Mumbai to Shanghai without Slums-1

Issues

Demolitions and the government’s consequent announcement of de-listing these illegal settlers from electoral rolls is a way of effacing without recognition an entire category of citizens, some of whom are reluctant migrants from elsewhere who provide essential services to the city. In Mumbai out of the total population of 11 million about 55% constitute its slum population and occupy about 12.85 % of the city’s total land area. It is also important to note that a greater portion of thee lands on which slums are located today were previously uninhabitable and it is through the efforts of the slum dwellers that these lands were “reclaimed” and rendered habitable. Approximately 5.5 to 6 million live in slums in the most unhygienic and filthy conditions and another one million live on the pavements. It is also estimated that nearly 2 million people live as tenants in rented premises, a large number of which are old and dilapidated structures, including ‘chawls’. As a result we find that nearly 8.5 million of the city’s population lives in sub-standard or unsafe housing conditions under the abuse and continuous threat of displacement. Today it is said that about 82 % of the population live in one room abode. This housing situation blatantly exposes the continuing indifference, neglect and lack of the will of the government towards housing and living conditions in the city.

Also as many studies have already established, blame for the deteriorating quality of life in the city lies elsewhere and not in the mushrooming of slums, that in any case takes up only 12.85 % of land (this, however, is real estate worth over Rs 80,000 crore). The myth that slums are causing an untold pressure on the already limited resources available also falls flat on its face since what Mumbai has witnessed is the proliferation of slums which have minimal access to even the most basic of civic services such as water, electricity, schools, health facility, sanitation, toilets and, of course, shelter and land.

It is quite alarming that in the name of urban renewal, the cited solution to make urban areas more “beautiful” and “habitable” is slum demolitions. This has lead to a large-scale dispossession of minimum property and other obvious loss of food security, shelter, livelihood, nutrition and education among others. In other words the continuous struggle for survival of the slum dwellers has taken an even more precarious turn. It is clear that the presence of slums offends the middle-class and elite having their own notions of sanitation and hygiene, which cannot accommodate the slum dwellers.

However, it must be remembered that slum demolitions have been taking place for decades now and it is just the justification that changes. From the moralistic position that “illegals” and “encroachers” should not be rewarded at the cost of tax-paying law-abiding citizens (read middle-class and elite) to the oft-stated lament that slums are draining the limited resources of the city to the justification that it is for the benefit of the slum dwellers that they are getting evicted to the need to keep the city “clean” and “beautiful”. Today the justification is that Mumbai needs to be developed into a Global City on the lines of Shanghai and as such this requires the ejection of squalor i.e. slum dwellers. This is similar to the eviction drive in the early 1980s when the vision for Mumbai was Singapore and then too slum dwellers found no place in its vision.

Notice of demolition

The eviction of huts, whenever necessary according to the law, can only be done so in accordance with the law.

The Slum Act clearly lays down that before any intended demolitions the concerned slum dwellers must be served with notices informing them of the intentions of the Municipality and also offering an opportunity to them to make a case for themselves. This, however, has not been done in most of the slum demolitions carried out from December 2004 onwards.

When the question of removal of huts constructed by pavement dwellers over municipal land again arose in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulan Khan, in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that the municipality could remove the huts by following a reasonable procedure. ‘It is for the Court to decide in exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review whether the deprivation of life or personal liberty in a given case is by procedure which is reasonable, fair and just or if it is otherwise.’ The Court further held that in case of encroachment of recent original the necessity to follow the procedure of principles of natural justice can be obviated but where the corporation has allowed settlement of encroachers for a long time, reasonable notice of two weeks or 10 days and a personal hearing should be allowed before removal of encroachment.

It is a matter of principle accepted by the Courts as seen in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulan Khan that the serving of notice if mandatory before eviction.

