The circular, issued by the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) vide No. ChE/DP/10927/GEN dated 30 July 2026, communicates the approval granted by the Municipal Commissioner under No. MCP/2290 dated 28 July 2026. The guidelines operationalise modifications sanctioned by the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, through Notification No. TPB-4326/03/C.R.53/2026/UD-11 dated 6 May 2026, which amended Regulation 31(1)(xvii) and Regulation 37(28), and introduced an entirely new Regulation 37(28A) under DCPR-2034.

What has changed

Until now, buildings could set aside space for fitness and yoga amenities free of FSI only up to 2% of the total Built-Up Area. The amended regulations widen both the scope and the quantum of this benefit. Meditation Centres and Recreational Activities have now been formally brought into the same free-of-FSI bracket as Yogalaya and Fitness Centres, and the admissible area itself has been doubled, from 2% to 4% of the total proposed Built-Up Area, computed as per the prevailing policy circular dated 2019-20.

For residents of cooperative housing societies, apartment complexes and condominiums, this effectively means buildings can now offer twice the amenity space, or a combined mix of gym, yoga, meditation and recreational zones, without consuming any of the plot’s chargeable FSI, keeping construction costs and unit pricing more favourable while enhancing lifestyle amenities.

Who can avail the benefit

The BMC guidelines clarify that the provisions of Regulations 37(28) and 37(28A) apply to Cooperative Housing Societies, Apartment Owners Associations, Condominiums, Commercial Cooperative Societies, Commercial Condominiums and Commercial Premises Owners Associations, as well as residential quarters of BMC, State, Central Government bodies and PSUs. Individual residential holdings and standalone bungalows have been explicitly excluded from this benefit.

Residential versus commercial treatment

In residential buildings, the cumulative built-up area for Yogalaya, Fitness Centre, Meditation Centre and Recreational Activities is permitted free of FSI up to 4% of the total proposed Built-Up Area; any area beyond this cap will be counted towards chargeable FSI.

In office and commercial buildings, such amenities can be permitted exclusively for members or owners of the concerned Commercial Cooperative Society, Commercial Condominium or Commercial Premises Owners Association. Here, the free-of-FSI benefit up to 4% of total proposed Built-Up Area comes with a cost: developers must pay a premium equivalent to 100% of the land rate applicable for FSI 1 as per the Annual Statement of Rates. This commercial fitness area must be located within the commercial wing, preferably on upper floors with common access, and clearly earmarked for commercial users of the building.

Rules for existing and upcoming projects

For existing buildings already holding an Occupation Certificate or Building Completion Certificate, proposals for these amenities must be submitted by the registered Cooperative Housing Society, Apartment Owners Association or Condominium itself. For projects still under construction or proposed, the Owner or Developer may apply, but only along with a registered undertaking confirming that the amenity premises will be formally handed over to the society, association or condominium once the development is complete.

Usage and ownership safeguards

The guidelines are firm on how these spaces can be used. The premises must be utilised exclusively for Yogalaya, Fitness Centre, Meditation Centre and Recreational Activities, including ancillary toilet facilities, and strictly for the intended use of residents only. A covered swimming pool has been permitted as part of the Fitness Centre, provided its area is counted within the overall 4% cap.

Crucially, these premises cannot be diverted for any commercial activity or any purpose other than what is specified in the regulations. Ownership of the amenity space, in both residential and commercial buildings, must vest with the concerned Society, Association or Condominium, and the guidelines explicitly bar sub-leasing, renting out, or third-party commercial use of these spaces, closing a loophole that in the past allowed some “recreation” areas to be quietly commercialised.

Distribution and size norms

The BMC has also laid down how this area can be spread across a project. For a standalone building, the amenity area may be split across a maximum of three locations. For buildings with multiple wings, or for layouts with multiple buildings, the area may be distributed across a maximum of two locations per wing. However, at least one such location must have a contiguous area of not less than 30 square metres, and must conform to the minimum width and height norms prescribed for habitable rooms under Regulation 37(2) and 37(3) of DCPR-2034. Any height exceeding 4.2 metres will be treated as consuming an additional 50% FSI of that floor area. For commercial users in mixed-use developments where the 4% cap works out to less than 30 square metres, the project proponent must still provide the full 30 square metre area.

Layouts with a Club House

Where a layout already has, or proposes, a Club House within the Recreational Ground permissible under Regulation 27, the guidelines cap the combined free-of-FSI built-up area of the Club House and the Yogalaya/Fitness/Meditation/Recreational spaces together at 4% of the total proposed Built-Up Area. Any area beyond this combined 4% limit will be counted in FSI.

