Supreme Court Freeze on BMC Chief's Salary Sparks Urgent Demolition in Borivali

On November 3, the Supreme Court suspended the November salary of Ashwini Bhide, the chief of Mumbai's civic body, triggering an immediate demolition of 27 structures on a 750-square-metre site in Borivali. This rapid action brought to light a protracted and overlooked land dispute, some 50 years in the making, concerning private ownership, protected tenants, and a broader civic development initiative.

The History of the Borivali Land Dispute

The controversy surrounding the Borivali land traces its origins back to the 1970s, culminating in an 18-year-long legal battle between the developer and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). Records from government land repositories indicate that the properties sit on privately-held land, with occupants shielded by the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In an affidavit filed with the Supreme Court last November, the BMC emphasized that it was the developer's duty to address encroachments on this privately-owned land.

The roots of the issue lie within a 6,400-square-metre area designated in the 1970s for a bus depot operated by the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) authority. As part of a consent agreement, Parag Construction, a private developer, was tasked with constructing an administrative building and bus depot to be transferred to the BMC, in exchange for Floor Space Index (FSI) incentives for multi-storey construction on a segment of the land. Adjacent to the larger plot, the focal point of the dispute involves the 750-square-metre parcel leased in 1978 to the families of Harshad Shah and Bhagwan Badre for a 99-year term.

Legal Entanglements and Tenant Rights

In 1981, the Bombay High Court mandated the auction of the land due to a dispute among family members and failure to pay property taxes. Following this ruling, Parag Construction emerged as a co-owner alongside Shah and Badre, with the smaller plot later incorporated into the overall development project. Tensions escalated as 27 tenants moved onto the land, leading both the BMC and BEST to stipulate that the developer needed to resolve these claims before any eviction could occur.

In 2008, Parag Construction petitioned the Supreme Court, contending that the BMC had neglected to evict the tenants. The court acknowledged that the structures were part of a development initiative and ruled that eviction was warranted. However, the BMC contended that it could not directly remove tenants protected under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act of 1998. Subsequently, the developer pursued contempt proceedings, asserting that the BMC's inaction was obstructing a vital public project.

“Our project is fundamental to city development, and under the Mumbai Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act, the BMC was obligated to clear encroachments on the site. Their failure to do so necessitated our contempt filing, which the court later upheld,” stated Anil Shah, a representative of Parag Construction. He noted that the developer had successfully handed over the depot and administrative building to BEST but had yet to undertake construction on the contentious 750-square-metre plot.

In its affidavit to the Supreme Court last November, the BMC reiterated that as the land is privately owned, clearing it of encroachments was the developer's responsibility. After the Supreme Court allocated a three-month timeframe for Parag Construction to complete the project and officially transfer the depot to BEST, the firm failed to meet the deadline. This failure prompted the Supreme Court to freeze BMC Chief Ashwini Bhide's salary. Hours after this decision, the BMC initiated a demolition operation.

Residents’ Plight Amid Demolition

In the wake of the demolition, the displaced residents of the destroyed structures have relocated their belongings to a shelter on the footpath along MG Road, directly across from the disputed site. “Last night, some officials arrived at our huts and informed us that we had to vacate by morning or face forceful eviction. This morning, police arrived and ordered us to leave, followed by construction equipment that reduced our homes to rubble,” recounted Aftab Alam, a long-term resident of a single-room unit on the plot.

Alam reflected on his experiences, noting the unprecedented nature of the situation despite his awareness of the ongoing legal battle. “My father operated a motor vehicle repair shop here for thirty years before he passed last year, and ever since I have been managing it. We paid our rent to the owners along with utility charges. How can an illegal structure have a legal electric connection?” questioned Ashfaque Naser, another affected resident.