Latest news with #MaharashtraRegionalandTownPlanningAct
Hindustan Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
After public protest, PCMC puts TP scheme in Charholi on hold
Following protests from locals and politicians, the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) on Thursday put the proposed town planning (TP) scheme for Charholi area on hold, said officials. According to officials, the development plan of Pimpri-Chinchwad received partial approval in 2008 and final okay in 2009. On May 15, 2025, a draft development plan was published under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. To implement the development plan, PCMC published a public notice on May 1, intending to implement the town planning scheme on 380-hectare in Chikhali-Kudalwadi and 1,425-hectare land in Charholi. Citizens, including MLA Mahesh Landge and other public representatives, opposed the implementation of the town planning scheme. Shekhar Singh, municipal commissioner, PCMC, said, 'Following public protest, the civic body has decided to put the decision on hold.' The civic body had earlier scrapped the TP scheme in Chikhali-Kudalwadi.
Hindustan Times
24-05-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
Citizens raise united opposition to Versova-Bhayandar Coastal Road at BMC hearing
MUMBAI: The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Friday held a public hearing regarding the proposed Versova-Bhayandar coastal road, aiming to incorporate several land parcels into the project by changing their existing reservations under the Development Plan (DP) 2034. The hearing, mandated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, saw in-person attendance by over 30 citizens — all of whom voiced unequivocal opposition to the project. The primary concerns raised by attendees centred on environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and the undermining of sustainable public transport solutions. 'We need more efficient public transport, not another coastal road,' said Priyanka Chaudhari, a resident of Versova. She argued that the project would encourage private vehicle use, thereby worsening air pollution in a city already struggling with environmental challenges. Environmental activist Mili Shetty questioned the utility of the road itself. 'None of the people in that room are driving daily to South Mumbai. So who benefits from this road?' she asked, criticising the project for catering to a privileged minority while ignoring the majority who rely on buses and trains. Concerns over the livelihoods of the city's traditional fishing communities also surfaced. Dipti Bhandari, chairperson of the Charkop Koliwada Mahila Mandal, warned that construction would disturb marine ecosystems. 'Pillars sunk into the sea stir up mud, harming fish habitats. Once damaged, marine biodiversity could take 10–15 years to recover, and only after construction is complete,' she said. Adding to the ecological anxieties, several speakers flagged the destruction of mangroves and the lack of viable land for compensatory afforestation. Debi Goenka, founder of the Conservation Action Trust, stated, 'There simply isn't enough space in Mumbai for replanting mangroves. A plot in Chandrapur is under consideration, while a private land parcel in Dahisar may be used to set up a mangrove nursery — but both sites remain uncertain.' In Mumbai, vacant land parcels are reserved under the DP for future public amenities. When such land falls in the path of a major infrastructure project, its reservation must be modified. 'In the previous DP, the north phase of the coastal road was planned only up to Bangur Nagar (Goregaon). In the current proposal, we've extended it till Dahisar. To proceed, we must revise the reservations of affected plots,' a civic official explained. While the BMC invited feedback on the alignment and potential resizing of the proposed coastal road, officials noted that no technical or design-specific suggestions emerged during the hearing. The project's second phase can only move forward after formal inclusion in the amended DP. 'We've obtained permissions from all relevant departments. The final hurdle is clearance from the High Court for the felling of mangroves,' said a BMC official.
Indian Express
22-04-2025
- Indian Express
The demolition of Mumbai's Digambar Jain temple: what happened, how, and why
The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) last week demolished most of the Digambar Jain temple in Vile Parle in the city's western suburbs, triggering outrage and protests among members of the community, as well as politicians across parties. Under pressure, the civic administration transferred the assistant municipal commissioner in charge of the BMC's K/East (KE) ward office, which had carried out the demolition. Civic and court records accessed and evaluated by The Indian Express show that the first notice for demolishing the allegedly illegal structure was issued to the temple trust back in 2005. Since then, the BMC made nine attempts to raze the alleged illegal structure – and finally carried out the action on April 16. What are the issues around this temple, and the ongoing legal battle? The structure and alleged illegality The temple, which is managed by the Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust, has been in existence since 1935, starting out as a makeshift temple on the premises of a bungalow. After the enactment of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), the temple trust applied for tenancy rights. According to BMC records, the first notice for demolition was issued in February 2005 under the MRTP Act, on the grounds that the structure stood on a plot reserved for a recreational ground (RG). In 2012, the trust applied to the civic authorities asking that the structure be legalised as per the MRTP Act. However, the BMC did not agree to do so. BMC documents show that the KE ward office sought legal opinion from its law department, which advised against demolition in 2013. 'The structure has been verified to be existing before 1962 and cannot be demolished. The liberty granted by the High Court to BMC is only limited to adjudication of the notice under section 53(4) of the MRTP Act for the purpose of regularisation. Thus, the said structure which is authenticated cannot be demolished,' the law department said. However, between November 2020 and February 2025, the civic authorities made attempts to demolish the structure nine times, issuing prior notice on each occasion. 