For mixed layouts comprising both residential and commercial buildings, the 4% free-of-FSI entitlement is computed only on the residential component of the layout, and may be distributed among one or more residential buildings within that layout. This benefit is not available against the built-up area of commercial buildings in such layouts; any commercial fitness facility must separately comply with Regulation 37(28A) and its own conditions.

Relaxation provision

In cases of demonstrable hardship, and for reasons recorded in writing, the Municipal Commissioner has been given the power to relax the minimum dimension norms, drawing on powers vested under Regulation 6(b) of DCPR-2034.

The circular directs all Zonal Deputy Chief Engineers (Building Proposal), including City, Western Suburbs I and II, Eastern Suburbs and the Special Cell, to circulate the policy among officers and staff and ensure strict compliance while scrutinising and processing development proposals going forward.

Also Read: Housing Societies Get Double the Free Space for Gyms & Wellness Centres

The post BMC Doubles FSI-Free Area to 4% for Gyms, Yoga Centres: Bigger Perk for Residents appeared first on Square Feat India.

The decision was announced through a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Housing Department on July 1, 2026 (Government Resolution No. धापुप्र-2026/प्र.क्र.71/झोपसु). The Special Cell has been created following directions issued by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis during a review meeting held on June 8, 2026, where he instructed officials to establish a dedicated mechanism for expediting pending permissions related to the project.

The latest move is expected to remove administrative bottlenecks and ensure that the ambitious redevelopment is completed within the stipulated timeline.

Why has the Special Cell been created?

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project requires approvals from multiple government departments and agencies, including land administration, urban planning, finance, environment, infrastructure and local civic authorities.

Obtaining these clearances through conventional processes often leads to delays. To address this, the Maharashtra government has now established a dedicated inter-departmental committee that will coordinate and expedite all pending approvals.

According to the Government Resolution, the objective is to:

• Ensure faster processing of statutory approvals.
• Resolve inter-departmental issues through coordinated decision-making.
• Monitor pending permissions across government departments.
• Enable timely implementation of the redevelopment project.
• Help complete the project within the prescribed timeline.

High-Level Committee to Oversee Approvals

The newly formed Special Cell will be chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Department and will include senior officials from key government departments and agencies.

The members include:

• Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue Department
• Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Finance Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Industries Department
• Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary, Environment Department
• Vice Chairman & CEO, MHADA
• Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division
• Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA
• Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)
• Managing Director, Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (MMRCL)
• Collector, Mumbai City
• Collector, Mumbai Suburban
• CEO and Special Officer, Dharavi Redevelopment Project (Member Secretary)

Whenever project-specific approvals are pending, the concerned department will participate in Special Cell meetings to take immediate decisions. Officials from other departments may also be invited whenever required.

What is the Dharavi Redevelopment Project?

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project is one of the world’s largest and most complex urban renewal programmes.

Spread over approximately 620 acres (around 251 hectares) in the heart of Mumbai, Dharavi has evolved over decades into a densely populated settlement comprising residential clusters, commercial establishments and thousands of small-scale manufacturing units.

The area is strategically located between Mumbai’s major business districts and transport corridors, making it one of the city’s most valuable land parcels.

The project aims to transform Dharavi into a modern mixed-use township while rehabilitating eligible residents and formalising infrastructure.

Who won the bid to redevelop Dharavi?

The redevelopment project is being implemented by Navbharat Mega Developers Pvt. Ltd. (NMDPL), a special purpose vehicle formed after the successful bid by the Adani Group in November 2022.

The Government of Maharashtra selected the Adani Group as the successful bidder after a competitive bidding process. The Special Purpose Vehicle is jointly owned by the Government of Maharashtra and the Adani Group, with the private developer holding the majority stake while the state retains equity participation.

The project is being executed under the supervision of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project/Slum Rehabilitation Authority (DRP/SRA).

How many people will be affected?

The redevelopment is expected to directly impact around 1 million (10 lakh) residents, making it one of the largest rehabilitation exercises undertaken anywhere in the world.

Apart from residents, the project also affects:

• More than 100,000 commercial establishments and small businesses, according to official project estimates and surveys.
• Thousands of micro, small and home-based manufacturing units.
• Informal industries involved in leather goods, garments, pottery, recycling, food processing and engineering.

The rehabilitation exercise includes residential units, commercial rehabilitation, rental housing, infrastructure upgrades and integrated urban planning.

What will the redevelopment include?

The redevelopment aims to create a modern urban ecosystem by providing:

• Free rehabilitation housing for eligible residents.
• Modern road network.
• Water supply and sewerage systems.
• Stormwater drainage.
• Open spaces.
• Schools and healthcare facilities.
• Commercial rehabilitation for eligible businesses.
• Public transport integration.
• Sustainable urban infrastructure.