Use of police force

The use of police force in slum demolitions is a standard practice and excessively so in the present demolitions that have taken place. Needless to add any opposition to the demolitions by the slum dwellers is met with lathi charges and bullets. What we have seen in the demolition from 8th December is …

Impact on people

What is worse is the manner in which the demolitions occur. In the past, the demolition squad would come with sticks and axes and manually break down the structure. This gave the "encroacher" the time to save his or her belongings. Today, there is no such luxury. Bulldozers and earthmovers appear overnight aided by the police. Within a few hours, structures that have been built by the poor incrementally over years are flattened. There is little time to save anything. Sometimes even the papers that would establish that the hutment existed before the cut-off date are flattened with the structure.

The plots where the demolitions took place are being policed and slum dwellers say that even temporary structures, built with bamboo poles and plastic sheets, are being pulled down. Thousands of children have not been able to attend school because of the demolitions, parents are afraid to go to work and leave what little they have salvaged of their belongings in the open, and old people are suffering the cold nights without a roof over their heads.

Impact on Children

The impact of the demolitions on children, to put it simply, is immense and unconstitutional and also in contravention of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 44/25 of 20th November 1989 and entered into force on 2nd September 1990. According to the Convention;

1. Article 16.1 states:

"No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation".

2. Article 19.1 states:

“States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.”

3. Article 27.3 states:

"States Parties in accordance with national conditions and within their means shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing".

The evictions have infringed on all these articles and actually endangered the children in every which way. Now the children are in a situation where they are without any shelter, education and no guarantee of food and nutrition. Further the children are also in a position where any access to health services is restricted totally. The anganwadis and balwadis that were running in some of the demolished slums have also been stopped causing further problems for the children.

It is also pertinent to note that the children, approximately about 1.25 lakhs in number, fall under the definition of a child in need of care and protection according to Chapter I of the the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000, where Sec 2 (d) defines a "child in need of care and protection" also to include a child who is found without any home or settled place or abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence.

It is imperative now that the State Advisory Board constituted under Sec 62 of the said Act to move immediately and evolve ways to ensure the protection of these children. The law provides that the role of the Board is to advise that Government on matter relating to the establishment and maintenance of the homes, mobilisation of resources, provision of facilities for education, training and rehabilitation of child in need of care and protection and juvenile in conflict with law and co-ordination among the various official and non-official agencies concerned.

Livelihood

According to Article 19(1) (g), all citizens have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Most of the slum dwellers who have been evicted were, prior, to the evictions, engaged in different trades through self-employment to working as daily wage labourers. This hand-to-mouth existence of the slums dwellers has now been totally destroyed and they have been denied of these livelihoods. Most of the earning members of the dishoused families have not been able to earn a living post the evictions.   

With the defining of the word ‘life’ in Article 21in a broad and expansive manner, the Court came to hold that the ‘right to life ‘guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. The Right to livelihood of pavement dwellers comes into danger during times of evictions. Most of them work in places close to their areas of settlement, and evictions and relocations would disturb this right.

In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. (1985) 3 SCC 545,572, when the squatters and the pavement-dwellers were sought to be ejected by the respondent, without due process of law, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. A Constitution Bench held that their eviction from the dwellings would not only result in deprivation of shelter but would also inevitably lead to deprivation of their means of livelihood which means deprivation of life in as much as the pavement dwellers were employed in the vicinity of their dwellings. Right to life under Article 21 includes right to livelihood, and if this right were to be affected without reasonable procedure established by law, it would be violative of Article 21. ‘The conclusion, therefore, in terms of the constitutional phraseology is that the eviction of the petitioners will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of their life.’

Taking recourse to Article 39(a) (which requires the state to direct its policy towards securing that all citizens, irrespective of sex, equally have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) to interpret Art 21, the Supreme Court included the right to livelihood in its ambit. The Court also held that ‘The State may not by affirmative action, be compellable to provide adequate means of livelihood or work to the citizen. But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21.’

Therefore by this judgment, what Article 21 insists is that such deprivation ought to be according to procedure established by law which should be ‘fair, just and reasonable’. Thereby, anyone who is deprived of his right to livelihood without just and fair procedure established by law can challenge deprivation as being against Article 21. This means that the municipality must give anyone they seek to evict a notice and hearing.

