in the high court of judicature at bombay ordinary ... · in the high court of judicature at bombay...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2017

Ms. Amrita P. Bhattacharjee & Anr

Vs

... Petitioners

State of Maharashtra, UDD & Ors ... Respondents INDEX

Sr. Exhibit Particulars

No

1. Proforma

2. Synopsis

3. Petition

4. Vakalatnama

5. Memorandum of Petitioner's

Registered Address.

6. List of Documents

7 A Impugned notification dt 24.08.201 issued by Respondent No. 1

8. B G.R. dated 03.03.2014 issued by Respondent No. 1

9. Bl English translation of G .R. dated 03.03.2014 issued by Respondent No. 1

10. c Respondent No. 4's letter dated 06.02.2017

11. D Photos showing the pristine natural beauty of Aarey Depot

12. E Technical Committee Report dated 11.08.2015

13. F Directive issued by Respondent No. 1 dated 16.10.2015, with plan

14. Fl English translation of directive issued by Respondent No. 1dated16.10.2015

15. G Respondent No. l's letter dated 01.04.2016, with plan

16. H G.R. issued by Respondent No. 1, dated 16.03.2016

17. Hl English translation of G.R. issued by Respondent No. 1, dated 16.03.2016

Page

Nos.

I-:)?"

A-D

1 - 29

30-32

33

34

35-38

39-43

44-50

51-53

54-55

56-111

112-114

115-117

118-120

121-122

123-125

•

I MoEF's Press Release dated 06.12.2016 126-127

19. J Respondent No. l's approval dated 128 30.12.2016

20. Jl English translation of Respondent No. l's 129 approval dated 30.12.2016

21. K Respondent No. 1 's Notice dated 130-132 29.12.2016, with plan

22. L Extract of the Report & 133-136 Recommendations of the 'Fact Finding Committee on Mumbai Floods'

23. M Photos and Google Earth images showing 137-138 the destruction of eco-sensitive area at

-~-- ·, AareyDepot

24. N Extract of Report on Draft DP-2034 139-142

25. 0 Extract of the report of the Planning 143-145 Committee on DP-2034

26. p Extract of Respondent No. 3's 146-150 Notification dated 07.08.2017

n. Pl English translation of the extract of 151-153 Respondent No. 3's Notification dated 07.08.2017

28. Q Sheet No. WS 24 of Final Draft DP-2034 154

29. R G.R. issued by Respondent No. 1, dated 155-156 23.08.2017

30. Rl English translation of G.R. issued by 157-158 Respondent No. 1, dated 23.08.2017

31. Advocate' s Certificate 159

32. Affidavit in Support to the Writ Petition 160

Last Page .. .. . 160

hA ~ V .dvocate for Petitioners



WRIT PETITION NO.


Vs

State of Maharashtra, UDD & Ors

PROFORMA

OF 2017

... Petitioners

... Respondents

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Notes, Memoranda of Correspondence, Court's Orders of Correspondence; directions,etc. Directives and Porthonotary's Order/ Directions

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's Notes, Memoranda of Memoranda of Correspondence; directions, etc. Correspondence, Court's Orders of Directives and Porthonotary's Order/ Directions





Vs

.. . Petitioners

State of Maharashtra, UDD & Ors ... Respondents

SYNOPSIS

LIST OF DATES

S. No. Date Particulars Exhibit

No.

I. l 950's till Pristine land at Aarey Car Depot acts as D

date the Green Lung and Green Sponge of

Mumbai

2. 1990's An underground Metro line was proposed

from Colaba to Bandra, with a Metro Car

Depot at Cuffe Parade

3. 15.06.2010 Respondent No. 1 extended the

underground Metro line to Seepz (Andheri

E), with Metro Car Depot at Mahalaxmi

Race Course

4. 03.03.2014 Construction of Metro 3 line by B

Respondent No. 4 was approved, with a &

Metro Car Depot at Aarey Bl

5. 2014 Public outcry against proposal to cut 2,298

trees at Aarey Depot

6. 11.03.2015 Pursuant to public outcry against

development of Aarey Depot, a Technical

Committee was constituted by Respondent

No. I.

7. 11.08.2015 Teclmical Committee submitted their E

Report interalia recommending that the

Metro Car Depot be moved to Kanjur

Marg

8. 11.08.2015 Environmental experts on Technical E

A

fg_

No.