The project also seeks to preserve Dharavi’s unique economic ecosystem by creating dedicated spaces for small businesses and traditional industries.

Why is the Special Cell important?

Infrastructure projects of this scale require approvals from numerous authorities before construction can proceed.

These include:

• Land-related permissions.
• Environmental clearances.
• Planning approvals.
• Infrastructure utility permissions.
• Financial approvals.
• Coordination with transport agencies.
• Municipal permissions.

The newly established Special Cell is intended to function as a single coordination platform where pending approvals can be reviewed and resolved collectively rather than department by department.

This is expected to significantly reduce administrative delays that often affect mega infrastructure and redevelopment projects.

Government’s Earlier Support

The Government Resolution also notes that:

• Dharavi Redevelopment was declared a “Vital Public Project” in 2007.
• Dharavi has been notified as a Special Planning Area, with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority designated as the Special Planning Authority.
• The state has already granted several policy relaxations through Government Resolutions issued in 2018 and 2022 to facilitate implementation.

The latest decision builds on these earlier measures by introducing an institutional mechanism dedicated solely to expediting approvals.

What Happens Next?

The CEO and Special Officer of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project will prepare and submit a list of all pending permissions before the Special Cell.

Meetings will then be convened based on the departments involved, enabling senior officials to resolve issues quickly and issue necessary approvals.

The move signals the Maharashtra government’s intent to accelerate the execution of the long-awaited redevelopment, which has witnessed multiple delays over the past two decades.

If implemented effectively, the Special Cell could become one of the key administrative mechanisms driving the transformation of Dharavi into a modern, planned urban district while rehabilitating nearly one million residents and protecting its vibrant commercial ecosystem.

Also Read: Dharavi Redevelopment Tender Cancelled

The post Maharashtra Sets Up Special Cell to Fast-Track Dharavi Redevelopment Approvals appeared first on Square Feat India.

The draft proposal, prepared by the Municipal Commissioner and dated 22 June 2026, seeks to grant Occupancy Certificates to buildings occupied before 17 November 2016. It follows the state Urban Development Department’s directive of December 2025 and aims to provide long-pending relief to homebuyers and societies facing hurdles in property transactions, loans, and redevelopment.

Key Provisions of the Draft

The scheme covers residential buildings (with predominant residential use), hospitals, and schools that have valid IOD and Commencement Certificate and were occupied before the cut-off date. For residential units, the benefit is available to those with carpet area up to 80 square metres (approximately 861 sq ft).

Major concessions include a 50% discount on regularization fees, balcony/otla penalties, and other charges. A time-bound penalty waiver has also been proposed for regularizing areas previously shown as free of FSI — zero penalty if applied in the first six months and 50% penalty if applied between six and twelve months.

Significantly, individual flat owners can now apply directly through a licensed surveyor. Their applications will be processed independently, with common area issues de-linked. Pending setback or DP road land transfers will also not block OC issuance; BMC will process the certificate and pursue land-related compliances separately.

“Priority to Up to 800 sq ft Homes”

BMC Leader of the House Ganesh Khankar said the civic body’s focus is on delivering relief to residents. “Our aim is to give relief to the residents and priority is up to 800 sq ft homes. The draft will be presented in the standing committee tomorrow (June 24) and shall sail through,” he said.

Concerns Over Implementation

While welcoming the intent, legal expert Adv Vivekanand Gupta pointed out practical difficulties in the draft. He said that while the proposal contains several positive elements, uploading documents on the Auto-DCR portal could prove cumbersome for common citizens.

“Instead of forcing people to upload documents online, officials in every ward of BMC in the city should have been made to sit and help take applications and facilitate the OC process,” Adv Gupta said, adding that ground-level facilitation would make the scheme more accessible and effective.

Limitations Remain

The current draft has some clear limitations. It does not cover general commercial buildings (only schools and hospitals qualify under non-residential). Units larger than 80 sq.m carpet area are excluded. The scheme applies only to authorised constructions and does not regularise unauthorised buildings. Broader demands — removal of the size cap and inclusion of all commercial properties — remain pending with the state government for revised guidelines.

Next Steps

The draft will be placed before the BMC Standing Committee on June 24. Once approved, it will go to the Municipal Corporation for final clearance. After notification, BMC will activate a dedicated “OC Amnesty Scheme” tab on the Auto-DCR portal for online applications.

Applications received during the validity period will be processed even after the scheme formally ends. BMC has clarified that the scheme does not absolve original developers of their legal responsibilities for other violations.

The proposed amnesty is expected to benefit thousands of old residential buildings across Mumbai, particularly smaller homes that have long struggled without Occupancy Certificates. However, the success of the scheme will largely depend on how effectively BMC implements the process on the ground and addresses the practical concerns raised by citizens and experts.

