Bombay High Court ends high rise residents’ exclusive access to public park

According to the contract, DSK was supposed to utilise 33% of the plot for its own purposes and keep 67% open as a public park

After the intervention of the Bombay High Court, an eclosed 1021-square-metre public garden in Cuffe Parade used exclusively by residents of the high-rise DSK Tower will now be accessible by the public.

An eclosed children’s park in Cuffe Parade, used exclusively by residents of the high-rise DSK Tower, will now be thrown open to the public (File pic for representation)

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) told the High Court that it will construct a wall to block the residents from exclusive access and to make the space accessible to the public. Senior advocate Milind Sathe, representing the civic body, said they are beginning the work on Monday and will post guards to protect the park from encroachments.

The decision was taken after a local resident Sanjay Kokate, 45, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) regarding the alleged ‘usurpation’ of the public garden. He argued that the premise was being used for commercial purposes, including a high-end gymnasium and swimming pool, despite being public property. The case was heard by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice Mahesh Sonak.

Acting on the PIL, the court had asked the Court Receiver to visit the garden and submit a report. The report revealed that the garden had been developed under the contract with the BMC, but was being used as a recreational and parking space by the residents of the high-rise building. According to the contract, DSK was supposed to utilise 33% of the plot for its own purposes and keep 67% open as a public park

The judges were infuriated at the revelation, and lashed out at the residents of the high rise as well as the BMC. “Look how they have deprived the public. For years together they kept the public in the dark and the public did not even know that the garden was meant for them. And this was all done in full connivance with BMC officers.”

The lawyer representing the housing society argued against the construction of the wall, stating that the fire brigade had asked them to retain the access to the park so as to enable them to manoeuvre fire tenders in cases of emergency. The bench responded by saying that if that was the case, the building was not fire compliant and they may consider asking residents to vacate the building. “If the building faces fire hazard, the solution will be to shift the residents of the building and not to disturb the green patch,” said the judges. “The residents may then sue the developer.”