The Bombay High Court recently expressed its strong dissatisfaction with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its perceived lack of organized oversight in the redevelopment of its properties, prompting a call for the establishment of clear guidelines or regulations to address this issue.

In a hearing held on August 28, a division bench comprising Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata deliberated on a series of petitions submitted by more than 30 individuals who were former residents of a BMC-owned property named 'Bengali House' in the bustling neighbourhood of south Mumbai. The petitioners voiced their concerns over various issues, including the non-payment of transit rent and significant delays in the redevelopment of their building.

According to the petitioners, they vacated their homes in the Kamathipura-based building in Byculla as far back as 2010, yet the much-awaited redevelopment project remains incomplete, causing them significant distress and uncertainty.

The bench, having reviewed the details of the case, did not mince words in expressing their disappointment with what they characterized as an "unacceptable state of affairs from every perspective." They pointed out a glaring absence of structured development supervision when it comes to projects involving BMC-owned buildings. In no uncertain terms, the court labelled this situation as an "unacceptable abdication of municipal administration duties and obligations."

While acknowledging that they couldn't directly legislate on this matter, the judges made it clear that they could strongly recommend that the BMC, at the highest levels, urgently address this issue. They suggested that a structured system should be devised, perhaps through the issuance of a circular or the formulation of regulations, which would be binding. This would ensure that development projects monitored by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) progress on schedule and with transparency, clarity, and openness.

The bench also directed that a copy of their order be presented to the civic chief for careful consideration. Drawing attention to the fact that both the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) have developed relatively detailed and sophisticated monitoring systems for the redevelopment of properties under their jurisdiction, the court questioned why the MCGM should not adopt a similar approach.

It was pointed out that the SRA and MHADA now require the upfront deposit of transit rent, either for 12 or 24 months, whereas the BMC fails to do so. Additionally, the BMC does not establish the transit rent amount, despite the Ready Reckoner rates for a given year and area being readily available. This lack of clarity often results in ambiguity and disputes among eligible occupants, causing further delays in the redevelopment process.

The court also emphasized the importance of implementing biometric and Aadhaar-based identification systems to prevent any illicit activities related to rehabilitation units. This, they argued, would add a layer of security and transparency to the process.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that the absence of supervision from the BMC not only impacts the residents but also creates challenges for the developers involved in these projects. By having a clear understanding of the transit rent requirements and the necessity of upfront deposits, developers would gain certainty about the financial aspects of their projects, which is essential for their planning and execution.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's recent comments underscore the urgent need for the BMC to establish a comprehensive and structured system for overseeing the redevelopment of its properties. The court's call for clear regulations and guidelines reflects a commitment to ensuring that such projects progress efficiently and transparently, benefiting both residents and developers alike. It is a clarion call for better governance and accountability in urban development initiatives.