsequently, the resolution was challenged and amendments were carried out. The plot, reserved for the Mayor's bungalow, fell under the Green Zone in the Development Control Regulations of 1991. It was re-zoned as 'residential use' under the Development Plan 2034. Challenging these decisions were several petitions filed in the Bombay High Court in 2017, highlighting the allocation of a ₹ 100-crore budget for the memorial. They contended that the money could have been used for other, important, purposes. On re-zoning the land from 'Green Zone' to 'Residential Zone' without prior public notification or consultation, senior advocate Sunip Sen, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that the change of use of the Mayor's bungalow had been effected in gross violation of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). He further stated that there had been an illegal conversion of the municipal gymkhana (municipal house), a public amenity and historically accessible to public use, which could not be reserved for the residence of the Mayor. Senior advocate Dr Uday Warunjikar, representing another petitioner, submitted that the entire decision-making process for the memorial at the Mayor's bungalow 'suffered from gross arbitrariness and irrationality'. 'The site chosen for the memorial as well as the manner in which the trust had been formed was 'clearly illegal'. 'Therefore, the actions taken by the authorities for setting up the memorial at the site should be set aside,' he added. Opposing the court's intervention, additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan contended that the establishment of the memorial was in the realm of policy decision. She told the court that the provisions of the MRTP Act had been observed while making amendments to the Development Plan. 'The decision to set up the memorial has been taken in the interest of a larger section of the society considering the contribution of late Balasaheb Thackeray during his lifetime,' she stated. Upholding the state's decision, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne said that the re-zoning of the land failed to reflect any procedural impropriety. 'Any piece of land in the city of Mumbai is bound to be valuable and therefore it is not for this court to decide which land needs to be chosen for setting up of the memorial,' the court stated. It observed that the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) had cleared the project to proceed with the usage of the land, which fell under the CRZ-II zone. Therefore, there is no violation of environmental norms in setting up the memorial, the court ruled. The bench highlighted that work on the memorial was virtually complete, and there had been no disturbance to the heritage significance of the bungalow. 'This could be yet another reason for this court not to interfere in the decisions and actions,' the bench added. Since it found no grounds to challenge the state's decision and actions with regard to the memorial, the court dismissed the petitions.
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
HC stays allotment of 3,000-sqm Cuffe Parade plot for a private school
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week stayed the Maharashtra government's allotment of a 3,000-square-metre plot at Backbay Reclamation, which was reserved for parking lots, to a nonprofit for the construction of a school. HC stays allotment of 3,000-sqm Cuffe Parade plot for a private school A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Arif Doctor passed the order on a petition filed by the Cuffe Parade Residents Association (CPRA), claiming that the allotment was illegal and contrary to several legal requirements. CPRA, through its honorary secretary Preeti Bedi, had challenged a September 2024 government resolution (GR) allotting the plot, which was reserved for parking lots in Mumbai's Development Plan 2034, to the Jain International Organisation for setting up a primary and secondary school. The plot was recently vacated by the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, which was using it while constructing the underground Aqua line. 'There is a great need for a parking area in the locality and the petitioners have been addressing letters to the collector to ensure that the said plot, which was recently vacated by the MMRCL, was duly walled/fenced, protected from encroachments and allowed to be used for parking of vehicles,' stated the petition. It added that residents learned that the plot had been allotted to the nonprofit only after it set up its board at the site, stating that the state government had handed it over to them in September 2024 to build a school. When the petition came up for hearing on June 26, CPRA's lawyer, senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, argued that the allotment was illegal and arbitrary, and amounted to a 'colourable exercise of powers' by the authorities involved. He added that residents of the area were being robbed of the plot's benefits by allotting it illegally and contrary to several legal requirements. Chinoy said the plot, which is reserved under the Development Plan, could not have been allotted to a 'private body' and, that too, on the conditions as set out in the allotment letter, which required the allottee to get the reservation of the plot changed. 'Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioner,' the court said, while staying the implementation of the GR. It restrained the Jain International Organisation from taking any further steps on the plot.
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Automotive
- Hindustan Times
Juhu Circle flyover will add to our traffic woes: local residents
MUMBAI: The ₹630-crore flyover offering a quick zip from C D Barfiwala Lane to the Juhu-Versova Link Road, gliding over Juhu Circle, is a bridge that fits right in with the BMC's grand plan of connecting the high-speed corridors of the Mumbai Coastal Road. Local residents, however, argue that the flyover's approach roads will create bottlenecks for those traversing the roads below. A long time in the making, the Juhu Circle flyover has gone through many changes of plan. First floated in 2016 to reduce congestion at Juhu Circle, the flyover was meant to go along the pillars of the Metro 2B line at a lower level. But this was scrapped as it was found to be clunky and difficult. After the next route—through Airports Authority of India land—was also abandoned in 2023 on account of height restrictions, the civic body went back to the original plan of going parallel with Metro 2B. One entry point of the flyover will now begin after Barfiwala Bridge ends near Juhu Galli, and the other one will be on the Juhu-Versova Link Road. Milaan Vigraham, a resident of the area, said that the roads where the flyover was being built were three-lane roads, with a few encroachments on C D Barfiwala Lane. 'Once the flyover is in the thick of construction, it will occupy two of them, leaving a measly one lane at the approaches for everyone who wants to go anywhere else at the junction,' he said. 'The flyover is only catering to those who want to go from Juhu to Andheri West and WEH, but the junction meets vehicles travelling from Gulmohar Road, NS Road Number 10, and CES Marg. They will all still have to wait for the two signals and also have the flyover's pillars to contend with.' Vigraham also raised the concern that some trees along the Juhu-Versova Link Road would have to be axed to make space. Along with architects and urban planners Alan Abraham and Nitin Killawala, the bunch tried to appeal to the BMC to choose an alternative when the work on the bridge was beginning in September-October 2024. 'Why doesn't the BMC work on reducing the signal time first, which would improve the congestion at the junction?' asked Vigraham. Abraham pointed out that the BMC needed to concentrate on the other roads earmarked in the Development Plan 2034, which will add alternatives to the traffic flocking to the circle. Due to scant support from the area's residents, however, their fight fizzled out. Mahindra Chawla, an architect who uses the road frequently and was part of a campaign that argued for the bridge, said the Juhu Circle junction was terrible. 'The signals there are too long, and then they open for too short a time,' he said. 'Bottlenecks are inevitable in a city so chock-full of traffic but possibly around 80% of the traffic that uses the junction uses it to go to the other suburbs. The locals form possibly 20% of the traffic, so the flyover will be a boon for most.' An official from the BMC's bridge department, however, said that traffic at the bottlenecks would not be an issue, as the flyover would divert much of the traffic going through Juhu Circle. 'Commuters from Versova and Juhu will reach Andheri and then go on to Gokhale Bridge towards the WEH in 10 minutes flat, way down from the current 45 minutes,' he said. 'The flyover will also have a link later to the Bandra-Versova Sea Link, so people coming from there can reach the WEH easily and quickly.'
