In a dispute involving the historic Dhobi Ghat in south Mumbai and a slum redevelopment project, the Bombay High Court has directed a court-appointed officer to conduct a joint inspection of the temporary site allocated to dhobis or washermen for drying clothes.
The disputed development project, located on land belonging to the proposed Shree Saibaba Nagar SRA CHS, involves an area of 28,156.32 sq m; of which 7,724.61 sq m is the non-slum portion historically reserved for drying clothes – which is now the point of contention. As per the petition, the land has been used by washermen and rassi (rope) holders since the 19th century.
A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor, on July 21, observed that complete and correct information must be placed before the court before proceeding further in the case. “We accordingly request the learned prothonotary and senior master of this court to appoint a court officer, who shall conduct a joint inspection of the temporary site made available to the petitioners,” the bench said. The officer has been asked to assess the hygiene, suitability and functionality of the temporary site for drying clothes and to submit a report by the next hearing on August 4.
The petition, filed by washermen Anil Kanojia and Lalji Kanojia, has sought directions against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and developer Resonant Realtors Projects Pvt Ltd (formerly Omkar Realtors) for allegedly amalgamating 7,724.61 sq m of land reserved for drying clothes into a slum redevelopment scheme without proper consent.
They have alleged that the developer merged the reserved drying area, historically used by 730 dhobis, into a larger SRA project without demarcating equivalent open land for them, as required. Of 730 dhobis, only 264 of them have given consent, while the rest of the names presented by the developer were either forged or fictitious, the plea asserted.
The petitioners, who are tenants of the BMC and possess licences to use the space, contended that the reserved land cannot be developed under Development Control Regulations 33(10), a provision meant for slum redevelopment, as it is neither a slum area nor unoccupied.
They have sought several reliefs, including exclusion of the drying area from the developer’s letter of intent, demarcation of equivalent open land adjacent to the stone platforms used for washing and compensation for temporary alternate accommodation. The dhobis have also requested the court to restrain the developer from evicting them from the interim premises until the matter is decided.
