Neville D’Souza proposal at early stage: Mumbai civic body to HC

The BMC emphasised the need for proper statutory procedures in response to MHADA’s earlier request for modification.

The BMC has told the Bombay high court that it has neither finally deleted the playground designation and reservation of the Neville D’Souza football ground at Bandra Reclamation nor sanctioned the conversion into a convention or exhibition centre, adding that the proposal is still at a preliminary stage and has to undergo statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act to reach an ultimate decision of the competent authority.

The 8,450-square-metre plot on which the Neville D’Souza football ground in located, is owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). (Hindustan Times)

As reported by HT earlier, the 8,450-square-metre plot, owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), was reserved for a convention and trade fair centre in 1983. Around 15 years ago, it was leased out “temporarily” to the Mumbai Football Association (MFA); the BMC subsequently marked it as a recreation ground in the Development Plan (DP) 2034 since a football ground was in existence.

However, in May this year, the civic body’s improvements committee recommended altering the reservation of the plot under the revised DP 2034, in pursuance with a November 2025 letter from MHADA seeking restoration of the original reservation. This prompted the MFA to move the high court through senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina and counsels Akshay Doctor, Pradeep Mane and Anoj Menon.

On August 10, during the hearing of the plea, the BMC had sought time to file its affidavit and had orally assured the court that the status quo would be maintained. But on August 18, the BMC’s general body moved ahead with the proposal in breach of its earlier assurance, the MFA informed the court and sought an urgent hearing.

In the affidavit filed before the high court on August 19, the BMC said that the petition challenging the proposed change was “misconceived and premature”.

“The designation and reservation form part of the sanctioned Development Plan 2034 and, therefore, it cannot be altered or deleted merely on the basis of any administrative request or representation. Any such modification has necessarily to follow the statutory procedure prescribed under the MR & TP Act. Under the scheme of the Acts, unless and until such modification is sanctioned by the state government, there is no cause of action to file and prosecute the petition.”

The affidavit pointed out that under the presently sanctioned DP 2034, the land which was affected by the convention complex reservation as per the MHADA-approved layout, is now affected by various reservations and designations, including a playground, a multipurpose community centre, a municipal school, an old age home and care centre and is situated in the residential zone. “MHADA’s request, if accepted, would require modification of the sanctioned DP,” it added.

The affidavit added that the planning authority was required to publish a notice, inviting objections and suggestions from affected persons, consider the objections and submit the proposed modification to the state government for sanction. “Any modification thereto necessarily requires compliance with the statutory procedure”, it said.

The civic body stated that MFA could not claim any vested right in respect of the proposed modification or contend that the BMC had already taken a final decision regarding the deletion of the designation or reservation. “The Corporation has acted bona fide and in discharge of its statutory functions as the Planning Authority. It is committed to following due process of law and shall abide by the decision of the competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the MR & TP Act,” it said.

The affidavit also clarified that MFA would have remedies and opportunities available in law, including the opportunity to raise objections or suggestions pursuant to the notification under Section 37(1).