Hindustan Times
13-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
ILP 4 India 1 Private Limited buys land parcel in Kurla, Mumbai, for ₹194 crore
ILP 4 India 1 Private Limited has purchased a land parcel in Kurla, Mumbai, for ₹193.5 crore from Shri Aditya Finwealth Private Limited, according to property registration documents reviewed by Square Yards. According to IGR property registration documents reviewed by Square Yards, the transaction, valued at Rs. 193.5 crore, involves a land parcel spread across 15,985 square meters (~1.60 hectares/~3.95 acres). The transaction also includes multiple existing buildings on the acquired land parcel with a total built-up area of around 4,519 sq. m (~48,641 sq. ft). The deal incurred a stamp duty of Rs. 11.61 crore and a registration fee of Rs. 30,000. As per the Development Plan 2034, the land parcel is categorized under the industrial land use. The agreement was registered in May 2025. ILP 4 India 1 Private Limited is a private infrastructure and construction company incorporated in 2019 under the Companies Act, 2013. ILP 4 India 1 is engaged in the real estate and construction industry. Shree Aditya Finwealth is a private, unlisted, non-government company incorporated on January 28, 1955. With a legacy spanning over 70 years, it has been primarily engaged in the finance sector. Kurla, located in the heart of Mumbai, is a commercial and residential hub and is well connected to key business districts such as BKC, Andheri, and Lower Parel. The locality benefits from its strategic position along the Central and Harbour railway lines, as well as proximity to the international airport and major roads like the Eastern Express Highway and the upcoming metro corridors. The area has a mix of commercial and industrial estates, retail centres, and residential developments. ILP 4 India 1 Private Limited and Shri Aditya Finwealth Private Limited could not be reached for a comment.
Hindustan Times
11-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
2 courts stay road-widening in Malad on separate petitions filed by residents and hospital
MUMBAI: In a temporary relief to residents of Mamlatdarwadi in Malad West, the Bombay high court and the city civil court, in two separate cases filed by residents, have ordered a one-month stay on the road-widening works being undertaken by the BMC. The residents went to court after the BMC began widening Road No 6 in Mamlatdarwadi from 4.5 metres to nine metres by razing their compound walls. 'We got to know about the work only when a bulldozer came to raze the structure on April 30,' said resident Kamlesh Deorukhkar. Following this, affected residents of four of the 16 buildings on Road No 6 petitioned the courts in the first week of May. The high court case was filed by Gariba Hospital while the residents of Maitry Residency and Gurukrupa Residency jointly approached the city civil court. The matter will be heard in the HC on June 10 and on June 16 in the city civil court. The residents allege that the road is being widened hastily to favour a builder who is planning to construct a high-rise on a plot adjacent to the P North ward office. 'They are widening this road to exactly nine metres, which paves the way for the builder to get an FSI approval for a high rise,' said Shah. Dr Biten Gariba of Gariba Hospital said they went to court because the road works would affect the hospital compound. Advocate D Singh, representing Maitry Residency and Gurukrupa Residency, pleaded that their internal temporary 4.5-metre road was a private plot and therefore belonged to the society. 'Thus, it cannot be widened without acquisition,' he said. 'Also no notice of any nature was served upon the society by the BMC regarding the said road-widening. Whether the internal road is a part of the Development Plan 2034 is under consideration.' On April 15, the civic body served a notice under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, which stated that the demarcated area would have to be cleared within seven days, failing which the BMC would itself clear it. 'We were directly served the notice. No discussions about suggestion, objections and compensation took place, and we were not even intimated,' said resident Dejul Shah, adding that the road had about 52 trees on it which would be affected. Salil Thackare, an architect, pointed out that the road was a dead end. 'Only a limited number of people stay here, and all of us are opposing this,' he said. 'Then why the haste? The existing road is good enough for us.' The residents say that the road-widening will also be dangerous. 'The digging will be perilously close to our pillars and could affect the structural integrity of the building,' said Thackare. Added Nahush Nene, 'If we give away our compound, our building will have no parking space. Why should we give our land, then park on the road and pay penalties to the BMC?'
