Mahim Nature Park not part of Dharavi redevelopment, HC told
The Dharavi redevelopment authority on Monday told the Bombay high court that since Mahim Nature Park was marked as a reserved area in the development plan (DP) it would not be included in the slum redevelopment project
The Dharavi redevelopment authority on Monday told the Bombay high court that since Mahim Nature Park was marked as a reserved area in the development plan (DP) it would not be included in the slum redevelopment project. The HC then disposed of a public interest litigation petition filed by NGO Vanashakti and activist Zoru Bhathena.
The Dharavi redevelopment authority comes under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
A division bench of acting chief justice S V Gangapurwala and justice Sandeep Marne was informed by senior advocate Gayatri Singh, representing the petitioners, that the tender dated October 1 clearly showed that the park was inside the outer boundary of sector 5 of Dharavi notified area.
The petitioners claimed that the SRA had marked the area as a “recreational open space” while the area was a protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In light of this, the HC had asked the SRA to clarify whether the park was part of the slum redevelopment project.
Singh told the bench that the petitioners feared that the project would unlawfully allow developers to utilise the park for the proposed redevelopment in contravention of its status as a protected area.
However, senior advocate Milind Sathe, appearing for the Dharavi redevelopment authority, submitted an affidavit, clarifying that in the pre-bid meeting it had been made clear that Mahim Nature Park was not to be included in the project.
To this, the bench said the authority’s response addressed the apprehension raised by the petitioners.
“The affidavit specifically and succinctly states that Mahim Nature Park is excluded from Dharavi redevelopment project. It is also accepted by the petitioners that the park is shown in the DP as reserved for nature. There cannot be a use contrary to the DP, and the same cannot be developed for any other purposes,” the HC said.