Also Read: Maharashtra Announces Revised OC Amnesty Scheme to Regularize 20,000 Unauthorized Buildings in Mumbai

The post Exclusive: BMC OC Amnesty Scheme; Draft to be Presented in Standing Committee Tomorrow appeared first on Square Feat India.

The compensation stems from revenue losses incurred by urban local bodies following the nationwide implementation of GST on July 1, 2017, which abolished entry taxes, octroi, local body taxes, and other levies that municipalities previously collected under Entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Of the total sanctioned amount, certain deductions were made before disbursement. A sum of ₹3.44 crore was recovered from 25 municipal corporations toward the operation and maintenance of High Capacity Suction and Jetting Machines with Water Recycling Facility — equipment being provided to urban local bodies for the health and safety of workers who clean underground drainage and sewage collection systems. Additionally, ₹49.96 crore was deducted for outstanding payments to EESL (Energy Efficiency Services Limited) for LED street lighting for 15 municipal corporations, with dues pending up to November 2025. After these deductions, the net amount actually disbursed stands at ₹5,532.28 crore.

The Additional Secretary of the Urban Development Department has been designated as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, responsible for drawing the full amount from the Pay and Accounts Officer in Mumbai and transferring it immediately to the respective municipal corporations and the Directorate of Municipal Administration.

Here is the breakdown of funds allocated to each municipal corporation for April and May 2026:

Nagpur has received ₹318.63 crore. Chandrapur has been allotted ₹12.62 crore. Amravati gets ₹23.27 crore. Akola receives ₹18.34 crore. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad) has been allocated ₹78.12 crore. Parbhani receives ₹1.75 crore. Latur gets ₹1.38 crore. Nanded-Waghala has been allocated ₹22.48 crore. Nashik receives ₹269.54 crore. Malegaon gets ₹44.46 crore. Dhule receives ₹28.28 crore. Jalgaon gets ₹31.74 crore. Ahilyanagar (formerly Ahmednagar) receives ₹25.24 crore. Pune has been allocated ₹485.05 crore. Pimpri-Chinchwad receives ₹457.54 crore. Kolhapur gets ₹35.78 crore. Solapur receives ₹57.52 crore. Sangli has been allotted ₹43.16 crore. Mira-Bhayandar receives ₹58.40 crore. Vasai-Virar gets ₹94.16 crore. Bhiwandi-Nizampur receives ₹68.02 crore. Ulhasnagar gets ₹51.48 crore. Kalyan-Dombivli receives ₹59.82 crore. Thane has been allocated ₹221.52 crore. Navi Mumbai receives ₹316.28 crore. Panvel gets ₹90.42 crore. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has received the largest share at ₹2,587.55 crore. Jalna receives ₹10.86 crore. Ichalkaranji gets ₹18.82 crore.

The expenditure is being charged under Demand No. F-4, Major Head 3604, Sub-Head 0998 of the 2026–27 budget.

Also Read: CIDCO Puts 20 Plots Up for Auction in Navi Mumbai: Includes Bungalows and Warehouses for Lease

The post Maharashtra Releases ₹5,585 Crore GST Compensation to Municipal Corporations for April–May 2026 appeared first on Square Feat India.

This notice is part of BMC’s broader enforcement efforts to address property tax defaults and improve municipal revenue. (Note: Recent BMC actions have included separate e-auctions for other high-value properties, such as six properties over ₹455 crore in dues, but this specific long notice targets these 12 distinct cases.)

Here are the details of the 12 properties listed in the notice, including ward, SAC number, assessee, description, address, area, and individual outstanding amount (up to March 31, 2026):

1. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW14046600200000 Assessee: M/s Sumer Associates Description: Plot of Land Address: M/s. Sumer Associates Commerce House, 201, Commerce House, 140, Fort, N.M. Road, Mumbai 400001 Area: 20,990.32 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹188,48,00,247 (≈ ₹188.48 crore)
2. Ward: SXSAC No.: 5X04031300600000 Assessee: The Executors of Deceased Seth Surji Vallabhdas (and related family/lessees) Description: Commercial Building Address: M/s Rajbans Associates, R.B. Ross House, M.I.D.C. Off Ross Road, Andheri East, Kuria Road, J.B. Nagar, Mumbai 400059 Area: 15,540.71 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹47,02,99,687 (≈ ₹47.03 crore)
3. Ward: RSSAC No.: RS07111800100000 Assessee: Shri Vithalrao Yadavrao Khapre (w/o Smt. Laxmibai) Description: Plot of Land Address: Jeevan Shradha CHS Ltd., S.No.19/H, No.2, Ashok Chakravarti Road No.2, Ashok Nagar, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400101 Area: 474.00 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹64,29,461
4. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW25002800100000 Assessee: Shri Ramchand Shri Hemchand Khubchand Hemandas Setpal (and family) Description: Plot of Land Address: Shri Ramchand Hemandas Setpal, 10 Shanti Niketan, 95A Marine Drive, Mumbai 400002 Area: 1,262.41 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹10,0427,825 (≈ ₹10.43 crore)
5. Ward: EXSAC No.: EX13054600000000 Assessee: Mulla Gulamally Partners of M Gulam Hussain Abdul Description: Plot of Land Address: Abdul Husain SG Tambawala, 240 Atlas Mill Compound, Reay Road, Mumbai 400010 Area: 9,075.00 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹9,39,10,668 (≈ ₹9.39 crore)
6. Ward: EXSAC No.: EX13054400700000 Assessee: Mulla Gulamally Samsuddin and Abdul Hussein Gulamally Partners Description: Plot of Land Address: Abdul Husain SG Tambawala Mill Compound, Reay Road, Mumbai 400010 Area: 4,837.12 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹4,15,19,830 (≈ ₹4.15 crore)
7. Ward: EXSAC No.: EX13054702200000 Assessee: Shri Mulla Gulamally Husseinuddin and Abdul Gulamally Partners Description: Plot of Land Address: M/s Sumer Builtcorp Pvt. Ltd., 203 Peninsula Corporate Park, Tower 1A, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai Area: 17,944.97 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹85,38,78,185 (≈ ₹85.39 crore)
8. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW08040410030000 Assessee: Shri P.K. Mody Description: Plot of Land Address: Shri P.K. Mody Rohit Nivas, 278, 11th Road, Khar, Mumbai 400052 Area: 668.90 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹2,14,53,346 (≈ ₹2.14 crore)
9. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW03051000600000 Assessee: M/s Elco Arcade Residential and Non-Residential Premises Co-op Society Ltd. Description: Mixed Residential and Non-Residential Property Address: 21 B Elco Arcade, 46 Hill Road, Bandra West, Mumbai 400050 Area: 8,644.15 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹9,76,20,336 (≈ ₹9.76 crore)
10. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW26050700400000 Assessee: Shri Yusuf Ahmed Description: Plot of Land Address: Shri Yusuf Ahmed M.K. Building, 3rd Floor Above Linking Plaza, 531 Linking Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 Area: 1,262.50 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹2,47,45,999 (₹2.47 crore)
11. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW04190190030000 Assessee: Vicar of St. Peters Church Description: Plot of Land Address: Vicar St. Peters Church, 74-76 Hill Road, Bandra, Mumbai 400050 Area: 1,732.85 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹12, 64,98,942 (≈ ₹12.64 crore)
12. Ward: HWSAC No.: HW07049601400000 Assessee: Smt. Hardev P. Rajpal Description: Plot of Land Address: Smt. Hardev P. Rajpal Bungalow, Phiroz Shah Street, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 Area: 3,473.77 sq.mtr. Outstanding: ₹6,49,92,531 (≈ ₹6.49 crore)

The total outstanding amount across all 12 properties is ₹378.66 crore. Affected parties are urged to contact the BMC Assessment and Collection Department immediately to settle the dues and prevent auction proceedings.

Also Read: “Enough is Enough”: Bombay High Court Sends Inspection Team to Catch Polluting Builders

The post BMC Issues 21-Day Notice for Auction of 12 Mumbai Properties to Recover ₹379 Crore in Unpaid Property Tax appeared first on Square Feat India.

A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri passed the order on February 9, 2026, while hearing a writ petition filed by Green Twig Estate Management Pvt Ltd, the owner of Kirti Chambers in Fort (A Ward).

The case stems from the landlord’s long-standing battle to remove an unauthorised mezzanine floor constructed by a tenant. Earlier proceedings revealed that despite court orders and BMC’s own decision dated August 10, 2024, to initiate demolition, the civic body dragged its feet.

On December 23 and 24, 2025, the High Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner (A Ward), Jaydeep More, to ensure compliance. When the matter came up again on January 30, 2026, for recording compliance, the court noticed the delay and asked BMC to initiate action against More.

During the hearing on February 9, BMC advocate Madhavi Nalluri produced the original file. It showed that the court’s December 24 order was sent to Mrs. Chanda Jadhav, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone-I), who signed it only on January 8, 2026 — after a 9-day delay. The file then moved to Dr. Ashwini Joshi, Additional Municipal Commissioner (City), who took another 19 days to sign it on January 27, 2026.

Only Municipal Commissioner Bhushan Gagrani acted swiftly, directing a show-cause notice on January 28, which was issued on January 30.

