One hutment, two beneficiaries, four flats in Mumbai

Developers misusing road-widening policy to corner massive FSI benefits for luxury projects, allegedly aided by civic officials; BMC is yet to act

MUMBAI: Tukaram Shinde and Nasirali Ishraf Ali Khan, pavement dwellers in Lower Parel, have received a windfall. Each has been allotted, not one, but two rehabilitation flats due to displacement for a road widening project.

Slum on the footpath demolished by BMC near Gawade Chowk in Prabhadevi. Mumbai, India. Mar 17, 2026. (Photo by Raju Shinde/HT Photo) (Raju Shinde)

One flat each has been allotted under the Project Affected Persons (PAP) policy of the BMC’s estate department, while the other has been assigned under Regulation 33(12)(B) of a road-widening bottleneck policy. That’s the first anomaly.

G-South ward also lists both Shinde and Khan as occupants of the same hutment – No 7, Plot No 367, Senapati Bapat Marg, at Balkrishna Gawde Chowk, Elphinstone Road – even though rehabilitation policies allot only one flat to the occupants of a single tenement.

But, in Mumbai, the powerful real estate lobby calls the shots. Developers are claiming the particularly generous FSI benefits offered by Regulation 33(12)(B) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), even where not applicable. In addition, they are benefitting from an unauthorised dual allotment system, aided by corrupt civic officials.

Under the law, the two rehabilitation frameworks – one for PAPs and the other under Regulation 33(12)(B) – are mutually exclusive. “There is no question of a single individual getting two rehabilitation flats. This is a serious violation of the law,” says former IPS officer and advocate Y P Singh.

The misuse of DCPR 33 12(B) was first highlighted by HT on October 6, 2025, after it was brought to light by RTI activist and whistleblower Santosh Daundkar. He had alleged that bogus beneficiaries were being planted by developers while genuine residents were being left out under the civic road-widening policy. The issue was also discussed in the state legislative assembly this week.

Regulation 33(12)(B) was framed to improve public infrastructure, road geometry, and traffic movement within Mumbai, essentially to clear bottlenecks on streets. It offers builders significantly higher FSI compared to other redevelopment norms.

For instance, while redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) typically yields an FSI of 2.5 to 3.0, road-widening projects under Regulation 33(12)(B) offers FSI of 4.0 or more, depending on incentives linked to road clearance.

This has made the provision particularly attractive in premium real estate pockets, especially in G South and F South wards like Worli and Parel. With the collusion of civic officials, the paperwork is manipulated to invoke this provision even in the absence of road-widening projects. In many instances, even the beneficiaries are fictitious.

Moreover, Singh stressed, the provision is meant only for old, authorised structures in the way of road widening; it cannot be applied to pavement dwellers, who are rehabilitated via the PAP route.

Singh alleged that developers often secure approvals by showing rehabilitation tenements in their plans, only to later acquire these units from the fictitious beneficiaries and merge them into larger apartments through revised proposals.

He remarks, “The builder not only gets the rehabilitation FSI but also the incentive FSI. It’s the proverbial case of ‘having one’s cake and eating it too!”

After HT exposed the alleged misuse in October 2025, additional municipal commissioner (city) Ashwini Joshi wrote to nine assistant municipal commissioners, demanding a report from their respective wards. Later, a vigilance probe was ordered.

Municipal commissioner Bhushan Gagrani admitted to these serious lapses in a noting to Joshi, saying the scheme must be implemented “project-wise, rather than developer-wise.” He had directed that a new, comprehensive circular replace the earlier one to prevent further misuse.

The 2023 circular issued by then civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal clearly mandated that affected residents must be rehoused within the same ward, with developers gaining extra floor space for each structure rehabilitated.

When Joshi was queried about what action was taken against civic officials involved, if any, she said, “I have given all 33 (12) (B) complaints for inquiry to the joint municipal commissioner (vigilance).”

Daundkar remarks, “The vigilance inquiry has been on since October and the amended circular by Gagrani serves no purpose. The civic administration has shown no intention to bring the culprits to book.”

Gagrani was unavailable for comment.