‘Ward officers misused DCPR regulation on road-widening to benefit developer and encroachers’

The matter came to light after many elected representatives and civic activists complained to civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal who, in turn, issued a circular on April 28 to review an estate department’s circular dated February 16, 2021, in which a clause is the root of the alleged misuse of DCPR 33(12)(B). A senior civic official from the commissioner’s office also confirmed this circular of which Hindustan Times has a copy.

Mumbai: In the guise of road-widening and rehabilitating project-affected persons coming in the way of the road line, a gross misuse of a Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034 by ward officers allegedly in collusion with developers has been unearthed. Instead of rehabilitating original beneficiaries in the same ward as the regulation mandates, an NOC is being granted to developers under DCPR 33(12)(B) to rehabilitate bogus individuals.

The clause in question states that it shall be the responsibility of the scheme owner/developer who wishes to seek benefits under DCPR 33(12)(B) to execute a tri-party agreement with the owner of the plot where such protected/tolerated structures are situated with the occupiers of such structures. Activists pointed out that this clause talks about random roads and not specifically priority roads meant for road-widening, where legal structures come in the way of road alignment. (HT PHOTO)

The matter came to light after many elected representatives and civic activists complained to civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal who, in turn, issued a circular on April 28 to review an estate department’s circular dated February 16, 2021, in which a clause is the root of the alleged misuse of DCPR 33(12)(B). A senior civic official from the commissioner’s office also confirmed this circular of which Hindustan Times has a copy.

The clause in question states that it shall be the responsibility of the scheme owner/developer who wishes to seek benefits under DCPR 33(12)(B) to execute a tri-party agreement with the owner of the plot where such protected/tolerated structures are situated with the occupiers of such structures. Activists pointed out that this clause talks about random roads and not specifically priority roads meant for road-widening, where legal structures come in the way of road alignment.

The main purpose of DCPR 33(12)(B) is to expeditiously remove bottlenecks on roads. As per the provision, any tolerated or protected structures falling in the alignment of an existing road or a DP road are to be re-accommodated in the same administrative ward. The developer who reaccommodates such structures gets extra FSI for the scheme.

Vigilant activists and elected representatives have now cottoned on to the fact that DCPR 33(12)(B) has allegedly become a new source of corruption in the notorious nexus between ward assistant commissioners, officers and developers. RTI activist Santosh Daundkar, who was one of the whistleblowers, stated in his letter to Chahal on February 23 that even as the intended beneficiaries of the scheme were being deprived of a house in the same ward, bogus individuals were being planted by the developer. “A priority list of roads meant for widening needs to be made public, but roads are randomly selected without considering the viability and necessity,” says his letter. “Currently, more emphasis is given to alternate accommodation under DCPR 33(12)(B) due to the involvement of the developer and the subsequent monetary angle in it.”

Daundkar also asked Chahal to probe the nexus between ward officers and developers; to inquire about NOCs issued to a developer to commence rehab work; and to review the implementation of DCPR 33(12)(B),2034 by appointing a committee and to upload all NOCs issued by ward officers to developers on the BMC portal. On April 18, another alert citizen, Niraj G, also tweeted to Chahal and Devendra Fadnavis, talking about the “huge frauds” happening at the ward level and asking for a stay on the scheme.

Chahal has now directed the joint municipal commissioner (improvements) to fine-tune the estate department’s circular in 15 days in order to implement DCPR 33(12)(B) in letter and spirit. He has also directed ward officers to henceforth issue NOCs to developers under DCPR 33(12)(B) only as per the revised new circular.