Latest news with #MRTPAct
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
PCMC steps up action against illegal constructions; over 20 under-construction structures demolished in 10 days
Pune: PCMC has intensified crackdown on under-construction structures built without approval from the building permission department. In the past 10 days, Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) officials demolished over 20 such under-construction structures spread across 20,000sqft across the city. This includes under-construction structures where additional floors were being constructed without valid approval from the civic body. PCMC municipal commissioner had earlier this month told anti-encroachment officials to target illegal constructions in their early stages to prevent the need for demolition after completion. The civic body had faced criticism for demolishing 36 unauthorised bungalows built within the blue flood line of Indrayani river in Chikhali in May this year. Residents said that the officials had turned a blind eye when the structures were being constructed and came to demolish them a few years after their construction. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune A senior PCMC official said that beat inspectors had been told to identify new structures in their areas and validate if they were being constructed with permission. "If we find any new construction that is being carried out sans permission, the owners will be issued notices immediately and the structures demolished within 24 hours," he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Beyond Text Generation: An AI Tool That Helps You Write Better Grammarly Install Now Undo He said currently action was not being taking against completed structures where people had already moved in as per Bombay High Court guidelines which restrict such actions during monsoon. "However, owners of these completed but unauthorised structures were served notices and given 30 days to remove illegal constructions in accordance with the MRTP Act," he said, adding that the court's restriction applies only to occupied structures, and action against under-construction illegal establishments was being taken without delay. Earlier this month, the civic body set up a dedicated vigilance squad to monitor its staffers and curb negligence in reporting or acting against new illegal constructions. The municipal commissioner warned of strict disciplinary action, including suspension, against any beat inspector or officer found guilty of inaction or deliberate oversight in such cases. The anti-encroachment department also took action against illegal slab crossings constructed over natural streams in Bhosari MIDC blocking the stormwater flow. "These unauthorised slab structures, spread across a 500-metre stretch, were not only illegal but also hampered nullah cleaning operations, leading to flooding in the area last month," a civic official said.
Time of India
17-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
PMC to probe officials' role in possible tweaks
Pune: The civic administration on Thursday decided to look into the civic officials' role in the PMC's alleged revised agreement with Konkan Mitra Mandal Medical Trust, after activist Vijay Kumbhar claimed that private institutions' or personal benefits could have been prioritised over citizens' interests in it. Prithviraj B P, the additional Pune municipal commissioner, said, "We will probe if and how changes in terms and conditions were made, if any." Vasundhara Barve, the head of PMC's estate management, said the administration had convened a meeting regarding the issue on Friday. "The details of the terms and conditions can be cross-verified only once we get details from the trust. The future course of action will be decided accordingly," she said. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune Kumbhar, an office-bearer of AAP, questioned the role of civic officials in the agreement, a day after the PMC sought details of the trust's deals with various hospital chains. Prithviraj, the additional municipal commissioner, said, "We are yet to get the details, which were sought from the trust." According to Kumbhar, the agreement's terms and conditions could have been initially made to benefit the larger public while leasing the land. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Why seniors are rushing to get this Internet box – here's why! Techno Mag Learn More Undo He alleged that these could have been diluted later. He said, "The civic document highlights that the reservation of 50 beds for the PMC was discussed while finalising the proposal to lease the land. But later, instead of keeping 50 beds aside, the civic body accepted the condition of providing 50 bed days. Had 50 beds been reserved, more public interest could have been served." Kumbhar said, "It appears that clauses 8 and 9 of the lease agreement were violated. The main reason is the inactivity of the officials concerned and prioritising private institutions' or personal benefits over citizens' interests. The administration should take administrative and legal action against the officials, who neglected such matters." According to the PMC's letter to the trust on Wednesday, the land measuring 1,976sqm at Pune Peth Erandwane, final plot number 30, was given to Konkan Mitra Mandal Medical Trust on lease for 99 years on the condition of paying a premium of Rs 53,35,200 and an annual rent of Rs 1. The lease agreement was registered (No. 1260/1998) on February 27, 1998. The legal department of the PMC said the process of leasing the municipal land was governed by the MRTP Act and other norms of allotment of civic properties. "The allotment of the said land is an old matter. Factors like whether the then general body of the PMC gave a green signal for the lease or not, and if all the agreed terms and conditions were followed or not would be cross-verified by the civic administration," said Nisha Chavan, the head of the PMC's legal department.