Right to Food

Towards ensuring food security and in establishing every citizen’s Right to Food the Supreme Court has overseen the announcement of the following schemes as per it’s Orders in PUCL vs. UOI and others (Writ Petition 196 of 2001):

(i)Annapurna Scheme

This scheme has been transferred from the Central government to the State plan in the year 2002-03. Under this scheme food grains are distributed to the destitute/senior citizens covered under National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS). The beneficiaries will be supplied 10 kgs of rice per month free of cost under the scheme. The beneficiaries for this scheme are selected by the District Collectors. “Annapurna” ration cards, different in colour from other ration cards, are supposed to be printed by the Collectors and issued to the beneficiaries for supply of 10 kgs of rice free of cost through Public Distribution System shops.

(ii)Integrated Child Development Services Scheme

The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) targets the most vulnerable groups of population including children up to 6 years of age, pregnant women and nursing mothers belonging to poorest of the poor families and living in disadvantaged areas including backward rural areas, tribal areas and urban slums. The identification of beneficiaries is done through surveying the community and identifying the families living below the poverty line. The objectives of this scheme are to improve the nutritional and health status of school children in the age-group of 0-6 years and also to enhance the capability of the mother to look after the normal health and nutritional needs of the child through proper nutrition and health education. The ICDS centres or Anganwadi would be the centre of convergence of all the services.

(iii)Mid-day Meal Scheme

The main aim of this scheme is to work towards universalization of primary education by increasing the enrolment, retention and attendance while simultaneously improve the nutritional standards of the children in the primary classes.

(iv)National Social Assistance Programme

It includes three components:

1. National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS)

2. National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS)

3. National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS).

The Panchayati Raj Institutions are the implementing authorities. The PRIs along with the Municipalities may also be involved in monitoring and in following up delays in sanctions and disbursement.

The scales of benefit under the NSAP would be as below:

•National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS): Rs.200/- per month. Age-65 years and above. Must be a destitute with a very small or no source of income. Of this Rs.200/- Rs.75/- will be contributed by the Central Government and the remaining will be contributed by the state government.

•National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS): Rs.15, 000/- in case of death of the primary breadwinner to the bereaved household. Out of this the Central Government share will be Rs.10, 000/- and the remaining will be contributed by the state government. The ‘primary breadwinner’ will be the member of the household -male or female- whose earnings contribute substantially to the total household income. The primary bread winner must be more than 18 years of age and less than 65 years of age. The family must be one which is below the poverty line. The money will be paid after local enquiry to the “head” of the household.

•National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS): Rs.500/- per pregnancy up to the first two live births. The woman must be more than 19 years of age and must belong to a family below the poverty line. It is desirable that the child receives one dose of oral polio and BCG vaccination at birth and the first dose of DPT and polio in the sixth week.

(v)Targeted Public Distribution System

The TPDS was introduced in June, 1997 as a revised form of the former PDS with special focus on the poor. The State Government shall issue distinctive ration cards to Above Poverty Line, Below Poverty Line and Antyodaya families and shall conduct periodical review and checking of the ration cards. The ration card- holder shall be entitled to draw essential commodities from a fair price shop on weekly basis.

(vi)Antyodaya Anna Yojana

This scheme is a part of the Public Distribution Scheme where people under

certain specified categories are identified and food grains are provided to these people who hold the Antyodaya cards. The PDS (Control) Order, 2001 defines "Antyodaya families" to mean those poorest families from amongst Below Poverty Line (BPL) families identified by the State Governments and entitled to receive food grains under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana. These people are provided separate ration cards.

The Supreme Court in its order dated 02.05.2003 directed that the following group of people under his scheme:

●Aged, infirm, disabled, destitute men and women, pregnant and locating women, destitute women.

●Widows and other single women with no regular support;

●Old persons (aged 60 or above) with no regular support and no assured means of subsistence;

●Households with a disabled adult and assured means of subsistence;

●Households where due to old age, lack of physical or mental fitness, social customs, need to care for a disabled, or other reasons, no adult member is available to engage in gainful employment outside the house;

●Primitive tribes.