'Every year, the BMC would issue a notice and the Trust members would move court and get temporary relief,' Prashant Baj, a member of the community, told The Indian Express. BMC's argument for demolition A civic official told The Indian Express, 'As per a 1974 Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) letter, the structure had to be demolished. Since the trustees didn't demolish the structure voluntarily, the first notice for demolishing the structure was issued in 2005. The recipients of the notice didn't demolish the structure; instead, they expanded the carpet area… Since then the issue has been in court.' The official said that the April 16 action by BMC came after the Bombay High Court dismissed the Trust's demand for regularising the structure. 'The demolition drive of April 16 was clearly recorded in the court's Roznama that was submitted on April 15,' the official said. Battle in courts over the demolition A city civil court had rejected the temple Trust's plea against demolition action on April 7, 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. The civic body then prepared to go ahead the following day. The civil court was told on April 15 that due to holidays between April 10 (Mahavir Jayanti) and April 14 (Dr B R Ambedkar's birth anniversary), the Trust had been unable to file an appeal in the HC. The BMC opposed the extension application, saying it had been filed to delay the demolition. On April 16 morning, the Trust informed the HC at an urgent hearing that BMC officials and police were present at the site to begin demolition. The HC ordered a stop to the action, but was informed that most of the structure had already been demolished. Counsel for BMC submitted to the court that except for two walls measuring 15 feet and 7 feet in length and 10 feet in height, the remaining suit structure had been razed. The court recorded the statement and directed it to file an affidavit within two weeks along with a copy of the Panchnama report to support its contentions regarding demolition. 'Till next date the status quo in respect of the suit structure as of now shall be maintained,' the HC said, and posted the hearing on appeals to April 30. Following the demolition The day after the temple was demolished, members of the Jain community in Mumbai held a silent protest march in Vile Parle. On April 19, at a massive protest rally, Jains were joined by other citizens at the site of the demolished temple. State Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha said the BMC should have waited before taking such an action. 'The temple was not causing any obstruction, the speed at which BMC took action was entirely unwarranted and officials should have acted carefully considering religious sentiments are involved,' Lodha said. Varsha Gaikwad, Congress MP from Mumbai's Dharavi who took part in the protest rally, said the BMC had acted 'hastily' and 'arbitrarily'. Congress leader Pawan Khera posted on X that 'the Jain community is hurt', and asked 'what enmity does BJP have with the tolerance and harmony of the country?' Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray posted on X: 'The BMC is now fully and directly controlled by the Chief Minister's office and UD minister's office.' The members of the community have now demanded that the civic administration should rebuild the demolished portion of the temple. The trustees have approached the state Commission for Minorities.
Scroll.in
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Mumbai: Ward official transferred after Jains protest municipal body bulldozing temple
A municipal official in Mumbai was transferred after members of the Jain community protested against the civic body bulldozing an allegedly illegal temple in Vile Parle, the Hindustan Times reported on Sunday. The temple was demolished on April 16. The temple is managed by the Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust. Assistant Commissioner Navnath Ghadge Patil, who was in charge of the K East ward in Mumbai, was transferred a day after members of the Jain community held a protest against the municipal corporation. In a letter to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the protesters had demanded action against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation for carrying out the demolition, The Hindu reported. The transfer of Patil was linked to the demolition drive carried out by the civic body, the newspaper quoted Vile Parle MLA Parag Alavani as saying. Patil told the Hindustan Times that the Jain place of worship was demolished in line with court directives, and that all legal procedures were followed. The municipal corporation had initiated the demolition based on a notice issued under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Bar and Bench reported. On April 7, a civil court in Mumbai had dismissed an application filed by the trust seeking interim protection. However, it had extended a prior stay on the demolition by a week, which expired on April 15, Bar and Bench reported. On April 15, while the civil court verbally rejected a plea to extend the stay further, the order was not available, Bar and Bench quoted the appellants as saying. Therefore, the trust approached the Bombay High Court the next day. A High Court bench of Justice Gauri Godse on April 16 allowed the matter to be heard urgently, noting that municipal officials had reached the temple to demolish the structure. During the hearing, the municipal corporation submitted that barring two walls, the temple structure had already been demolished. The bench ordered the municipal body to file a supporting affidavit and submit witness testimonies documenting the demolition. The court directed the municipal corporation to ensure that no additional demolitions were carried out in the case till further orders. The court will hear the matter next on April 30. Ashok Sarogi, the trust's counsel, alleged that the civic body had demolished the temple even as an application for regularisation was pending, the Hindustan Times reported. 'There is adequate FSI [floor space index] available to allow regularisation of the structure, but without acknowledging the application for regularisation, the temple was demolished,' he was quoted as saying. On Saturday, Opposition leader Aaditya Thackeray criticised the municipal corporation and Mumbai Suburban Guardian Minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha for the demolition. 'The BMC is now fully and directly controlled by the chief minister's office and UD [urban development] minister's office,' the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader said on social media. 'Who is the guardian minister protesting against?' Thackeray asked, alleging that Lodha was 'doing the drama of a protest' instead of protecting the temple. Thackeray added: 'I hope everyone realises– the BJP belongs to nobody. It is the BJP government that is running the BMC through the CM's office.'
