स्वयंविकासात एसआरएचा अडथळा

- रहिवाशांच्या पुढाकाराला प्राधिकरणाचा खो 

- कलेक्टरची भूसंपादनाची प्रक्रिया थांबविली! 

- बिल्डर-नगरसेवक हितसंबंधाचीही बाधा 


बिल्डरकडून केली जाणारी फसवणूक टाळण्यासाठी जोगेश्वरीत मजास नगरजवळील श्यामनगर येथील बहुसंख्य रहिवाशांनी एकत्र येऊन स्वयंविकासाचा मार्ग अवलंबलेला असताना 'झोपडपट्टी पुर्नविकास प्राधिकरणा'ने (एसआर) आपल्या अधिकारांचा वापर करत तडकाफडकी आदेश जारी करून या योजनेत मोडता घालण्याचे काम केले आहे. 

मजास नगरच्या पॅण्टलून शोरूमजवळ अत्यंत मोक्याच्या ठिकाणी असलेल्या या भागात सुमारे ९०० रहिवाशी राहतात. या परिसरात जागेचा दर १० ते १२ हजार प्रति चौरस फूट असून तब्बल २१ हजार चौरस मीटर जागेवर पसरलेल्या या वस्तीवर अनेकांचा डोळा आहे. काँग्रेस पक्षाच्या ठाण्यातील एका नगरसेवकाचेही हितसंबंध यात गुंतल्याची चर्चा येथे आहे. 

अनेक बिल्डर आपली जागा घशात घालायला टपलेले असल्याने श्यामनगरच्या सिटी सव्हेर् क्रमांक ७७, ७८ आणि ८० या भूखंडांवर राहणाऱ्या रहिवाशांनी अनुक्रमे स्वयं, स्वराज्य आणि स्वयंस्फूतीर् या गृहनिर्माण संस्थेच्या (नियोजित) माध्यमातून आपल्या जमिनीचा स्वत:च विकास करायचे ठरविले. त्यासाठी त्यांनी जिल्हाधिकाऱ्यांकडे ७ ऑगस्ट, २००९ रोजी भूसंपादनासाठी अर्ज केला होता. याबद्दल त्यांनी 'एसआरएला'ही पत्र लिहून पूर्वसूचना दिली होती. रहिवाशांची मागणी लक्षात घेऊन जिल्हाधिकाऱ्यांनी ७७ आणि ७८ क्रमांकाच्या भूखंडावर १५ डिसेंबर, २०१०ला भूसंपादनाची प्रक्रिया सुरू केली. मात्र, त्याच दिवशी 'एसआरए'ने तडकाफडकी आदेश काढून एका खासगी विकासकाच्या योजनेचा हवाला देत हे काम थांबविले. आश्चर्याची बाब अशी की, या पत्रावर एसआरए सीईओंची सही असली तरी त्यावर तारखेचा उल्लेख नाही! 

' ज्या बिल्डरच्या प्रस्तावाचा हवाला 'एसआरए'ने या आदेशात दिला आहे, तो रहिवाशांच्या भूसंपादनाच्या अर्जानंतर तब्बल एका वर्षाने (२३ जून, २०१०ला) 'एसआरए'कडे सादर झाला होता. बिल्डरचा प्रस्ताव सादर होण्याच्या वर्षभर आधी आम्ही संपादनाची प्रक्रिया सुरू केली होती. त्याची माहिती 'एसआरए'लाही होती. मुळात बिल्डरचा प्रस्तावच 'एसआरए'ने स्वीकारायला नको होता. मात्र, आमची विनंती नजरेआड करून खासगी बिल्डर आमच्या माथ्यावर मारला जात आहे,' अशी खंत स्वयंविकास सहकारी गृहनिर्माण संस्थेचे (भूखंड क्रमांक ७७) मुख्य प्रवर्तक विलास नाईक यांनी व्यक्त केली. 'एसआरए'च्या या पत्रामुळे रहिवाशांमध्ये कमालीचा असंतोष असून त्यांनी कोर्टात जाण्याचा निर्णय घेतला आहे. 

