Adjacent to the Japanese Consulate and opposite Gulistan building, at present a board on the plot says that the property is currently with the court receiver of Bombay High Court with BN Gamadia and another versus SP Seth as plaintiffs and defendant.
The Cumballa Hill Children's Park Citizens Forum (CHCPCF) have not given up on the demand for reservation of an open space in their vicinity that got de-reserved after a Supreme Court order. The plot, which is on extension of Carmichael Road or Byramji Gamadia, was reserved for a children's play ground in the earlier Development Plan (DP) which now stands lapsed. The residents want the plot to be reserved and also developed and feel the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) can reserve it in the new DP plan.
Adjacent to the Japanese Consulate and opposite Gulistan building, at present a board on the plot says that the property is currently with the court receiver of Bombay High Court with BN Gamadia and another versus SP Seth as plaintiffs and defendant.
The CHCPCF is supported by other neighbourhood association groups including Carmichael Road Citizen's Committee (CRCC), Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee (ARACC) and Peddar Road Residents Association. They have jointly approached the BMC opposing de-reservation and asking that the reservation be put back in place.
Although the authorities had served an acquisition notice for the plot, since they did not purchase it, the notice lapsed. The Supreme Court upheld plot owner's contention of lapsing of notice and stated that the plot stands de-reserved. When the new DP draft plant did not have the reservation based on the SC judgement, residents protested despite BMC telling them about the same.
"The Citizens Forum believes that children ought not be shortchanged of a children's play ground in Cumballa Hill Region, that presently is devoid of a playground! The plot owners had in fact "offered" the plot to BMC for purchase, who unfortunately "slept on the wheel" and failed to acquire — but the intent even by owners then, was to have a children's play ground — which ought to happen and not be denied! Rule 126 (4) of MRTP is still available to BMC to re-acquire said plot, despite the SC decision — as SC was not given full facts — that the acquisition proceedings "indeed had started" which fact was suppressed and not divulged. The SC order does not permanently bar BMC from re-acquiring the plot if such a need was indeed necessary! The SC was informed that "since no steps had commenced" the plot should be handed back to the owners!," said Ramesh Kundanmal, spokesperson for CHCPCF in an SMS.
Kundanmal justified their demand stating that the BMC had begun the proceedings and stated that the region was in "need of a playground". Kundanmal added, "Even the three bench SC judgment itself was not by consensus but was by majority! Rule 128 of MRTP makes known that with change in nomenclature "children's playground" vs "children's garden" the same can be re-acquired, while Rule 129 makes known that if the planning authorities feel fit, the same plot can be acquired on an "URGENT" basis."
Captain Ashok Batra, chairperson of ARACC said, "We feel that in the new DP, things can be looked afresh." Behram Gamadia was unable to offer any comment. DNA could not reach SP Seth for a response.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "DNA")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}