6

4

4

5

6

7

7

Committee opine that Aarey Depot must

be saved from ecological destruction at all

costs

9. 19.08.2015 Hon'ble NGT issues Status Quo Order 8

against any contruction in Aarey Milk

Colony

10. 16.10.2015 Respondent No. l approved Technical F 7

Committee Report and approves Car Fl

Depot at Kanjur Marg, in place of Aarey

Depot

11. 31.08.2015 Respondent No. 1, through Collector

& MSD, applies to Hon'ble High Court for

28.12.2015 allotment of land at Kanjur Marg for the

Metro Car Depot

12. 01.04.2016 Respondent No. 4 claims that, since G 10

Kanjur Marg plot is not yet allotted, they

have no option but to revert to Aarey

Depot

13. 16.03.2016 Respondent No. l transfers 33 Hectares of H 11

land at Aarey Depot to Respondent No. 4, Hl

for Metro Car Depot and for real estate

development, subject to decision of

Hon'bleNGT

14. 06.12.2016 MoEF notifies Aarey Milk Colony as Eco- I 11

SensitiveZone but excludes 165 Hectares,

including Aarey Depot, from ESZ

15. 29.12.2016 Respondent No. 1 issues notice seeking K 12

public objections against change of land

use at Aarey Depot (from NDZ to Metro

Car Depot)

16. 30.12.2016 Respondent No. 1 approves Respondent J 12

No. 4's Car Depot plan at Aarey Depot JI

17. January Several thousand objections were filed by 12

2017 the public against proposal to remove

Aarey Depot from No Development Zone

18. 06.02.2017 Respondent No. 4 states that tree cutting c 5

proposal at Aarey Depot is not yet

finalised

19. May&June Respondent No. 2 conducted public 12

2017 hearings against proposal to remove Aarey

Depot from NDZ

20. June 2017 Respondent No. 3 filed its objections (with 13

Respondent 2) against proposal to remove

Aarey Depot from NDZ

21. 29.06.2017 Respondent No. 4 issues civil work 13

contract for Aarey Depot, which includes

the cutting of 3, 184 trees

22. June 2017 Respondent No. 4 seeks MCGM Tree 14

Departments permission to cut 49 trees

23. June 2017 Metro 2A Car Depot location finalised on 14

9.35 Hectares ofland at Charkop

24. August Metro 7 Car Depot location finalised, 17 14

2017 Hectares at Dahisar

25. July 2005 Fact Finding Committee on Mumbai 15

Floods of July 2005 opine that it is

necessary to preserve & protect eco-

sensitive-zones in Mumbai

26. December Parliamentary Report on Flooding Disaster 15

2015 Ill Chennai opines that unplanned

urbanisation & faulty town planning

causes floods in all cities, including

Mumbai

27. December Land filing work at Aarey Depot 16

2016

onwards

28. 2014 Proposal to permit development of entire 16

onwards Aarey Milk Colony in draft DP-2034 was

deleted

29. 07.08.2017 Respondent No. 3 publishes final draft DP- p 16

2034 where reservation for Metro Car Pl

Depot is deleted and Aarey Depot land is Q

included in NDZ Green Zone

30. 23.08.2017 Respondent No.1 issued directive that no R 17

reservation should be shown on forest land Rl ; .. ,:·.q without prior NOC from Forest

D

Department

31. 24.08.2017 Respondent No. 1 issued impugned A

Notification

32. 05.02.2017 Hence, this Petition -

POINTS TO BE ARGUED

1. The Respondents have failed and neglected to comply with the

recommendations of the Technical Committee's Report dated

11.08.2015.

2. The Respondents have deliberately avoided constructing Metro

Car Depot on land available at Kanjur Marg for reasons best

known to them.

3. The Respondents have unlawfully and illegally changed the land

user of Aarey Depot from NDZ to Metro Car Depot by way of

the Impugned Notification dated 24.08.2017.

4. The Respondents are intent on destroying fragile eco-sensitive in

breach of their statutory duty to protect and improve the natural

environment.

ACTS TO BE REFERRED:

1. The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966

2. Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

3. Any other relevant Act

AUTHORITIES TO BE RELIED UPON:

At the time of the hearing of the Petition.

