River Valley Residents Welfare Association vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

R.M. Savant, J.—At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Chaugule makes a statement that the petitioners are not pressing prayer clause (b). The said statement is accepted. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of the above petition, inter alia, seeking demolition of the hutments situated in the River Valley, particularly in areas marked A, B and C in the plan annexed to the petition at Exhibit-B. The petitioners also seek a direction against the respondents to take action in accordance with law to demolish the hutments and clear the public roads and lands reserved for public gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and open spaces within a time bound programme of three months and report compliance to this Court.

The above petition had come up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court comprising of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale (as His Lordship then was) and Mrs. Justice V.K. Tahilramani on 24th September, 2001, when a direction was issued that the road on the eastern side adjoining to the river ought to be widened from present 8 ft. width to its lawfully provided width of 30 ft. The Respondent No. 1 Corporation was directed to file an affidavit as to the steps taken by it in that behalf. This direction was issued in view of the difficulties faced by the petitioner society in the absence of an adequate road resulting in the occupants to take a detour to reach their buildings. Thereafter, the above petition had come up on 15th October, 2001 on which day an affidavit filed by one A.W. Pitale, Assistant Engineer was considered. A Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to take steps to remove the 65 structures or whatever structures on the road adjoining the river so that the said road on the eastern side of the river is restored to 30 ft. width. The Division Bench stipulated a time limit by which the same was to be done i.e. by end of 15th October, 2011.

In terms of the said order dated 15th October, 2001, steps were taken by the Corporation to rehabilitate the 65 encroachers and thereby freeing the width of the road from encroachment to the extent of 9.15 mtrs. i.e. 30 ft. wide approximately. An affidavit to the said effect dated 27th July, 2009 has been filed by one Manoj Madhav Kamat, Assistant Engineer of Respondent No. 1 in the above petition. Hence, so far as the road on the eastern side of the river is concerned, presently it is of the width of 30 ft.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, makes a grievance that though a D.P. Road to the extent of 60 ft. is provided connecting the road on the eastern side of the river to Laxman Mhatre Road, no steps have been taken to implement the said D.P. proposal. The development plan in question is of the year 1992 wherein the said D.P. road has been shown. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the period of more than 9 years have elapsed, the respondent No. 1 has not taken any steps to implement the said development plan proposal.

Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation that the alignment and width of the said 60 ft. wide D.P. Road on the western side connecting the said 30 ft. road along the river to the Laxman Mhatre Road is heavily encroached and the same is a private property and, therefore, to implement the development plan proposal, the respondent No. 1 Corporation would have to take steps to acquire the said private property which would take some time.

Upon this, the learned counsel for the petitioners draws our attention to the fact that part of the D.P. Road is already constructed and only what remains to be constructed is only a part of the road leading towards Laxman Mhatre Road in respect of which steps would have to be taken by the Corporation. There is no gainsaying the fact that the development plan proposals are mooted looking to the need of the society at the relevant time as also the need that would arise in future. It is, therefore, obligatory on the part of the planning authority to see that the planning proposals as contained in the development plan are implemented so that there is planned and proper development of the metropolis. No doubt, in so far as the encroachers who are within the width and on the alignment of the said D.P. Road, they would have to be rehabilitated/relocated in terms of the policy of the State Government. However, the same, in our view, would have to be done with reasonable despatch as otherwise it would have the effect of the planning proposals remaining only on paper.

Since the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly restricted his prayer in the present petition to only construction of the remainder part of the D.P. Road so as to connect the 30 ft. road on the eastern side to the Laxman Mhatre Road, we deem it appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case to issue the following directions. (i) The Respondent No. 1 Corporation to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land for construction of the said remainder part of the 60 ft. wide D.P. Road connecting the 30 ft. wide road on the river side to the Laxman Mhatre Road.

(ii) If the said construction entails the work of rehabilitation of hutment dwellers, Respondent No. 1 is directed to identify the hutment dwellers who are required to be rehabilitated/relocated by taking the assistance of the authorities of the State Government.

(iii) We expect the Corporation, considering that the said 60 ft wide road is a development plan proposal, to proceed in the matter expeditiously and see that the planning proposal at least in respect of the 60 ft. wide road is implemented within a period of three years from date.

Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their own respective costs.