 and the tender issued therein.){kind=link}
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions against Respondents to delete the area covered under the Mahim Nature Park Protected Forest, as described in Schedule 1 of the Notification dated 16th March 1991 from the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (SRA) and the tender issued therein.
Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner strenuously contended that the area under the Mahim Nature Park is a protected forest. Same cannot form part of any development project. The tender issued by Respondent No.1 (Dharavi Redevelopment Project) also does not specifically exclude the said area. The tender, on the contrary, recites a covenant that those properties which are open and/or not included in the redevelopment project, can be acquired and development rights can be created.
According to the Senior Advocate, the Respondents do not have any right and authority to carry out any development activity within the area of Mahim Nature Park. The Senior Advocate also refers to the tender document to contend that the provision has been made to include the excluded area also. Clause A of Draft of State Support Agreement is referred, which reads thus; “provided any excluded area desires to be included in the Project Area and to become part of integrated development to be carried out by the developer/s appointed for execution of the redevelopment plan to be included after due permission of DRP.”
Further, sub clause XVIII of Clause 1.4 of the Introduction of the tender document is also relied on by the learned Senior Advocate to contend that if land is acquired from the excluded portion in Dharavi Notified area or outside, the cost of acquisition shall be borne by the SVP Company.
Further reliance is placed on clause 9 of the Introduction of the tender document to suggest that upon land of the Government / semi Government and private and not having any slum structures, may be acquired, after taking consent from such land owners by giving consideration to such owner, equal to either Transferrable Development Rights (TDRs) equivalent to the development rights attached to such land or constructed area in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project.
The High Court, on 5th December 2022 asked Respondents to clarify as to whether the Mahim Nature Park is already excluded from the project area and also whether there is any plan for including the said area in the project. Pursuant to the same the affidavit is filed by Respondent No.1.
Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 submits that in the pre bid meeting, it has been clarified by Respondent No.1 that Mahim Nature park is not proposed to be included and will not be included in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project. According to the learned Senior Advocate, the apprehension of the Petitioner has been addressed. The Affidavit specifically and succinctly states that Mahim Nature Park is excluded from Dharavi Redevelopment Project and the same is not a part of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project and hence the Mahim Nature Park is not to be developed under the Dharavi Redevepment Project.
It is also accepted by the Petitioner that the Mahim Nature park is shown in the development plan as ‘reserved for the nature park’. There cannot be user of the land, contrary to the reservation in the development plan. In view of that, so long as the development plan stands showing the writ property as Mahim Nature Park, the same certainly cannot be developed for any purpose , with the aforesaid observations, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S.V.Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne disposed the PIL.