The bench appreciated the prompt action by Commissioner Gagrani and the BMC counsel but pulled up the two senior officers for the avoidable delay. The judges noted that this was not an isolated incident — the corporation had shown a “casual” approach toward High Court orders in the past.

“We have recorded in our order dated 23rd December, 2025 that Municipal Corporations are taking the orders of the High Court casually,” the bench observed.

Considering initiating contempt proceedings, the court ultimately opted for a symbolic penalty to send a strong message.

“In order to ensure that the message goes out loud and clear to the Corporation that the orders of every Court should be acted upon with promptitude, we are imposing costs of Rs.11/- (Rs. Eleven only), to be paid by Mrs. Chanda Jadhav… and by Dr. Ashwini Joshi… from their respective salary accounts,” the order stated.

The amounts are to be deposited with the Kirtikar Law Library in the High Court premises within two days.

The petition has been disposed of but listed again on March 6, 2026, for recording full compliance.

The order has sparked discussion on social media and among legal circles, with many praising the court for using a token fine as a powerful deterrent against administrative lethargy in enforcing building regulations.

Also Read: BMC Commissioner Directed to Hold Inquiry into How Illegal Structure Existed for Decades Next to a BMC Chowki

The post Only ₹11 Fine Each on Two Top BMC Officials for Delaying Court Orders to Demolish Illegal Structures appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order, delivered by Justice Kamal Khata on 10 February 2026 in Contempt Petition No. 330 of 2025 (arising from Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024), dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Preeti Manohar Sakpal while imposing exemplary costs of ₹5 lakhs on her. The court also dismissed her contempt petition against the BMC (after accepting that the breach had been purged) but issued a stern warning to the corporation and directed accountability measures against erring officials.

Full Background of the Case

The dispute dates back to 30 July 2019, when the BMC issued a notice under Section 314 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, directing the removal of an alleged unauthorised structure measuring approximately 40 ft × 10 ft (or 10.40 m × 1.6 m as per BMC records) on M.G. Road, near Tilak Road, Santacruz (West). The petitioner, Preeti Manohar Sakpal (daughter of the original occupant, now deceased), claimed the premises housed her family’s video game parlour business, which she said had been in existence since at least 1986.

Sakpal’s father had allegedly acquired rights to an “open space” via an unregistered agreement dated 12 September 1986 for ₹95,000 from one Pandurang Gawade. She produced supporting documents including:

• Electricity meter transfer application (1987)
• Electricity bills spanning decades
• Property tax receipts
• Shop and Establishment registration certificate

She argued these proved long-standing, uninterrupted possession (well beyond the MRTP Act’s datum line of 1 January 1964/1961 for protected structures) and that the BMC notice was invalid, vague, and typically used for hawkers rather than permanent shops. She claimed the structure was not on the road or abutting any nala, but behind two other structures, and that demolition was being disguised as road widening.

On 2 August 2019, just days after the notice, Sakpal filed a civil suit (L.C. Suit No. 1879 of 2019) in the City Civil Court at Dindoshi seeking an injunction against demolition. The trial court dismissed her Notice of Motion on 7 May 2024, refusing interim relief.

Sakpal appealed to the Bombay High Court (Appeal from Order No. 874 of 2024). During pendency, the High Court granted interim status quo on 27 November 2024. However, in a larger anti-encroachment drive on 15 May 2025 near Santacruz West Railway Station (removing ~38 stalls/projections), a portion of her structure was partially demolished. The BMC stopped the action once the court order was highlighted, reconstructed the demolished part on 16 August 2025, and tendered an apology.

Sakpal then filed a contempt petition (No. 330 of 2025), alleging wilful disobedience. She also pressed for priority hearing of contempt over the main appeal.

Why the Court Came Down Heavily on BMC Officials

While the court firmly ruled against the petitioner – holding the structure unauthorised, on a public street/footpath (defined under Section 3(w) & (x) of the BMC Act), removable summarily under Section 314, and that no documents conferred title or regularisation – it reserved its sharpest criticism for the BMC’s systemic failures.

Key observations:

• The structure’s location immediately behind a BMC chowki (ward office) and near the railway line made its decades-long existence inexplicable without municipal complicity or gross negligence.
• Such prolonged inaction “raises serious and troubling questions” of “willful blindness or dereliction of duty” by municipal officers.
• Failure to act against illegal constructions “emboldens wrongdoers and corrodes the confidence of law-abiding citizens in municipal governance and the rule of law.”
• The court treated this as a “test case” to address accountability.

Directions on BMC accountability:

• Municipal Commissioner to initiate an inquiry to identify responsibility for the inaction.
• Take necessary steps against concerned officers.
• Place adverse entries on their service records.
• A copy of the judgment to be sent to the Commissioner forthwith.

