Twitter
Advertisement

Nod for construction on ‘forest land’

Justice FI Rebello and Justice VK Tahilramani permitted Runwal and Athiti Builders to restart construction of residential projects.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday gave temporary relief to two builders, who had challenged the state government’s “illogical” action in declaring developed land, previously listed as non-forest, as forest land.

Justice FI Rebello and Justice VK Tahilramani on Tuesday permitted Runwal and Athiti Builders to restart construction of their residential projects on LBS Marg, Mulund.

The construction activity was stalled after the BMC had issued them stop-work notices as their plots of land were re-designated as forest land by land revenue officials. The court, however, clarified that the fate of the buildings would be subject to final orders in the case.

The HC also stayed the change of status from non-forest to forest lands for eight plots in Nahur and 21 plots in Mulund in a PIL filed by the Hillside Residents’ Welfare Association.

The order is likely to see a flurry of writ petitions from hundreds of institutions like Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), Johnson and Johnson, Nirmal Lifestyle, ESIS hospital, whose developed plots, too, have been listed as forest land.

Pursuant to an HC order to update records regarding land reserved for forests, the state government on July 14, 2005, had issued a notification setting the procedure in motion to make the necessary changes.

Subsequently, mutation entries were made in the land records showing previously developed areas and forest land. 

In their petition, the builders questioned of how a notice issued in 1956 demarcating a plot as forest land could still be valid in 1975. While the Maharashtra Private Forest Act, 1975, allows the government to notify such plots as forest lands, the notification has to be issued within six months of issuance of notices and cannot be applicable for an indefinite period, the petitioners argued.

Pointing out the state’s folly, the petitioners further pointed out that even after the notices were issued in 1956, the development plans of 1967 and 1991 showed the entire area as reserved for residential and industrial purpose.
Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement