Mumbai: Maharashtra Ports and Fisheries Minister Nitesh Rane’s recent statement that his department could monetize land reclaimed for Mumbai’s Coastal Road project has sparked strong opposition. His letter to BMC, suggesting that the Mumbai Maritime Board (MMB) should be involved in the land’s development, led to immediate backlash, particularly from Congress MP Varsha Gaikwad, who accused the government of attempting to commercialize public spaces.
Gaikwad Alleges Mega Land Scam In Making
Gaikwad took to social media to warn Mumbaikars of an impending 'Mega Land Scam,' stating that 111 hectares of land reclaimed from the Arabian Sea were meant to serve as open public spaces and green zones, not for commercial exploitation. She alleged that both the Maharashtra and Central governments had previously assured citizens that the reclaimed land would not be used for private interests but was now being targeted for commercial projects to benefit builders and land mafias.
In her post, Gaikwad criticised the ruling alliance, referring to it as "MahaBhrasth Yuti," accusing them of systematically selling off Mumbai’s assets. She specifically called out Rane for writing to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and demanding that the reclaimed land be handed over to MMB for potential revenue-generating activities. According to her, this move was another attempt to divert public land meant for parks, promenades and green spaces to private developers.
The Congress leader urged citizens to oppose what she termed a 'betrayal' and called for the entire reclaimed land to be designated as a Public Open Space and Coastal Forest in Mumbai’s Development Plan. She emphasized the need for public pressure to prevent the land from falling into the hands of developers, whom she accused of working closely with the government for financial gain.
Rane's Clarification After Massive Backlash
Following the uproar, Rane clarified his stance on social media, denying any intention to transfer the reclaimed land to MMB. He stated that his letter to the BMC had been 'misinterpreted' and insisted that it was merely a suggestion for a revenue-sharing model if the BMC decided to generate income through advertisements or events. He emphasized that MMB was not asking for ownership of the land or seeking additional reclamation.
