Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: open space in Citispace And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 March, 2022Matching Fragments
1. Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 is a public interest litigation at the instance of three petitioners. CitiSpace, the first petitioner, is an association of persons inter alia engaged in protection and rightful use of public open spaces in Mumbai. The second and the third petitioners are the convenor and member of the Steering Committee of the first petitioner, respectively. Both of them are citizens of India as well as rate payers.
2. This public interest litigation was instituted by the petitioners to espouse a noble cause, viz. preventing the 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 respondents, i.e., the State of Maharashtra through the Department of Urban Development (respondent no.1), the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (respondent no.2), and the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation (respondent no.3) from legitimizing encroachments of open spaces in Mumbai. Accordingly, it was prayed that sanctions/approvals granted to proposals for rehabilitation of slum dwellers on open spaces be set aside. Multiple other prayers were also made in the public interest litigation.
901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 Ultimately, the writ petition was heard by this Court on 25th July 2014 (cor. Chief Justice and M.S. Sanklecha, J.). The order passed on 25th July 2014 reads as follows:
" This writ petition has been filed by the NGO to save the open green spaces in the city of Mumbai. Since large areas of open spaces are encroached upon and slums have come up, open spaces are not actually available to citizens. In order to allow implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, the Government issued a Notification dated 3 June 1992 to provide that where slums have come up on lands which are reserved for green open spaces like play ground or recreation ground, 1/3rd of the land be used for the purpose for which the land is reserved, another 1/3rd of the land be used for constructing rehab tenements for the slums dwellers and remaining 1/3rd be permitted to be utilized by the developer for the constructing free-sale component.
3. At the last hearing of this writ petition, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General, who was requested to assist the Court, this Court had suggested to the learned counsel for parties and the learned Advocate General to explore the possibility of resolving the deadlock which has been created. On the one hand, permitting the policy in the Government impugned Notification to be implemented would mean the citizens losing green open spaces, (which were reserved for gardens etc.) to the extent of 67%. On the other hand, in the present situation even 33% of the land is not available as open green spaces because the entire land is occupied by slum dwellers.
22. Dr. Sathe appearing for respondent No. 2 has echoed the submission of Mr. Samdani.
23. Such submission of Mr. Samdani has been countered by Mr. Rustomjee by submitting that NAREDCO has not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition as yet and, therefore, has no locus standi to seek clarification of the interim order at this stage. It is the further contention of Mr. Rustomjee that at the stage of consideration of an application for amendment, the Court may not entertain the prayer for clarification of the interim order dated 6th April 2021. Finally, it is his contention that the Court ought to look to the justice that the situation demands. DCR-2034 makes insignificant cosmetic changes and is not intended to protect the open spaces which have been reserved and any dilution of the arrangements that are in place today based on the premise that the order dated 25th July 2014 is still in force would result in the affectation of rights of the citizens of Mumbai. The petitioners' challenge is not only confined to the relevant 901-ial12380-2021 in wp1152-2002 regulation of DCR-2034 but their concern is to preserve the open spaces with the intention of the same being used/utilized only to further the purpose for which the same has been reserved and not for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. Although the Court granted liberty to the respondent no. 1 to come out with a new policy, DCR-2034 is like old wine in a new bottle with absolutely no significant changes. It is also his submission that the threat to open spaces from various quarters ought to be warded off by appropriate protection being granted by this Court.