Locals claim entire stretch of proposed road has been encroached upon by private developer for mall construction, claim diversion of roads not permitted under Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034
PM Road, which is currently being used by the residents, has been diverted and connected to Phirozshah Mehta Road
Santacruz residents have raised serious allegations against the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), claiming that key provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034 have been violated, leading to potential long-term inconvenience for daily commuters.
At the centre of the controversy is TPS 6 Road No. 1, a proposed 12.20-metre-wide road, planned to provide direct access to Santacruz railway station to the local residents.
According to the locals, the entire stretch of the proposed road has been encroached upon by a private developer, upon which a mall has been constructed. “The construction of the mall has completely obstructed the planned road alignment, defeating the very purpose of the sanctioned development plan,” said Navneet Madan, a local resident.
The mall that residents claim was illegally built and which has become an obstruction to construction of a road to Santacruz station. Pics/Nimesh Dave
Due to the obstruction, commuters who were earlier expected to benefit from a direct road link are now forced to use the PM Road to reach the station. This road has been diverted and connected to Phirozshah Mehta Road, further complicating access.
Residents point out that under DCPR 2034 (Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034), diversion of roads is not permitted. The regulations only allow realignment of roads within the same designated boundaries, and even that requires due approvals.
Locals allege that despite these clear provisions, the SRA went ahead and regularised the mall, which was originally constructed illegally.
They further claim that the road diversion plan was earlier rejected by the Development Plan Department (DP department), yet the diversion was implemented regardless. Recently, a part Occupation Certificate (OC) was also granted to the mall, raising fears that the obstruction may now become permanent. “The proposed road was meant to make our lives easier. Instead, we are now spending nearly 25 minutes and at least R40 per trip just to reach the railway station,” said a local resident.
According to residents, once the road is fully operational as per the DCPR norms, pedestrians would be able to reach the station within five minutes (by walking).
With the mall now standing on the proposed road alignment, residents worry that restoring the planned access road may become increasingly difficult. Citizen groups have demanded immediate intervention, cancellation of the alleged illegal regularisation, and strict adherence to DCPR 2034, warning that failure to act would set a dangerous precedent for urban planning violations in Mumbai.
Residents Speak
“Not establishing the proposed Road No. 1 will lead to excessive inconvenience. The road can help us reach [Santacruz] railway station by walking in 5 minutes. However, if the proposed road is not established, we will be forced to take a longer route which is always jammed with traffic. Additionally, we will have to spend at least 20 minutes and spend R40 one-way,” said Ajit Ajgaonkar, one of the residents.
“Despite several complaints and even raising the matter in Vidhan Sabha, the mall stands. Also, as per the MRTP Act, SRA does not have the power to divert any roads. They only have power to realign the roads, and that too within the boundaries of the area. Moreover, whether diversion or realignment, SRA must take suggestions and objections from the residents” said Ajay Desai, another local resident.
“The main question here is how was a proposed road encroached? Post encroachment, how was the builder allowed to construct a ground+3 mall? Post construction, how was the illegal construction of the mall regularised? The mall also received part OC. We don’t understand who exactly should be blamed for this,” said Sanjay Patkar, another local resident.
Questions raised with SRA
. How did the SRA approve the diversion of PM Road and its connection with Phirozshah Mehta Road despite the DP Department rejecting the diversion?
. Why did SRA violate the DCPR-2034 rules and regularise the construction of the mall by giving a notice to the developer and making him pay a fine?
. Will the SRA demolish the obstructing mall to establish the proposed Road No. 1?
SRA’s response
. The 12.20-metre-wide DP Road was realigned in the year 2017, as per regulation 11(4) of DCR 1991 by the then CEO of SRA, subject to concurrence from BMC. The BMC had given concurrence for the realignment on August 3, 2019.
. The work was carried out beyond the Commencement Certificate, but an approval was regularised by recovering the penalty (R2.49 crore) as per the prevailing policy.
. Action is not warranted as the realignment of the DP Road has been done as per the regulation, and the BMC had given concurrence for the same.
12.2 metres
Width of the road
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