3-4

1



In the matter of Article 226

of the Constitution oflndia;

And

In the matter of Articles 14,

21, 48A and 51A(g) of the

Constitution of India;

And

In the matter ofNotification

issued u/s 37(1AA)(c) of

The Maharashtra Regional

Town Planning Act, 1966

("MRTP Act"), dated

24.08.2017, issued by the

Urban Development

Department ("impugned

notification");

!. Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee,

aged 43 years, Occupation self-employed,

)

~ J having address at: A-401, Raj Rudram, Golkuldham,

Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400063 )

2. Mr. Biju Augustine Kattain,

aged 49 years, Occupation Business,

)

)

)

2

having address at: 223 Master Mind-4, Royal Palm

Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400065 ) ... Petitioners

Versus

1) State Government of Maharashtra )

through Urban Development Department (UDD), )

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 )

2) Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai,

ENSA Hutments, E-Block, Azad Maidan,

Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001

3) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

through Chief Engineer (Development Plan),

Head Office, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001

4) Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (MMRCL),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NaMTTRl Building, Plot No. R-13, E Block, )

BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 )

5) Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, )

(MMRDA), C-14 & 15, E Block, )


6) Union of India (through Urban Development Ministry) )

Income Tax office building, Ground floor, )

Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 ) ... Respondents

TO,

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HIGH

· COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

3

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF

THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioners are public spirited, Indian citizens. The Petitioners

are concerned for the protection of the rapidly deteriorating

environment and more particularly the rapidly depleting green cover

within Mumbai city. The Petitioners are part of an informal 'Save

Aarey' initiative and have come together to file this Petition in

furtherance of their cause. None of the Petitioners have any

formal/monetary interest in the subject matter Petition. None of the

Petitioners reside in the subject matter land. The Petitioners, have

filed this Petition solely for the preservation of the Mumbai

environment.

2. The Respondent ·No. 1 is the Sate Government of Maharashtra

through the Urban Development Department, who is the final

authority for sanctioning the town planning and development plans

for Greater Mumbai. The Respondent No. 2 is the Deputy Director

responsible for Town Planning for Greater Mumbai. The Respondent

No. 3 is the Chief Engineer, MCGM responsible for the

Development Plan for Greater Mumbai. The Respondent No. 4 is

constructing a Metro line from Colaba to Seepz known as the Metro

3 Line. The Respondent No. 4 is SPY Company, which is equally

owned by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 6. The Respondent No. 5 is

implementing Mumbai Metro Master Plan throughout Mumbai. The

Respondent No. 6 is the Union of India.

3. The present Writ Petition is preferred inter alia to challenge the

Notification dated 24.08.2017 ("impugned notification"), issued by

Respondent No. 1 u/s 37(1AA)(c) of the MRTP Act, modifying the

sanctioned revised Development Plan ("DP plan") ofK East Ward

4

of year 1991, in respect of land bearing CTS Nos. 9 (part), 10 (part),

11 (part), 12 (part) and 13(part) of Village Prajapur and CTS No.

2(part) of Village Vyravalai, thereby interalia deleting 33 Hectares

of land from 'No Development Zone' and reserving it for 'Metro Car

Depot/Workshop, allied users'. The said land forms part of what is

known as Aarey Milk Colony ("Aarey Milk Colony"). The said 33

Hectares of land is hereinafter referred to as "Aarey Depot". The

said Aarey Depot land is allegedly required by Respondent No. 4 to

construct a Metro-Car-Depot. Hereto annexed and marked as

EXHIBIT-A is a copy of the impugned notification dated

24.08.2017.

4. The challenge to the impugned notification has a long and checkered

history, as narrated hereunder:

i. A part-underground part-overground Metro line was proposed from

Colaba to Bandra sometime in the 1990's. To facilitate the

construction of this Metro line, a part of Cuffe-Parade, falling under

MCGM A Ward, was reserved for a Metro-Car-Shed. A Metro Car

Shed/Car-Depot is the area required to park the metro cars (bogies)

when they are not in use, and where repairs and maintenance is also

carried out. A part of the said area was required to be reclaimed from

the shallow sea (reclamation of this area was part of the original

development plan). The existing landed area is presently covered

with slums. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the

1991 DP plan for A Ward, showing the said reservation for Metro

Car-Shed.

ii. In the year 2010, the Respondent No.I issued its Government

Resolution ("GR") No. MRD-3310/431/CR-55/UD-7 dated

15.06.2010, extending the said Metro Line to Seepz (Andheri East),

changing it to a compietely underground line and changing the

location of the Metro-Car-Depot to an underground location at

Mahalaxmi Race Course. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to the

5

said GR dated 15.06.2010 when produced.

iii. By a GR dated 03.03.2014, the Respondent No. 1 recorded that due

to financial unviability (total project cost being Rs 23,136 Crores),

the Respondent No. 6 was unable to approve the Metro 3 project.

