BMC can’t go beyond law for vacating, demolition of structures for Mithi river widening project: Bombay HC

A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal R Khata on February 19 had rejected the submission by petitioner Ashiyana Welfare Society and others seeking a service road of lesser width, noting that ‘it was not for a society or persons who are essentially encroachers on public lands’ to demand so.

The bench had further referred to ‘extensive damage’ during 2005 Mumbai floods due to ‘illicit construction along the banks of the Mithi river, and had observed, “Public memory may be short, but it cannot be that short that the city entirely forgets the time just a few years ago in July 2005 when it was almost entirely under water and one of the portions most severely affected was the Mithi river, especially at its mouth.”

The bench had further refused petitioners’ prayer seeking restraint against demolition of their structure stating that ‘public interest’ would not allow the court to grant such a ‘wide relief.’

On March 21, the bench perused BMC’s affidavit on phase-wise work status for Mithi river widening and allied activity project. The civic body stated that for phase 1 of the project from Kalina Bridge to Bike Gully, 179 structures are affected, whereas in Phase 2 (Bike Gully to Masjid), 2,252 structures are affected. It added that for the third phase of Masjid to CST Bridge, 3, 320 structures are affected.

The bench noted that ‘a writ court cannot be expected to decide whether such a project is or is not necessary’ and the decision was left to the planning authority who executes policies for site clearance and rehabilitation.

The bench said that writ court cannot determine the amount of compensation for those who do not opt for PAP accommodation as the same was ‘purely administrative decision’.

Referring to petitioners’ apprehension of structures being demolished in ‘disorganised fashion’ without survey and without decision on eligibility as PAP, the bench said the same was ‘not possible in law’.

“Under no circumstance will the BMC go beyond the parameters of what is permissible in law, ie, the requirement of a preceding survey, notices, the offer of rehabilitation and a structured phase-wise programme even if a larger area is required for further expansions, for further works whether allied to this project or even otherwise,” the bench noted and disposed of the pleas.