Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The petitioner places reliance on official studies, including the Preparatory Studies conducted by the MCGM for the formulation of the Development Plan 2014-2034, and the Inventorisation of Open Spaces and Water Bodies carried out by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, Environment Improvement Society. These studies show that the per capita open space available to residents of Mumbai is shockingly low, less than 1 square meter per person. In such circumstances, it is submitted that any policy which dilutes open space reservation cannot be permitted to override public interest, sustainable development, and the doctrine of environmental justice.

36. In conclusion, it is submitted that the impugned Regulation 17(3)(D)(2), and the policy underlying it, are not only unjust and arbitrary, but also constitutionally impermissible, being in breach of: Article 21 - right to a healthy environment; Article 14 - equality and non-arbitrariness; the principles of sustainable development and precaution; and the public trust doctrine.

37. The petitioner submits that the contention raised by some of the Respondents, that the case law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable because it pertains only to physically existing open spaces and not to lands merely reserved as open spaces in the Development Plan, is legally misconceived and factually incorrect. This argument fails to recognize that the distinction between physically developed open spaces and lands reserved for open oswp1152-2002-J-Final.doc spaces under the Development Plan is artificial and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the concept of open space reservation under the Development Plan is not notional, but forms a critical part of urban environmental planning. Such reservations carry with them a statutory obligation on the part of the planning authority to eventually acquire and develop the land for public purposes, as per the provisions of the MRTP Act.

74. The newly sanctioned Development Plan under DCPR 2034 has taken into account the actual position on ground, and re- evaluated certain reservations where encroachments had made implementation of earlier reservations practically impossible. Accordingly, the reservation for open space on such plots is now treated as available to the extent of 35%, with the balance allowed to be used for rehabilitation of existing slum dwellers. This represents a balanced, practical, and lawful approach to urban planning, recognising the needs of both ecology and housing.

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.