However, as the Japanese International Cooperation Agency

("JICA ") had agreed to sanction a loan of Rs 13,235 Crores, the

project could move ahead by forming Respondent No. 4 as a Special

Purpose Vehicle ("SPV") for this project. It was further recorded

that 30 Hectares of land at Aarey Depot would be transferred to

Respondent No. 4 for a Metro-Car-Depot plus an additional 3

Hectares of land, also at Aarey Depot, would be transferred to

Respondent No. 4 for residential/commercial development with the

purpose of raising of funds for the Metro 3 project. It was further

recorded that even the Car-Shed area was approved for commercial

use and commercial development. Hereto annexed as EXHIBIT-B

is copy of the said GR dated 03.03.2014, without annexures; and

EXHIBIT-Bl is a English translation.

1v. In the year 2014, the Respondent No. 4 sought permission from the

Tree Authority, MCGM to cut/remove 2,298 trees at Aarey Depot.

This caused a public outcry throughout the city of Mumbai and no

trees were cut at the relevant time for this pw:pose. In February

2017, in Writ Petition No. (L) 365 of2017, connected to tree cutting

for the Metro 3 project, the Respondent No. 4 informed that tree

cutting plans were not yet finalised at Aarey Depot. In the said Writ

Petition No. (L) 365 of 2017, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to

permit the Respondent No. 4 to transplant 1,727 trees and cut 1,074

trees (total 2,801 affected trees) located at 26 stations, which did not

include Aarey Depot. The Petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely

on Order dated 05.05.2017, passed in WP(L) 365 of 2017, when

produced. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-C is a copy of

Respondent No. 4's letter dated 06.02.2017 stating that tree proposal

for Aarey station and depot is not yet finalised, along with a copy of

Exhibit-K of the said WP(L)/365 of 2017 showing list of 26 stations,

6

not including Aarey Depot. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to

and rely upon the papers and proceedings of the said WP(L )/365 of

2017 when produced.

v. The Petitioner states that land at Aarey Depot is a pristine area of

land, covered with dense tree cover in most areas and lush green

open spaces. This is a naturally forested area, and is completely

uninhabited. This land is unmatched in its natural beauty and attracts

various species of homogenous & migratory birds and butterflies. It

is a natural habitat of a large number of animals. The flaura and

fauna is peculiar and exclusive to the city of Mumbai. The said land

has remained untouched since the 1950's. The entire area of Aarey

Milk Colony is known as the 'Green Lung' of Mumbai, on account of

its natural beauty and tree cover. The land at Aarey Milk Colony is a

natural air-purifier which is instrumental in cleaning away the air

toxins of Mumbai. A less known fact is that Aarey Milk Colony is

also the 'Green Sponge' of Mumbai. The land at Aarey Depot

(covered by the impugned notification) is located on the banks of the

Mithi River (which carries the overflow waters from the Vihar lake

& Powai lake to the Arabian Sea). The open land at Aarey Depot

soaks in rain water during the monsoon and helps replenish the

ground water levels. The land at Aarey Depot is relatively low-lying

and acts as a flood plain for the Mithi river when it overflows.

Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-D are some photos

showing the pristine natural beauty of the land at Aarey Depot.

vi. The proposal to develop Aarey Depot led to a public outcry

throughout Mumbai. It is for these reasons that Respondent No. l,

on 11.03.2015, constituted a Technical Committee of 6 members to

look into the issue of environmental impact of setting up Metro-Car

Depot at Aarey Depot. The Committee consisted of 6 experts,

including 2 environmental experts. On 11.08.2015 the said

Committee submitted their report, wherein they concluded by

recommending that (i) the Metro 3 car-depot be relocated to Kanjur

7

Marg, with only a small stabilising unit at Aarey Depot; (ii) incase

the land is not made available at Kanjur Marg, then the car-depot be

located at Aarey Depot within a 20.82 Hectare area; and (iii)