Indian Express
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Vile Parle Jain temple demolition: HC extends status quo of Jain temple for four weeks
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal by the Trust which runs Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle (East), that challenged an order of the city civil court refusing interim protection from the BMC's demolition action. On April 16 this year, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished most of the Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle that sparked outrage and protests from members of the Jain community. The HC observed that the BMC's action cannot be faulted with and there was no 'illegality' or 'perversity' in the impugned order of the city civil court . A single-judge bench of Justice Gauri V Godse issued an order, allowing the status quo it granted on April 16 against further demolition to continue for another four weeks. This came after the judge was informed that appellant—Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust— had given an undertaking to the BMC that it will remove the temporary shed constructed for protection from monsoon before October 31 this year. On April 7, a city civil court had rejected the temple Trust's plea against demolition action but it gave the Trust interim protection from demolition for seven days to allow it to file an appeal in the high court. On April 15, the city civil court rejected an application by the temple Trust, seeking extension of interim protection from demolition. On April 16, the Trust informed the HC that the BMC officials and police were present at the site to begin demolition, after which the HC passed an order that status quo in respect of the suit structure as of now shall be maintained, However, the court was informed that most of the structure had already been demolished. Senior advocate Surel Shah, representing the Trust, on Tuesday sought the HC's interference in the impugned order, stating that the BMC could not have initiated the action at the subject premises. However, advocate Drupad Patil for the BMC submitted that there was no restrictive order against it to take an action. The HC noted that two separate actions were initiated by the BMC in December, 2024, including one implementing its notice under Section 53 (notice against unauthorised development) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The notice issued by BMC under said provision was confirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court. The Trust had withdrawn its challenge against the implementation of the said notice. The second notice was issued by the BMC under Section 488 (inspection of premises by civic authorities) under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act. The HC further noted that the BMC was not prevented from taking action of implementing notice under Section 53 of the MRTP Act, as the same had attained the finality before the Supreme Court and the Trust 'would not be entitled to seek any relief'. 'Thus, the prima facie opinion expressed by city civil court in impugned order to refuse grant of any interim relief cannot be faulted. In the absence of any prima facie case made out by the plaintiff, the reasons recorded in impugned order cannot be faulted,' the HC observed. 'I do not see any legality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal is devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed,' Justice Godse held. The HC said that it will pass an order on other appeals and contempt plea along with issue of removal of debris on Wednesday, July 9.
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Mumbai builder booked for illegal construction, assault in Bhandup redevelopment case
MUMBAI: In a serious crackdown on unauthorised construction and violation of urban planning norms, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) lodged a complaint with the Bhandup police against Sudhanshu Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its representatives, including Abhayjit Dubey, for alleged illegal structural modifications and unauthorised occupancy at Aniraj Tower, Bhandup (West), Mumbai. According to the complaint filed by Laxmikant Manekar, Assistant Engineer with the SRA, the developer constructed a hall in place of a permitted shop on the 8th floor of the building without requisite approval under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The construction was in clear violation of the approved plan. The developer was also accused of handing over possession of multiple commercial units from the 1st to 8th floor, despite lacking occupation and fire safety approvals, in blatant violation of statutory norms. The complaint pertains to a redevelopment of Aniraj Tower, which was demolished six years ago for redevelopment. The society members alleged that. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Check Your Rate Today Earnest Learn More Undo You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Despite repeated notices — first issued on 22 January 2025, followed by action under Section 53(1) on 18 March, and later under Sections 53(6) and 53(7) of the MRTP Act on 23 May — the developer failed to comply or provide satisfactory clarification. In fact, the developer allegedly misled the authorities by submitting photographs of a sealed hall, while the structure continued to be in illegal use. The SRA official in the FIR stated that on 6 June, the unauthorised space was sealed, but the developer later broke the sealed wall to regain access and constructed a new entry, which was again sealed on 10 June. A Panchnama was recorded on both instances. It was also discovered that 27 shopkeepers on the 1st and 2nd floors were handed possession even before the Occupation Certificate (OC) was obtained — another serious violation. The police registered offences under Section 53(7) of the MRTP Act, and an investigation is underway to identify the roles and responsibilities of all individuals involved. Authorities are also examining whether further criminal charges for breach of public trust and endangering safety can be added. Angered by the complaints filed by a few society members to concerned authorities, including the SRA, Abhayjeet Dubey and his henchman, one Vinod Maurya, cornered and assaulted Tarun Jani (a member and fellow complainant), wherein Tarun Jani sustained multiple injuries, leading to an FIR being registered against Dubey and Maurya with Bhandup police station.
Hindustan Times
02-07-2025
- 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.