रहिवाशांमध्ये मतांतरे असल्यास दोन्ही बाजू ऐकून घेऊनच अंतिम निर्णय घेऊ, असे 'एसआरएचे' सीईओ एस. एस. झेंडे यांनी स्पष्ट केले. 'रहिवाशांमध्ये वाद असल्यास झोपु योजनेच्या कलम १४(३) अंतर्गत सुनावणी घेण्याची तरतूद आहे. आमचा कल रहिवाशांचे हित साधण्याकडे असतो. बहुसंख्यांकांना बिल्डर नको असल्यास दोन्ही पक्षांना समक्ष बोलावून निर्णय घेऊ,' असे झेंडे यांनी 'मटा'ला सांगितले. 

मात्र, 'बिल्डरच्या मनमानीपणाबद्दल आम्ही वेळोवेळी 'एसआरए'कडे तक्रारी केल्या आहेत. त्यांची साधी दखलही आतापर्यंत 'एसआरए'ने घेतलेली नाही, सुनावणी तर दूरचीच गोष्ट आहे,' अशी स्वराज्य गृहनिर्माण संस्थेचे मुख्य प्रवर्तक तुळशीदास राऊळ यांची तक्रार आहे. 



Source :- http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7256969.cms

बिल्डरची बैठक बोगस!

सांताक्रुझ पोलिसांनीच केला 'एसआरए'कडे खुलासा



जोगेश्वरीतील श्यामनगरच्या 'एसआरए' पुनविर्कासासाठी बिल्डरने ज्या बैठकीत ७० टक्के रहिवाशांची संमती मिळविल्याचा दाखला दिला आहे, ती बैठकच बोगस असल्याचा आरोप स्वयंविकासाअंतर्गत पुनविर्कास करू इच्छिणाऱ्या रहिवाशांनी केला आहे. सांताक्रुझ पोलिसांनी 'एसआरए'ला लिहिलेल्या पत्राचा दाखलाच रहिवाशांनी यासाठी दिला आहे. 

एसआरएच्या नियमानुसार विकासकाने रहिवाशांची सर्वसाधारण बैठक घेऊन किमान ७० टक्के रहिवाशांची संमती मिळविणे अपेक्षित आहे. श्यामनगरच्या पुनविर्कासाचा प्रस्ताव एसआरएकडे सादर करणाऱ्या शिव डेव्हलपर्सने ९ ऑगस्ट,२००९ला जोगेश्वरीच्या अस्मिता भवनमध्ये बैठक घेऊन ७२.२३ टक्के रहिवाशांची पुनविर्कासाला परवानगी मिळविल्याचा दावा केला आहे. मात्र, ही बैठक एसआरएची नसून कुणा अॅड. अभय परब यांच्या सत्कारासाठी झाली होती, असा खुलासा जोगेश्वरी पोलीस निरीक्षकांनी एसआरएला त्याच दिवशी लिहिलेल्या पत्रात केल्याने बिल्डरचे बिंग उघड्यावर पडले आहे. 'या बैठकीत श्यामनगरच्या एसआरए योजनेसंदर्भात कोणतीही चर्चा वा सभा झाली नाही. तसेच, यावेळी येथे कोणीही विकासक हजर नव्हता,' असे या पत्रात स्पष्टपणे म्हटले आहे. 

बहुसंख्याकांचा विकासकाला विरोध असल्याने बिल्डरच्या बाजूच्या १०-२०टक्के रहिवाशांनाच बोलावून ही बैठक गुपचूप उरकण्यात येणार होती. याची कुणकुण लागल्याने रहिवाशांनी मेघवाडी आणि सांताक्रुझ पोलिसांकडे तक्रार करून बैठकीला परवानगी नाकारण्याची विनंती केली. दोन्ही पोलिसांनी रहिवाशांच्या विनंतीला मान देत परवानगी नाकारली. तरीही बैठक घेण्याचा प्रयत्न झाल्याने तब्बल ५००-६०० रहिवाशांनी सांताक्रुझ पोलिस स्टेशनच्या बाहेर जमून निदर्शने केली. अखेर पोलिसांच्या सांगण्यावरून आयोजकांना ही बैठक ़एसआरएची नसून अॅड. परब यांच्या गौरवार्थ असल्याचा खुलासा करावा लागला. या खुलाशावरून जोगेश्वरीच्या वरिष्ठ पोलिस निरीक्षकांनी एसआरएला पत्र लिहून ९ ऑगस्टची बैठक एसआरएची नसल्याचे स्पष्ट केले आहे. 'या बोगस बैठकीबाबत आम्ही एसआरएकडे तक्रार केली होती. पण, रहिवाशांची भूसंपादनाची प्रक्रिया थांबविताना एसआरएने जी कार्यक्षमता दाखविली तशी कार्यक्षमता पोलिसांच्या या पत्राची दखल घेऊन बिल्डरचा फसवा दावा फेटाळून लावताना दाखविली नाही,' अशी खंत 'स्वयंस्फूतीर्' या स्वयंविकासातून पुनविर्कास करू इच्छिणाऱ्या रहिवाशांच्या सहकारी गृहनिर्माण संस्थेचे मुख्य प्रवर्तक शंकर पाठारे यांनी बोलून दाखविली. 