The forceful evictions and demolitions of houses of slum dwellers have violated peoples right to food. Not only have people lost their livelihoods but also many have lost whatever meager savings and possessions they had. Left with no shelter people including the old, children, pregnant women, etc. have been forced to stay under the open sky in cemeteries, graveyards and garbage heaps, etc. The effect is that many families are now struggling to manage even one square meal a day. This effect would have probably been less had the food security network mandated by the Supreme Court in PUCL vs. UOI and others (WP 196 of 2001) been put in place and running. However, even whatever little was implemented, has been halted with the evictions.

According to surveys conducted by the NAPM post the evictions, it was found that schemes such as the TPDS, Old Age Pension Scheme, Maternity Benefits, Annapoorna, Antyodaya Yojana, ICDS and Mid-day Meal for school going children etc. for example while almost all families are eligible under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana but they are not getting any benefits under this scheme.    

Shri N.C. Saxena, Commissioner appointed by the Supreme Court in this matter, in his letter dated 04.05.2005 to the Chief Secretary, has clearly articulated these concerns. He has stated that “…the slum demolitions have created a grave humanitarian crisis of food security of the erstwhile slum residents. Even in normal time, they live with low-end underpaid uncertain livelihoods. After demolitions, the precarious subsistence of the residents stands further threatened, and I request that this gets the highest attention of the state government”. In the same letter the Commissioner has gone at length to draw the attention of the state government to the various schemes that hadn’t been implemented in the slums that were demolished.

Cut-off date

Progressive governments have taken it on themselves to set a “cut-off” date for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. Instead of getting to the bottom of the problem, which is that of finding ways to increase the affordable housing stock in the city, successive governments have resorted to piecemeal solutions of which the most has been to set a "cut-off" date — that is a date after which no encroachment on public or private land will be tolerated. Except that the Government has been selectively tolerant even as this "cut-off" date has edged forward and now stands at January 1, 1995. The parties that form the present State Government in Maharashtra, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party promised that this date would be further extended up to 2000. But having won the election and formed the Government, they have hastily backtracked.

The "cut-off" date essentially means that the Government will not be responsible for people who have encroached on land after that date. Those who can establish that they set up house before that date are entitled to either alternative accommodation, free of charge, if that land is needed for any other public purpose or can bring in a developer to construct formal housing on that land. This was part of the Slum Redevelopment Scheme (SRS) brought in by the Maharashtra Government in 1998. It was premised on the recognition that slum dwellers had invested in developing the land and the structures. So the "free" house was notional as it was essentially to compensate for their labour in making the land on which the slum stands habitable. In any case, once the slum dwellers moved into their "free" house, they had to pay charges to the housing society. So the security of tenure came at a price.

On paper, the Government's stand on a cut-off date might sound reasonable if you argue that it is not the job of governments to provide houses for everyone. But in reality it translates into denying people basic rights just because they are poor. For while the Government can have a tough policy on structures built illegally on public lands, it cannot have the same attitude towards the people living in those structures. These are citizens of this country. They cannot be pushed out on the street, or forced to "return" to their so-called native place just because there is work available but nowhere to live in the city.

Further, in the Relief Road case it is difficult to appreciate the Court's endorsement of a cut-off date of 1st January 1995 for being eligible for an alternate accommodation. It is patently ultra vires Art.19 and Art.14 of the Constitution. It also means that the rich can always come into the city and acquire any place of his choice, while the poor and the homeless can never enter this city. Moreover all human rights are indivisible and the government cannot say that they will recognize these rights up to a certain date and not beyond that date. Further it is inconsistent with the observations of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Appellant V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan And Others. To quote from the judgment,

