Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The DCR 1991, which preceded DCPR 2034, was framed under the MRTP Act. The 1992 Notification, which was issued under Section 31 of the MRTP Act, was the beginning of a pattern whereby the State sought to use its power to modify reserved land uses in favour of slum rehabilitation.
6. In 1995-96, amendments were made to the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Slum Act). A new Chapter I-A was inserted to legally enable and regulate Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. Pursuant to these amendments, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) was constituted by the State Government through a Notification under the Slum Act and was entrusted with the task of implementing slum redevelopment projects. Further, in exercise of powers under Section 37(2) of the MRTP Act, the State issued a Notification modifying Regulation 33(10) of the DCR 1991 and inserting Appendix IV, which laid down terms and conditions for slum rehabilitation. Clause 7.3 of the Appendix notably reduced the minimum land requirement from 1,000 square meters to 500 square meters, thereby broadening the scope for using reserved lands for rehabilitation projects.

49. Under the earlier 1992 Notification, read with Appendix IV of DCR 1991: In cases where the land reserved for open space exceeded 500 square metres, and at least 25% of such land was encroached by slums, the authorities were permitted to use up to 67% of the total area for slum redevelopment, subject to the condition that the remaining 33% would be preserved as open space. In contrast, under Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034:

65% of the land under reservation may be developed for slum rehabilitation, and the remaining 35% is to be retained as open space. However, the requirement of at least 25% pre-existing encroachment has been entirely removed. The petitioner submits that this change is not an improvement, but a regression. The marginal increase from 33% to 35% in the proportion of open oswp1152-2002-J-Final.doc space to be retained is purely cosmetic, and does not reflect any substantial shift in policy or planning philosophy. On the contrary, by removing the threshold encroachment condition, the Regulation now permits construction on previously un-encroached reserved land, which was not permissible earlier. Thus, the impact on reserved open spaces is far more severe and widespread. The petitioner reiterates that this so-called "new policy" does not in any manner further the objective of restoring open spaces, nor does it implement any incentive-based mechanism to free up encroachments. Rather, it facilitates permanent diversion of reserved lands, including those not under encroachment, to slum redevelopment, without offering any compensatory open space, relocation alternatives, or public benefit safeguards.

98. The preparation of DCPR 2034 included consultations with the Planning Authority, Planning Committee, and experts. This participative process led to a policy that balances slum rehabilitation with reservation of open spaces, consistent with realities on ground.

99. Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) is not an isolated provision. Similar mechanisms are incorporated in: Regulation 17(3)(B):

redevelopment of cessed buildings; Regulation 17(3)(C)(I): cluster redevelopment schemes; Regulation 17(3)(C)(II): redevelopment of BDD chawls; Regulation 34(2)(3.4): development of Special Development Zones (SDZs). All of these provisions follow a common policy thread--clear a portion of encroached non- buildable land for amenities and allow development on the remainder with safeguards.

114. Based on the above, the Committee made the following key recommendations: In-situ redevelopment should be the main approach in slum rehabilitation schemes. Relocation should be permitted only where slums exist on public amenity lands that cannot be used for residential purposes.

115. Other Key Issues Considered by the Committee : Respondent No. 1 further submits that the Committee took a comprehensive view and considered several other critical issues, including: The implementation challenges in existing schemes and the need for policy reform. Whether any amendments were needed in the legal framework, including the Slum Act and related provisions. The necessity to create financial models to support civic infrastructure in slum projects. Measures to prevent sale of allotted tenements oswp1152-2002-J-Final.doc and re-encroachment by slum dwellers after rehabilitation. How to involve the private sector in funding and implementation without burdening the Government. Steps to be taken against non- cooperating slum dwellers who delay or obstruct redevelopment. The type of institutional machinery needed--whether governmental or autonomous--for better execution. The nature of incentives required to encourage large slum colonies to come forward voluntarily. Broad measures to promote and execute slum redevelopment on a citywide scale.