The court accepted the BMC’s explanation that the partial demolition was inadvertent (part of a wider drive, no petitioner representative present), stopped promptly, and rectified via reconstruction. Contempt was thus purged, but with a stern warning of strict consequences (departmental inquiry, suspension, etc.) for any future violations.

Outcome and Broader Implications

• Appeal dismissed with ₹5 lakh costs (payable within 4 weeks to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund; recoverable as land revenue if defaulted).
• Trial court order upheld; interim relief vacated.
• Matter listed for compliance on 24 March 2026.
• Request for stay of the judgment rejected.

The judgment underscores a zero-tolerance stance on public land encroachments, criticising both litigants who abuse process to prolong illegal occupation and municipal bodies that allow such structures to fester due to lax enforcement. Legal experts view the inquiry directive as a rare push for internal municipal reform in encroachment matters.

Also Read: Senior Citizens First: Builders Face Removal If Redevelopment Delays Leave Elderly Roofless

The post BMC Commissioner Directed to Hold Inquiry into How Illegal Structure Existed for Decades Next to a BMC Chowki appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Case: BMC Challenged Reduction of Rateable Value

The matter stems from a dispute over the rateable value of a property belonging to Ashirwad Shelters Pvt. Ltd.

• Originally, BMC assessed the rateable value at ₹1.42 crore.
• After the respondent’s challenge, BMC itself reduced it to around ₹30 lakh.
• The Small Causes Court, in May 2016, further restored the rateable value to ₹7,40,530.

Instead of filing an appeal within the statutory period of 30 days under Section 218D of the MMC Act, the BMC approached the High Court in October 2020, leading to a massive delay of over four years.

Court Criticises BMC’s “Glacial Speed” and Excuses

Justice Jain rejected each explanation offered by the Corporation, calling them repetitive, vague, and unacceptable.

— Appeal Committee met after limitation expired

The Court pointed out that the first Appeal Committee meeting happened months after the 30-day limit was over.
The Committee met four times over a year to decide a simple property tax appeal.
The judge remarked:

“In revenue matters, decisions must be taken at lightning speed, not at the speed at which bureaucracy moves files.”

— Unexplained delays between departments

Even after the Committee finally approved the appeal in June 2017:

• The decision was communicated to the legal department only in November 2018 (a delay of 17 months).
• The appeal was filed two years later, in October 2020.

The Court said it “failed to understand” why each stage consumed years.

— Pandemic excuse rejected outright

The Court noted that limitation had expired in 2016, long before COVID-19.

“The pandemic cannot save an appeal already dead much before 2020.”

“World’s Richest Municipal Corporation Should Not Function This Way”

The judge delivered a strong message, calling out BMC’s repeated excuses such as staff shortage, workload, coordination issues, and lack of timely updates.

The Court observed that BMC—handling India’s financial capital and being among the world’s wealthiest civic bodies—must have adequate staff, robust systems, and legal preparedness, especially in revenue matters involving taxpayers’ money.

“Ultimately it is the taxpayers’ money at stake… The Corporation should equip itself with adequate manpower so that its legitimate revenue is not lost due to delay.”

He further urged top officers to intervene and overhaul internal processes so that such lapses do not recur.

Appeal and Stay Application Dismissed

Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs vs. Karnataka Housing Board (2025), the Court held that the BMC had not shown “sufficient cause” to condone the delay.

As a result:

• The condonation application was dismissed,
• The First Appeal was automatically dismissed,
• The stay application also stood disposed of.

The BMC will now lose the ability to recover higher property tax for the disputed period.

Also Read: “Enough is Enough”: Bombay High Court Sends Inspection Team to Catch Polluting Builders

The post Bombay High Court Slams BMC for ‘Bureaucratic Lethargy’: Dismisses Appeal After 1,526-Day Delay in Property Tax Case appeared first on Square Feat India.

The committee, announced through a government resolution (GR) dated 8 September 2025, was mandated by the High Court in its orders of June 30 and July 8, 2025, which criticised the state and municipal bodies for failing to provide a robust, long-term scientific plan for waste management despite years of litigation and warnings.

The court had stressed that the issues raised in the PIL “touch upon basic human rights” of citizens living around waste-dump sites and called for immediate, coordinated, structural action.

A Long-Running Battle Over Dumping Grounds Near Residential Areas

The PIL — filed originally over the Kanjurmarg landfill and its impact on surrounding neighbourhoods — had highlighted severe environmental and health risks caused by locating a massive dumping ground near residential zones. Over time, multiple related petitions on Mumbai’s broader solid-waste management failures, pollution, and the absence of scientifically managed landfills were clubbed with the case.

