Mumbai: Criticising the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its failure to establish a "structured development supervision system" for the redevelopment buildings owned by the civic body, the Bombay High Court has deemed the situation "unacceptable from every perspective."
The High Court was addressing a petition submitted by more than 37 residents of a BMC-owned property named 'Bengali House' in Kamathipura, South Mumbai. The residents raised concerns about delayed redevelopment of their building and non-payment of transit rent.
On August 28, a division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata urged the BMC to create a circular or issue regulations addressing this issue.
Petitioners vacated their homes in 2010
The petitioners stated that they vacated their homes in 2010, yet the redevelopment remains incomplete.
The bench expressed its concern, noting that the absence of a "structured development supervision system" for corporation-owned building redevelopments is an "unacceptable state of affairs from every perspective." This, the court added, amounts to an "unacceptable abdication of municipal administration duties and obligations."
While the court acknowledged that it cannot legislate on this matter, it strongly recommended that the BMC prioritize addressing this issue. The judges stated that a comprehensive system should be established through a circular or regulations, binding the MCGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) to ensure transparent and timely progress of development projects monitored by them across the city.
The court directed that a copy of its order be presented to the BMC commissioner for consideration.
Court cites SRA & MHADA's practices
Comparing the situation to the practices of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), the court questioned why the MCGM should not follow a similar disciplined approach in monitoring building redevelopments.
Currently, SRA and MHADA require developers to deposit transit rent in advance, either for 12 or 24 months. However, the civic body lacks such a provision.
The court highlighted that the determination of transit rent could be easily achieved by referring to the Ready Reckoner rates for a given year and area, but the MCGM leaves this responsibility to the developer and any associated society. This often leads to ambiguity, confusion, and conflicting claims among eligible occupants.
The court emphasised that like other planning authorities, the BMC should introduce a system of biometric and Aadhaar-based identification to prevent unauthorized transactions involving rehab units.
Furthermore, the court stated that the absence of supervision is not just an inconvenience for developers; it poses a greater challenge. If the developer is aware of the predetermined transit rent amount and the requirement to deposit it in advance, they can ensure clarity and certainty regarding the project's financial aspects.
.png)
