The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), while responding to the observations made by retired justice JP Deodhar in his preliminary report on the building collapse at Malvani in Malad, informed the Bombay high court (HC) that the existing laws on slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) did not permit the civic body to take action against unauthorised structures that have mushroomed across the suburb.
BMC submitted that the ill-fated structure – which collapsed on June 9 killing 12 – had come up in 2012. However, due to the state’s policy which “protects encroachers”, the civic authority could not take action against it under section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, BMC submitted. The HC, however, observed that BMC could not shrug off its responsibility for the tragedy by shifting blame to the state authorities.
A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni was hearing the suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated last year after the Bhiwandi building collapse.
Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, who represented BMC, informed the bench that the civic authority had a limited role to play with regards to the unauthorised structures that had come up in Malvani. Chinoy added that out of the 8,485 structures in Malvani, 4,900 were ground-plus-one, of which 4,540 were probably unauthorised. He submitted that most of the ground-plus-two and three structures had violated the 14-foot height restriction mandated in the slum rehabilitation scheme. Chinoy said that the slums prior to 2000 were protected and even if they were above the 14-foot restriction, they could not be demolished. He added that as the slums were under SRA, BMC could not carry out any action against unauthorised structures.
Chinoy submitted that action under section 351 of MMC Act could be initiated against structures that had a plan. However, as these structures were constructed illegally without any plan, the said section could not be invoked for demolitions.
{{/usCountry}}Chinoy submitted that action under section 351 of MMC Act could be initiated against structures that had a plan. However, as these structures were constructed illegally without any plan, the said section could not be invoked for demolitions.
{{/usCountry}}Advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said only those structures which were within the 14-foot restriction were covered by the policy.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday morning.