Petitioners, including the environmental group Vanashakti and local residents, argued that:

• Dumping grounds continue to operate dangerously close to inhabited areas
• Waste is often unmanaged, creating air and soil pollution
• The city lacks a long-term, scientifically approved plan for waste disposal
• Authorities had no consolidated blueprint for alternatives, despite thousands of tonnes of waste generated daily

In earlier hearings, the High Court had even struck down previous notifications related to the Kanjurmarg site after finding that large portions of the land were forest land, rendering earlier permissions invalid. This intensified pressure on the city and state to find lawful, safe disposal solutions.

The High Court’s Rebuke: “Where Is the Long-Term Plan?”

On June 30 and July 8 this year, the Bombay High Court delivered two significant orders:

• It said the state and BMC had failed to produce a comprehensive, scientific “Robust Blueprint” for long-term waste management
• It noted that existing dumping practices jeopardize public health
• It ordered the government to set up a high-level committee, headed by the Chief Secretary, to examine all aspects of landfill impact on habitation
• It directed the BMC to submit its “Robust Blueprint” to this committee for scrutiny and then to the Court

The bench also observed that issues raised in the PIL involve fundamental rights, and therefore require coordinated action across departments, not fragmented responses.

Government Forms Committee Headed by Chief Secretary

Responding to the court’s directive, the state has now formed a high-level panel comprising:

• Chief Secretary, Maharashtra – Chairperson
• Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) – Member
• Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development (UD-2) – Member
• Deputy Secretary, UD-21 – Member-Secretary
• Other officers nominated by the Chairperson

The committee will:

• Study the “Robust Blueprint” submitted by the BMC
• Assess the environmental, health and urban-planning impact of dumping grounds situated close to residential areas
• Recommend actionable, legally compliant alternatives and timelines
• Submit its final proposals to the High Court

The GR also states that the panel will function under the supervision of the Deputy Chief Minister for Urban Development, indicating the political significance the state has now attached to the issue after judicial intervention.

Why This Matters

Mumbai generates thousands of tonnes of solid waste daily. With land scarcity, legal constraints, environmental norms and residential expansion, the question of where and how the city disposes waste is becoming a critical governance challenge.

This committee could determine:

• Whether existing dumping grounds need relocation
• Whether scientific waste-processing technologies are viable at scale
• How the city can comply with forest laws, environmental norms and court rulings
• What long-term land-use and waste-management models Mumbai must adopt

Its report will influence the future of waste-management planning for India’s financial capital — and may set precedents for other urban centres facing similar pressures.

Also Read: ₹169 Crore in Bribes, Illegal Buildings on Dumping Grounds, Gold & Farmhouses: How One IAS Officer Exploited Mumbai’s Real Estate Dreams

The post State Forms High-Level Panel to Review Dumping Grounds Near Homes After Bombay HC’s Strong Orders appeared first on Square Feat India.

The decision follows proposals submitted by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (General Administration), Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on October 10 and November 13, 2025. After reviewing the request, the State Government granted approval under Section 92(D)(D) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, which requires State sanction for long-term lease or freehold conversion of municipal land.

What the Approval Includes

1. Land Details

• Plot: CTS No. 12 (Part), F/North Ward, Sion
• Area: 7,658.33 sq.m.
• Type: Municipal land previously under leasehold category
• Converted to: Freehold
• Lessee: Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)
• Lease Period: 30 years starting June 25, 2025

2. Financial Terms

• Annual Ground Rent: ₹10,186 at the prevailing ready reckoner rate
• One-time Premium:
  25% of the freehold valuation — ₹9,72,56,500 to be paid to BMC by the allottee.

3. Use Restrictions

The land is affected by certain reservations under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034.
Therefore:

• Only medical and educational activities are permitted.
• BMC must verify land-use compliance before issuing final approvals.
• Commissioner, BMC, will be responsible for ensuring legal and planning compliance.

4. Administrative Provisions

• All payments must follow BMC’s updated schedule of rates.
• The order is digitally signed and published on the State Government website under Code 202512041914100825.

Why This Matters

The Sion ward—one of Mumbai’s most densely populated zones—faces severe pressure on public infrastructure. Opening up land for institutional use, especially medical and educational, is seen as a step toward bridging civic gaps.
At the same time, transfer of municipal land to private organisations often triggers debate regarding transparency and prioritisation of public need. Given the size and location of the plot, this decision is likely to draw political and civic scrutiny.

Also Read: Govt to Allow Conversion of Leasehold Land to Freehold at 25% Above Ready Reckoner Rate

The post State Allots VHP 1.89 Acres of Land in Sion for a Yearly Rent of ₹10,186 appeared first on Square Feat India.