“Article 19(e) of the Constitution provides to all citizens fundamental rights to travel, settle down and reside in any part of Bharat and none have right to prevent their settlement. Any attempt in that behalf would be unconstitutional. The Preamble of the Constitution assures integrity of the nation, fraternity among the people and diguity of the person to make India an integrated and united Bharat in a socialist secular democratic republic. The policy or principle should be such that everyone should have the opportunity to migrate and settle down in any part of Bharat where opportunity for employment or better living conditions are available and, therefore, it would be unconstitutional and impermissible to prevent the persons from migrating and settling at places where they find their livelihood and means of avocation. It is to be remembered that the Preamble the arch of the Constitution which accords to every citizen of India socioeconomic and political justice, liberty, equality of opportunity and of status, fraternity, dignity of person in an integrated Bharat. The fundamental rights and the directive principles and the Preamble being trinity of the Constitution, the right to residence and to settle in any part of the country is assured to every citizen. In a secular socialist democratic republic of Bharat hierarchical caste structure, antagonism towards diverse religious beliefs and faith and dialectical difference would be smoothened and the people would be integrated with dignity of person only when social and economic democracy is established under the rule of law. The difference due to caste, sect or religion pose grave threat to affinity, equality and fraternity. Social democracy means a way of life with dignity of person as a normal social intercourse with liberty, equality and fraternity. The economic democracy implicits in itself that the inequalities in income and inequalities in opportunities and status should be minimised and as far as possible marginalised.”

The Court further held that,

“As held earlier, right to residence is one of the minimal human rights as fundamental right. Due to want of facilities and opportunities, the right to residence and settlement is an illusion to the rural and urban poor. Articles 38, 39 and 46 mandate the State, as its economic policy, to provide socio-economic justice to minimise inequalities in income and in opportunities and status. It positively charges the State to distribute its largess to the weaker sections of the society envisaged in Article 46 to make socio-economic justice a reality, meaningful and fruitful so as to make life worth living with dignity of person and a equality of status and to constantly improve excellence.”

Dalits

It is important to take note of the fact that a predominant number of slum dwellers are dalit or Muslim. This is not a matter of astonishment since, especially in the case of Dalits who are born into the circle of poverty. Thus in the urban context generations of Dalits are born and bred in slums while in the rural context the reality if of landlessness and next-to-no economic opportunities. Thus we see that even those migrating into Mumbai and forming its poor are Dalits. The National Commission on Urbanisation in 1988 states that”…there is a much higher incidence of poverty among scheduled castes and tribes than is warranted by their proportions in the general population of the city.”

In such a context it is imperative to examine whether the state has taken any special care to address the needs of slum dwellers as Dalits and not only looking at them through the lens of legality.  

This in fact is the opinion of the Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Appellant V. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan And Others, where it observed that,

“The State and consequentially the local authorities, are charged with the constitutional duty to provide the weaker sections, in particular the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with socio-economic and political justice and to prevent their exploitation and to prevent them from injustice. The Union of India have evolved Indira Avas Yojna Scheme exclusively to provide housing accommodation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and separate annual budgets are being allotted in that behalf by Parliament and the appropriate legislatures in allied matters. In that behalf, in implementation of the housing scheme evolved for them, the budgetary allocation should exclusively be spent for them and should not be diverted to ally other projects or similar schemes meant for others. The Planning Commission has evolved the principle of allotment of a specified percentage for the overall development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As a facet of it, the annual budget including for housing accommodation is being prepared and passed by Parliament. Similarly for other schemes covered by the State budgets. Therefore, when the State, namely, the Union of India or the appropriate State Government or the local bodies implement these schemes for housing accommodation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or any other schemes, they should, in compliance with the mandates of Articles 46, 39 and 38, annually provide housing accommodation to them within the allocated budget and effectively and sincerely implement them using the allocations for the respective schemes so that the right to residence a to them would become a reality and meaningful and the budget allocation should not either be diverted or used for any other scheme meant for other weaker sections of the society. Any acts in violation thereof or diversion of allocated funds, misuse or misutilisation, would be in negation of constitutional objectives defeating and deflecting the goal envisioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. The executive forfeits the faith and trust reposed in it by Article 261 of the Constitution.

28. Similarly separate budget would also be allocated to other weaker sections of the society and the backward classes to further their socioeconomic advancement. As a facet thereof, housing accommodation also would be evolved and from that respective budget allocation the amount needed for housing accommodation for them should also be earmarked separately and implemented as an ongoing process of providing facilities and opportunities including housing accommodation to the rural or urban poor and other backward classes of people.

