In a significant development for residents of Mamlatdarwadi in Malad West, a temporary stay was granted by the Bombay High Court and the Mumbai City Civil Court on the road-widening works being undertaken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The stay was issued after separate petitions were filed by affected citizens, who alleged that the civic project was being executed without adequate notice or legal acquisition of private property.
The widening of Road No. 6, which was initiated by the BMC, had been underway with the aim of expanding the road from 4.5 metres to nine metres. As part of the work, compound walls of residential societies had been demolished, leading to panic and unrest among residents. It was stated by several residents that awareness of the civic plan had only been brought to their attention when demolition machinery was brought to the site on April 30.
Legal action was promptly taken in the first week of May, with Gariba Hospital filing a plea in the Bombay High Court and two residential buildings—Maitry Residency and Gurukrupa Residency—seeking recourse in the city civil court. Relief was subsequently provided by both courts, with hearings scheduled for June 10 and June 16, respectively.
Concerns were raised by the residents that the urgency behind the project was being influenced by a nearby private development. It was alleged that the road was being expanded to precisely nine metres, which, under current municipal norms, would enable a neighbouring builder to obtain higher Floor Space Index (FSI) clearance for a high-rise project. The proximity of the builder’s plot to the P North ward office was also pointed out.
The impact of the project on the Gariba Hospital compound had been cited as a reason for seeking judicial relief. Legal representatives for the residential societies stated that the 4.5-metre stretch being widened had existed on private land owned by the society and, as such, could not be modified without lawful acquisition. It was further pointed out that no notice of acquisition or proposal had been shared with the residents in advance. Questions were also raised about whether the road even figured in the Development Plan 2034, which is currently under review.
A notice under Section 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act had reportedly been served to residents on April 15, demanding clearance of the marked zone within seven days. Residents stated that this notice had been served without any dialogue regarding objections, suggestions, or compensation. The presence of over 50 trees on the road was mentioned, which, according to locals, would be lost to the construction activity.
Further opposition to the project was expressed on grounds of structural safety and practical inconvenience. The road, described as a dead end, was said to serve only a small group of residents. It was warned by local architects that excavation work being conducted dangerously close to residential building foundations could jeopardise their structural integrity. Loss of parking space within compound premises was also mentioned, with residents concerned that relocation of parking to public roads would lead to traffic congestion and penalties.
Share
Tweet
