In High Court

MHADA will reopen the scheme for the Dadasaheb Gaikwad Nagar tenants, till October 8 . Tenants will pay up the ownership amounts alongwith the rent arrears thereon. State advocate general C J Sawant also said if a substantial number of residents were keen on joining the scheme, the society could be set up in the area.

The petition was filed by the Gaikwad Nagar Seva Samiti which challenged the notification of March 4, 1998 whereby the police colony that also resided in the area, the Maharashtra Police Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd, was givenpermission to develop the area under SRS. According to advocate for the petitioners, Peter Lobo, the area was not a declared slum but a MHADA colony. He also argued that a majority of the residents were not interested in joining the SRS but were keen on getting their present tenements on an ownership basis according to the scheme floated by MHADA in January 1, 1993. Lobo also presented around 1,700 affidavits with photographs of the residents who he claimed wanted to be a part of the scheme. The respondent parties, especially the police housing federation, claimed that 1,778, including the 850 members of the police colony, were with the SRS. State advocate general C J Sawant told the court that the present situation in the colony was dismal. The tenements were around 160 sq feet and the toilets were common. But the SRS scheme would give the tenants a free self contained tenement of 225 sq feet. Rs 20,000 would be deposited in the banks per tenement for life long maintenance charges. Only 155 tenants hadcome forward with the money under the ownership scheme since 1993, which is why SRS was to be implemented, he said.

However, Lobo contended that the ownership scheme was on for the other 16 MHADA colonies in the city, except the present one. Save Breach Candy caseo THE Save Breach Candy Committee has been able to save an open space of land between the Tata Garden and Lion Club garden with the government giving a written undertaking to the Bombay High Court that it had no plans to construct any pucca structure on the plot.

The matter related to the land adjutting the sea at Bhulabhai Desai Road, where early on in November 1998, the New Sagar Darshan Co-operative Housing Society had addressed a letter to the collector of Mumbai requesting him to intervene when rocks and stones were being downloaded in the open area. According to counsel for the petitioners, Y D Mulani, the land was reserved for a recreation ground and unless it was dereserved by the competent authorities, it could not be used for anypurpose. He also pointed out to the division bench of the Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice S H Kapadia that under the CRZ , no new construction could be allowed within 500 metres of the seashore.

While the government had earlier refuted allegations that the land was to be used for construction purposes, the petitioners said the PWD had constructed a wall and was disallowing the public from using it for recreation. The petitioners feared that the land would be used by PWD for their offices.However, a written statement by assistant government pleader Abhay Patki declared that there were no plans to use the plot of land for construction purposes.