29. It is common knowledge that when Government allows largess to the poor, by pressures or surreptitious means or in the language of the appellantd Corporation "the slum lords" exert pressures on the vulnerable sections of the society to vacate their place of occupation and shift for settlement to other vacant lands belonging to the State or municipalities or private properties by encroachment. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are settled in the allotted government properties/houses/plots of lands are compelled or driven by pressures to leave the places to settle at some other place. This would have deleterious effect on the integration and social cohesion and public resources are wasted and the constitutional objectives defeated. It would, therefore, be of necessity that the policy of the Government in executing the policies of providing housing accommodation either to the rural poor or the urban poor, should be such that the lands allotted or houses constructed/plots allotted be in such a manner that all the sections of the society, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and other poor are integrated as cohesive social structure. The expenditure should be met from the respective budgetary provisions allotted to their housing schemes and in the respective proportion be utilised. All of them would, therefore, live in one locality in an integrated social group so that social harmony, integrity, fraternity and amity would be fostered, religious and caste distinction would no longer remain a barrier for harmonised social intercourse and integration. The facts in this case do disclose that out of 29 encroachers who have constructed the bouses on pavements, 19 of them have left the places, obviously due to such pressures and interests of the rest have come into existence by way of purchase. When such persons part with possession in any manner known to law, the alienation or transfer is opposed to the constitutional objectives and public policy. Therefore, such transfers are void ab initio conferring no right, title or interest therein. In some of the States law has already been made in that behalf declaring such transfers void with power to resume the property and allot the same to other needy people from these schemes. Other States should also follow suit and if necessary Parliament may make comprehensive law in this behalf. It would take care of the third question raised by the appellant. The Union Law Commission would examine this question.”

Availability of land within city

The so-called shortage of residential land is a myth especially in the core of Mumbai since there is a enough vacant land that can be utilized for slum rehabilitation and re-housing except that the ownership of the lands rest in the hands of some very powerful elite against which the state has refused to take action despite obvious illegalities therein. The powerful real estate lobby also plays a critical role in ensuring that vacant lands are not freed up for utilization for slum dwellers. The National Commission on Urbanization in 1987 reported that 91 individuals in Mumbai own 55% of vacant land.

In 1970, the state government had acquired 50,000 acres of land from farmers and small holders and handed it over to the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) for the development of Navi Mumbai (interview with Mrinal Gore in The Asian Age, January 29, 2005). 4,850 acres of land still lie vacant and can be used for rehabilitation; under the ULCRA, the state government can acquire these lands, but thus far, the latter has been hand-in-glove with the builders.

Clearly what can be inferred is that while the lands are available there is no political or bureaucratic will to utilize these available lands for housing slum dwellers.

Lands available on enforcement of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976:

The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act of 1976 sought to control land speculation and to achieve a more equitable distribution of land by putting a ceiling of 500 sq. m. on vacant urban land in Mumbai that could be held in private ownership. All the land in excess of this ceiling was supposed to be returned to the government, which could use it for housing the poor. Optionally, the owners could seek exemption, mainly under Section 20 or 21 of the Act, for the excess vacant land on the condition that the said land would be used to build one-room tenements for the weaker sections % of the land (as per the GR of 1986). The objective of the Government Resolution dated 22nd August 1986 is clearly laid down in the guidelines of the government resolution. “This Government has been seriously considering as to how best the objective of creating appropriate housing stock which will be within the affordable means of poor can be achieved. The Government is convinced that with a view to making the dwelling units affordable, the price to be ultimately charged is the most relevant and crucial factor. Further, this housing stock has to be made available within a reasonable span of time, in larger numbers of appropriate quality.” Thus, clearly, the objective of the Act was putting in place a process by which affordable housing stock would be made available for the urban poor within a reasonable span of time.

However, this has not happened. Some of the major owners of vast stretches of vacant land in Mumbai are charitable trusts of big industrialists and businessmen. The Act was often by-passed by using the ‘exemption clause’ by manipulation and getting permission from the Corporation to build, leading to a total defeat of the stated objectives of the Act. These restrictions actually reduced the supply of formal land. As a result of such criminal acts, while the housing stock meant for the rich people went up, but there was no corresponding increase in the housing stock meant for the poor people in the slums who are mostly employed by such rich people as their servants, drivers, security guards etc.

