MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently said it was presented with “an utterly unique situation, even by the standards of the strange goings-on in this city” when neither BMC nor MMRDA claimed ownership or responsibility of the Sahar elevated road stretch going to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mumbai International airport Terminal 2.
“It seems that there is even today in this city of Mumbai, a piece of land that lies outside the control and command areas of every known public planning authority,” observed a bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata.
A builder, Eversmile Construction, had filed a petition C to claim compensation from MMRDA or BMC in lieu of giving up its property for the development plan road at Sahar. HC said that if BMC and MMRDA claim no responsibility, “MIAL (Mumbai International Airport Ltd) can’t possibly have the road, and the petitioner is entitled to take it back, to destroy or pull down the ramp or the Sahar elevated road.”
MMRDA’s logic is unfathomable, says Bombay high court
Appearing in the Bombay HC, both city planning authorities, BMC and MMRDA, disclaimed all control, supervision and planning authority rights and responsibility over Sahar elevated road stretch maintained by MIAL, not a planning authority.
The court heard Pravin Samdani, senior counsel for the builder, who said only two situations are possible, Abhay Patki for state who said petitioner is entitled to the TDR and Pooja Yadav for BMC who said it can issue TDR only if the special planning authority MMRDA directs it to do so.
HC said MMRDA, “for some reason that we cannot fathom”, insists on putting everyone in an irreconcilable quandary and dilemma by saying that it is a special planning authority for the area includes the airport, but excludes this strip of access road.
On August 31, HC sought a reply from MMRDA in the form of a “responsible affidavit” by September 11. It also directed MIAL to file a reply setting out how it got possession, when, from whom and which authority constructed the road.
HC posted the matter for September 13, observing that, in law, a private property cannot be taken away for public use without compensation, “at least not without running afoul of Article 300A of the Constitution of India”.
“It seems that there is even today in this city of Mumbai, a piece of land that lies outside the control and command areas of every known public planning authority,” observed a bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata.
A builder, Eversmile Construction, had filed a petition C to claim compensation from MMRDA or BMC in lieu of giving up its property for the development plan road at Sahar. HC said that if BMC and MMRDA claim no responsibility, “MIAL (Mumbai International Airport Ltd) can’t possibly have the road, and the petitioner is entitled to take it back, to destroy or pull down the ramp or the Sahar elevated road.”
MMRDA’s logic is unfathomable, says Bombay high court
Appearing in the Bombay HC, both city planning authorities, BMC and MMRDA, disclaimed all control, supervision and planning authority rights and responsibility over Sahar elevated road stretch maintained by MIAL, not a planning authority.
The court heard Pravin Samdani, senior counsel for the builder, who said only two situations are possible, Abhay Patki for state who said petitioner is entitled to the TDR and Pooja Yadav for BMC who said it can issue TDR only if the special planning authority MMRDA directs it to do so.
HC said MMRDA, “for some reason that we cannot fathom”, insists on putting everyone in an irreconcilable quandary and dilemma by saying that it is a special planning authority for the area includes the airport, but excludes this strip of access road.
On August 31, HC sought a reply from MMRDA in the form of a “responsible affidavit” by September 11. It also directed MIAL to file a reply setting out how it got possession, when, from whom and which authority constructed the road.
HC posted the matter for September 13, observing that, in law, a private property cannot be taken away for public use without compensation, “at least not without running afoul of Article 300A of the Constitution of India”.
