Story link: http://www.goodnewsindia.com/index.php/Supplement/article/mumbai-mill-lands-retrieved-for-the-people
The Bombay High Court’s recent judgment on the sale of mill lands in that city is yet another display of Indian democracy’s robustness. Most of the times, the executive plays rings around citizens and they despair and give up. But when all seems lost, along come a few lone warriors. They group themselves and mount a seemingly impossible counter-attack on powerful interests. Then judges as on Oct 17, speak out some plain truth and call the bluff of authorities feigning child like innocence. The confrontation does not quiet end there. But in the next round, culprits are a little wiser, more chastened and hopefully better behaved. By such small progress is democracy strengthened.
Mumbai was a profitable manufacturing centre until independence with prime land occupied by docks, engineering works and textile mills. Some 600 acres in central Mumbai belonged to several textile mills. Over time, profitability of these mills diminished and owners began to covet opportunities in real estate development. An ill-managed textile workers’ strike in the 80s and the advent of economic reforms in 1991, set the stage for re-zoning mill lands.
Socialist orthodoxy does not keel over and surrender to market forces all at once. It creeps up there in stages. So a ‘good-on-paper’ policy was formulated in 1991 as a new Development Control Regulation [DCR]. By Rule 58 of this DCR, some 600 acres of mill lands could be sold, provided a third was reserved for public use [like parks and play grounds], a third for affordable housing and a third for owners to develop as they pleased.
With citizens lulled into thinking their interests had been safe-guarded by DCR, the Maharashtra Government perpetrated its act of stealth in 2001: it amended Rule 58 of the DCR to read that the three way share applied only to “open lands” and not the whole land. This simple sleight of hand reduced the land available for public spaces -parks, pedestrian malls, boulevards etc- from 200 acres to just 20. MCGM [Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which was entitled to a third of the land to develop as public spaces] and MHADA [Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to which was due another third for affordable house building] maintained deafening silences.
Land sale ensued with politicians’ proxies, newly floated companies and old mill owners turned developers bidding up the price to staggering levels. In all, Rs.2,000 crores were paid for 600 acres. Demolition of mill structures began. And no one seemed to have the power to stop the builders.
[At this point, it is difficult to resist contrasting with what would have happened in China, our oft compared rival and to many admiring Indians, a role model. In China the story would have ended here. Builders and investors would have rapidly developed the 600 acres into a steel, glass and concrete heaven that our visiting Indians routinely gawk and admire, while wondering why progress is ‘slow’ in India. Read on for what can happen in India.]
A little known group of environment activists, the Bombay Environment Action Group [BEAG] raised its voice and challenged the amendment to Rule 58. Shyam Chainani and Debi Goenka of BEAG are old fearless campaigners on behalf of the environment with many successes to their credit. Legal luminaries I M Chagla, S H Doctor and N H Seervai appeared for BEAG.
The case mounted by Chagla unmasked a collusion of vested interests. Amendment to Rule 58 was no ordinary matter- it violated Article 48a of India’s Constitution entitled ‘Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife’. Also the builders had begun construction without commissioning an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] and obtaining clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests. And quite simply, whose interest was the state serving by amending Rule 58 in the manner it did?
On October 17, 2005 a Bench consisting of Mr Justice S Radhakrishnan and Mr Justice S C Dharmadikari struck down the amendment to Rule 58;all sales of mill lands based on the amended rule was set aside. The Hon’ble Court stated without ambiguity: one third each of *all* lands owned by the National Textile Corporation was to be given over to low cost housing and public use. The balance third may be developed after obtaining an EIA.
Gloom descended on the builders’ lobby and shares prices of companies whose fortunes depended on unhindered development of old mill lands,tumbled. No doubt the lobby will appeal to the Supreme Court. That is their right in this land, which they cannot enjoy in lands they admire. But here Courts are a forum which citizens may use to revive dreams.
Dreams such as the one Charles Correa conjured up for Mumbai “that would include affordable housing, pedestrian and commercial plazas, grounds, green spaces, boulevards and even a museum. It details how certain NTC mills along the waterfront could be redeveloped so that the city becomes richer by another beach like Juhu or Chowpatty.” That dream might yet come true.
Media reports