श्यामनगरच्या जागेचे विकासहक्क मालकाने शिव डेव्हलपर्सला विकल्याचा दावा एसआरएने भूसंपादन थांबविताना केला आहे. मात्र, ७० टक्क्यांहून अधिक रहिवाशांना स्वयंविकासाद्वारे पुनविर्कास करायचा असल्यास विकासहक्काबाबतचा करार त्यांचे अधिकार डावलू शकणार नाही, खुलासा यावर शहरनियोजनतज्ज्ञ चंदशेखर प्रभू यांनी केला. 

जागेचे मालक आम्ही 

श्यामनगरची जागा मालकाकडून विकत घेतल्याचा दावा शिव डेव्हलपर्सचे रवींद फाटक यांनी केला आहे. ७० टक्के रहिवाशांची संमती आपल्याकडे असल्याचा दावाही त्यांनी केला. सांताक्रुझ पोलिसांनी एसआरएला लिहिलेल्या पत्राबाबत मात्र त्यांना कोणताही खुलासा करता आला नाही. 


Source :-  http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7264271.cms

MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR PRABHU Rights of Tenaments

In the year 1986 the Government, in a path breaking decision decided to make the occupants of the old and dilapidated cessed buildings under category ‘A’ i.e. those built prior to 1940, the owners of the land and buildings occupied by them. When the tenants were empowered to become owners by paying 100 months rent, some landlords appealed to Government saying that they should be given an opportunity to reconstruct their buildings and that they were willing to convert the newly reconstructed tenements into ownership and hand them over to the occupants free of cost. In their appeal to the Government, the landlords and developers stated that all the rules including the consent of 70% occupants for redevelopment of cessed properties as envisaged under Chapter-VIll-A, were correct and in public interest and were acceptable to them.

Later, a section of developers with the help of corrupt elements within the Government made efforts to dilute the protection available to the tenants. The tenants were angry and felt betrayed by the political leadership, and were convinced that the public interest would be sacrificed for petty personal gains. It is in this background that the total distrust for the builders and politicians has to be seen. There have been several instances, where developers have cheated the tenants. There have also been some "instances where tenants have been satisfied. The feeling of insecurity and fear of losing their homes continues to haunt the tenants.

Several mythical arguments have been advanced to misguide the tenants. One of them is that there would be no additional pressure on the infrastructure if redevelopment is permitted. Even the proponents of this argument know that the free sale area, which is 50% of the rehab component or more is likely to destroy the already fragile infrastructure. They continue to spread lies hoping that the exercise in falsehood may succeed. The fact is that whenever additional burden is put in the form of extra FSI, there is extra pressure, which is put on infrastructure of the city and such pressure is unbearable.

In the late 70s a study was conducted and it was found that the city cannot cope up with the FSI prevalent in those days and hence rationalisation of FSI was suggested. In the island city the FSI, was brought to a standard 1.33. Another mythical argument is that whenever properties are redeveloped the consumption of water does not increase. The fact is to the contrary. In each one of the redevelopment projects the supply of water to the project has been increased multi fold. The water supply to the old buildings in the island city of Mumbai depends on the pressure in the feeder lines. When properties in the neighbourhood are redeveloped, they have underground tanks and due to such redevelopment, the pressure in the water supply system of the neighbourhood reduces. The residents of chawls in Mumbai used to get ample water in the good old days. Due to lack of pressure adequate water is now unavailable, especially to those residing on upper storeys. The residents of 2nd and 3rd floors have to come down the stairs to the lower floors and carry buckets of water to their homes. Redevelopment will destroy the city unless it is accompanied by massive efforts to augment the infrastructure including water, drainage, electricity, roads etc.

