Admit encroachment, get a 30-year reprieve State Says Forest Land Bldgs Will Be Razed After Leases Expire

Mumbai: The Maharashtra government wants lakhs of residents on private forest land to accept they are encroachers, withdraw their petition from the Supreme Court and request the state for redress. If the residents do this, the government is willing to consider leasing the land to them for 30 years. After that period though, it wishes to demolish all the buildings and develop the areas into forests. 

    This in summary was a resolution proposed by the state before the Supreme Court as it heard a petition filed by residents of housing societies on private forest land. The residents said they settled on the land legally and thus the names of their housing societies on property registration cards should not be replaced with that of the forest department. 
    The final hearing was held last week before a threejudge SC bench presided over by Justice R M Lodha. An order is expected by January. 
A 56-YEAR SAGA 
In 1957, state forest dept asked owners of 2.57 lakh hectares to prove that their holdings were not forest land 
Areas in Mumbai where notices were given: Thane, Mulund, Bhandup, Nahur, Mehul, Borivli, Kandivli, Virar, Badlapur and Ambarnath 
Between 1967 and 1991, BMC classified these areas as 
residential, allowed buildings 
In 2001, on a PIL filed by BEAG, HC directed state to 
demarcate forest land areas 
    In 2006, residents filed a writ plea challenging govt action 
    In 2009, centrally empowered committee, set up as per an SC directive, recommended regularisation. Residents paid up approximately Rs 100 crore HC: List multiple allotments under CM's quota T he Bombay HC has asked the state to furnish a list of all double or multiple flat allotments under the CM's discretionary quota in four days or face contempt proceedings. The list was initially sought last April while hearing a plea of irregularities in allotments that saw most flats going to politicians and journalists. P 3 State fooling us, SC our only hope: Forest land residents 
    The state's proposals in the apex court on how to deal with buildings on private forest land were in consonance with its stand that "since these are private forest lands, any structures on them are illegal," said principal secretary (revenue and forests) Praveen Pardeshi. 
    "SC had accepted (a few years ago) the government stand and set up a centrally empowered committee (CEC) to decide on the structures. In its report, the CEC had classified the structures into many categories," Pardeshi noted. 
    In one category were bracketed structures that have been granted official permission and whose society names have been entered in the property registration cards or 7/12 land records. In another grouping were placed structures not given permission and in whose cases the land records are in the forest department's name. 
    Pardeshi said the 30-year lease idea was proffered for the buildings without permission. As for the structures that possess permission, "their residents have been asked to pay a net present value for the land. If the environment ministry agrees, the land on which these structures stand will be denotified and the residents allowed to retain the lands," explained Pardeshi, adding that the measure will benefit a great number of structures in the Mumbai-Thane belt. In the Mumbai region, the contentious structures fall in the areas of Thane, Mulund, Bhandup, Nahur, Mahul, Borivli, Kandivli, Virar, Badlapur and Ambernath. 
    Residents voiced strong scepticism about the state's claims, particularly on the possible denotification of land. "They are fooling us. The Forest Conservation Act is very stringent. It has no provision for denotification," said one resident. 
    The affected residents in Nahur and Mulund had filed a writ petition in SC under Article 32 (right to shelter) of the Constitution, challenging the legality of the Private Forest Act, 1975. Their counsel Rajiv Dhawan said the statute, which provides for deemed acquisition of lands, seeks to establish "reserve forest" by a shortcut procedure with devastating results. He said the shortcut was in direct contrast with the elaborate procedure for creation of reserve forests under the Indian Forests Act, 1927. 
    Other petitioners argued the lands in question were not forest land. They had been earmarked for residential and commercial use in development plans and the government, through many departments, had granted them various approvals and sanctions for development. They had even received occupation certificates from municipal corporations. 
    Residents said their hope now rests with the apex court. "I am relieved that the eight-yearlong legal battle is over. We can only hope now and pray that justice is delivered," said Prakash Padikkal, president, Hillside Residents' Welfare Association. WILL THEY BE UPROOTED? 
CASE HISTORY 
1957 | State forest dept issued notices to owners of 2.6 lakh hectares across Maharashtra, asking them to prove their land is not forest land. Notices issued in Thane, Mulund, Bhandup, Nahur, Borivli, Kandivli, Virar, Badlapur, Ambernath (see map) 
    Hearings, required to happen within six months, never held 
    Commercial deals went on 
    Development plans in 1967 and 1991 deemed these to be residential areas2001 | PIL filed for demarcation of forest land in state. Govt began 'correcting' land records without intimating landowners 2006 | Residents filed writ plea, challenging govt action as it affected 5 lakh residents in Mumbai and Thane 2008 |Bombay HC upheld government action 
    Residents challenged order in SC, which set up a centrally empowered committee (CEC) to hold detailed hearings 2009 | CEC recommended regularisation, with residents paying net present value (NPV) for land ranging from Rs 6 to Rs 120 per sq ft. Residents paid up 
2012 | On receiving more pleas, SC set up a 3-judge bench to hear the matter. In May, state told residents they have to pay at least 50% more as NPV for lands adjacent to a dense forest (Sanjay Gandhi National Park). Residents refused 
2013 | Bench completed hearing, reserved order 
TIMES VIEW: The state government's latest brainwave must have taken residents by surprise; it's a strange twist, strange even for a case that has seen more than its share of twists and turns. What's surprising is that the state government has not once spoken of penal measures against officials, who have allowed the problem to fester for so long and whom residents blame for the mess. This silence speaks volumes about the government's sensitivity to the general problem of flat buyers, who are caught in a wedge between bureaucratic red tape and the efforts of a section of developers to mislead them and profit from their ignorance.

CASE STILL PENDING IN SC

TOI report on October 6, 2012