Large tracts of vacant land which was supposed to build a predominant number of houses as of 25 sq.m., which being of the nature of one-room tenements for the weaker sections of the society, were converted into sprawling townships meant for the rich and the famous. One such blatant example is that of Hiranandani Constructions where more than 500 acres of land in Thane and Mumbai which were to house one-room tenements for the weaker sections in 70% of the land, i.e. in 350 acres, not a single one-room tenement was made for the weaker sections.

Lands reserved for construction of houses for the dishoused people:

Lands that have been reserved as HD lands as per the Development Plan and meant for housing the dishoused have also been openly used for other purposes even though housing for the poor is one of the main lacunae in the urban policy of the state.

One such example is that of a huge shopping mall by the name ATRIA that is coming up in Worli area on a plot of land which was reserved for housing the dishoused.

Mill lands:

The other source of available and un-utilized vacant land that is highly contested is about 500 acres of Mill lands. According to an article on the web, there are 58 cotton mills in Mumbai, of these 26 were deemed sick and were taken over by the government of India. Out of these, 25 are managed by National Textile Corporation (NTC) and by Maharashtra State Textile Corporation (MSTC). Remaining 32 mills continue to be in the private sector. Even after taken over, these mills continue to be sick. Textile mills hold 400 to 500 acres of land just in the heart of Greater Mumbai. NTC alone having 275 acres in its possession.

Regulation 58 of the new DCR which came into force in March 1991, provides for development of sick and/ or closed cotton textile mills on condition that one third of the land is given to the BMC for public amenities and 27-37 % (depending on the area of the mill) is given to the MHADA and PSU’s for housing. The remaining lands could be developed by the owner for residential and commercial uses as may be permissible under the DC regulation in force.

The DC regulation of March 1991 intended to regulate the development of cotton textile mills so as to generate open spaces and public houses for the city, in a manner, which would create coherent urban form. Such redevelopment that has occurred has been in a piece meal and haphazard manner on a totally commercial basis, without any portion of the land becoming available either for low income housing or for public amenities. On 29th February 1996, Maharashtra government had instituted a study group under the chairmanship of Architect Charles Correa to have an integrated development plan for the development of textile mills. In June 2000 state government cleared the proposals to sale of surplus mill land of NTC as per DCR.

Earlier this year, NTC sold five of its properties in Mumbai - Jupiter, Mumbai, Apollo, Kohinoor 3 and Elphinstone – for 2,021 crores. Kohinoor Mills No 3, one of the defunct textile units at Dadar here, was bought for Rs. 421 crores by Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi's son and others, while the Mumbai Textile Mills were sold to the Jwala group – a joint venture between the Delhi based DLF group and the Mumbai-based Akruti Nirman group - for Rs 702 crores.

Obviously now there is absolutely no talk of housing for the poor on these lands.

Parity

An issue that needs to be looked into is the multiplicity of projects that have been undertaken and the different standards for the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers affected by these. While on one hand the government, after reneging on its election promise of rehabilitating slum dwellers upto 31.12.2000, has now moved a Letter of Motion in the Relief Road seeking the Court’s permission to up the cut off date to 31.12.2000. On the other hand, the rehabilitation plan for Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) lays down that the slum dwellers who were covered by the survey to enumerate the project affected persons will be rehabilitated. Therefore, the cut-off date is said to be December 2004 (???)!

Access to basic amenities prior to eviction…water, electricity, PDS, roads, toilets, schools, PHCs, etc.

This again is a critical issue that needs to be taken much more seriously than it is. The forcible eviction of slum dwellers implies the forcible denial of access to basic services and many constitutional rights.

Election promises reneged on…

The last issue that we have taken up is the accountability of political parties with regard to their elction promises. The Congress party during the election campaign and in its Manifesto have clearly promised housing and regularisation of encorachments upto 2000. It is a fact that the seats that the Congress won in Mumbai were due to these promises to the slum dwellers. However, now the Congress appears to be reneging on its promises.