Some builders are trying to make tenants believe that D.C.rule 33(vii) does not acknowledge the tenancy rights created after 13-6-1996. This false propaganda has been exposed by tenants who are aware that the number of tenancies are frozen, without affecting their rights. As FSI is connected with the number of tenancies the chances of creation of bogus tenants by builders are more, hence freezing the number of tenancies is a step in the right direction. Knowing that their game is up, some builders want to blame the tenants for fake tenancies. The right to create tenancies is with the builder who is also the landlord. Tenants cannot and do not create fake tenancies. In order to obtain consent from some non consenting tenants, some builders offer them 2 rooms in place of one which they are entitled to. The documents are manipulated with the help of the official machinery. This is done by resorting to corrupt practices and is encouraged by the builders in most cases, as the tenant does not have the necessary cash to manipulate papers.

There have several cases where the Hon. High Court has pointed out the existence of fake tenancies, and held the builders responsible for such acts.

Some builders want us to believe that allotment of carpet area in excess of 753 sq.ft. is not permitted under the redevelopment scheme. The facts are to the contrary. There is no rule, which stops the builders from giving more 753 sq.ft. While calculating MHADA' s share of the surplus area, MHADA will calculate the area allotted to the tenants, occupying more area at the rate of 753 sq.ft. per tenant. No redevelopment is stopped due to this stipulation. Tenants presently occupying more than 1000 sq.ft. have been allotted equivalent area by builders in several cases. Larger flats are in areas where the sale prices are high, and the project gives adequate returns despite giving the existing area to tenants occupying large flats.

The D. C. regulations for redevelopment stipulate that all tenants must be re-accommodated on the same plot of land. A section of the builders want to change this clause. The tenants have opposed such change as it will be used to dishouse them. There have been cases where redevelopment is in Hindu colony and surplus area offered to be surrendered is in Sion. This is not acceptable.

It is indeed true that a section of the developers have been threatening the tenants and dishousing them. There may be some builders who may not be resorting to strong arm methods but we have specific instances, of intimidation and threatening with the help of the under world, by a section of the developers. The tenants have demanded immediate arrest of those builders who have links with the under world.

Builders should give correct information to tenants regarding the amount of property tax to be paid after the redevelopment is complete. Some builders have been deceiving the tenants by saying that they have already obtained concession in property tax. .Let me clarify that till date this has not yet happened.

In some cases, the building plan is changed after obtaining consent letters from the tenants. This is wrong. The plan accompanying the consent letter can be changed only with the consent of the tenants authorising the changes in the plan.

Several developers do not form a society, and convey the property to the Co-operative Housing Society of tenants. They are violating the basic norms laid down in this regard. They must convey the society to the tenants immediately after the possession is given or during the possession. This clause must be incorporated in the agreement with the builders.

The increase of FSI was permitted for cessed buildings only because the buildings were in a dangerous condition. There is no question of giving additional FSI to those buildings which are not in a dangerous condition. Strong building which have a long life should not be taken up for redevelopment at least till all the buildings in dangerous condition are reconstructed.

The tenants have requested the Government to come down strongly against those, who try to undermine their rights. Transformation of Mumbai will never be a reality if builders continue to demand changing of rules. Mumbai may yield to the change if the existing rules are followed in letter and in spirit by all concerned. No one has begged the builders to undertake redevelopment. If they want to take up redevelopment they should do so under the existing rules. If they do not agree with the existing rules, they should not participate in the redevelopment activity at all.

Legal Disclaimer

This is not a legal offering. The view, specifications, elevations, number of flats, rooms etc., may change as may be necessary. The opinions and the content herein are not to be placed for any legal proof or record for the consequence of which the company will not be held responsible


Chandrashekhar Prabhu is president of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Chairman, Advisory Committee, Department of Housing, Government of Maharashtra, and adviser to the Government of Maharashtra. He has been associated with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and the Slum Redevelopment Authority. He is also a Member of the State Legislative Assembly, representing the Opera House Constituency in South Mumbai.