measures to be taken to mitigate environment damage at Aarey

Depot. It is pertinent to state that the (only) two environmental

experts of the committee, Dr Shyam Asolekar, Professor IIT

Mumbai and Dr Rakesh Kumar, Director NEERI, have both signed

the said report with a remark "not in agreement with conclusions v to

ix and all the recommendations stated above". These dissenting

environmental experts also attached three notes, dated 13.05.2015,

12.06.2015 and 30.07.2015 in which they have categorically stated

that Aarey Depot must be saved from ecological destruction at all

costs. It was noted by the environmental experts that no real or

proper investigation was ever conducted into the alternate 8 sites

proposed. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-Eis a copy of

the said Technical Committee report dated 11.08.2015, along with

the dissent notes of the two environmental experts.

vii. Immediately thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 issued a directive

dated 16.10.2015 approving the said report of the Technical

Committee in order to prevent the destruction of trees in Aarey

Depot and to prevent harm to the environment. The Respondent No.

1 further approved that land at Kanjur Marg be allotted to

Respondent No. 4 to enable it to construct its car-depot at Kanjur

Marg. The Respondent No. 1 also marked the location of the

proposed Car-Depot on plan of Kanjur Marg by showing area in

green with the caption Proposed 41 Hectares Car Depot Plot free

from disputed Petition' and showing area is yellow with the caption

'Elevated corridor & station passing through disputed land'. It is

apparent that the land at Kanjur Marg consists of two parts, one

disputed and one undisputed. Hereto annexed as EXHIBIT-F is a

copy of the said directive issued by Respondent No. 1, dated

16.10.2015, along with plan showing the location of proposed Car

Depot at Kanjur Marg. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-Fl

is an English translation.

Chippi

Highlight

8

viii. With a view to act in terms of the said directives dated

16.10.2015, issued by Respondent No. 1, the Hon'ble

Collector of Mumbai Suburban District made an application

to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court seeking handover of the

undisputed 41 Hectares of land for Car-Depot at Kanjur

Marg. It appears that initially Civil Application No. 2521 of

2015, dated 31.08.2015, was filed in Civil Writ Petition No.

5792 of 1996 which was withdrawn. Thereafter Civil

Application No. 84 of 2016, dated 28.12.2015, was filed

which is pending hearing and disposal. In the said CA/84 of

2016 the Hon'ble Collector has interalia recorded:

"10. The Applicant states that on 12.08.2015, the said

Committee submitted a Final Report to the Government of

Maharashtra and suggested modification in the Mumbai

Metro Line 3 to integrate it with the Jogeshwari Kanjur Marg

Corridor. The recommendations of the said Committee were

as under:

(i) Construct the main depot of line 3 at Kanjur

Marg by integrating Colaba-Seepz corridor

(MNIL-3) with Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg

corridor.

11. The Applicant states that on 19.08.2015, the National

Green Tribunal passed an Order in Application No.

33412015 (WZ) entitled Vanashakti & Another Vis Union

of India & Others directing that no NOC be issued for

construction within the entire area of Aarey Colony and

directing that status quo be maintained till further Orders in

the said Application.

17. The Applicant states that there is no land available for

a Car Shed in the vicinity which is a vital component of the

said Metro project, in the absence whereof it would be

difficult to even operationalise the said Project . ...... .

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

9

Hence, it is just, necessary and proper and in the interest of

justice, equity and /airplay that the Order of Status Quo

dated 14.01.1997 be vacated to the extent of the land

more particularly shown in green colour in the said MR

Plan No 212011, Exhibit-C to the above Application

admeasuring 101.33 acres equivalent to 4,10,000

Square metres (41 Hectares) situate on the land bearing

Old Survey No. 169, New Survey No. 275, CTS No.

657/A, Village. Kanjur, Taluka Kur/a, Mumbai

Suburban District (MSD) to enable Applicant to

construct the Main Metro Car Shed for the Mumbai

Metro Line 3.

18. The Applicant states that balance of convenience lies

heavily in favour of the Applicant and that in the vent, the

reliefs as prayed for herein are granted, then, no loss,

damage or prejudice would be caused to the Respondents.

On the other hand, if the reliefs as prayed for herein are

not granted to the Applicant, then, great loss, damage

and prejudice would be caused to the Applicant and the

said 'Public Project of Urgency' and 'Important Urban

Transportation Project' meant to ameliorate the traffic

woes of the citizens of Mumbai would be in jeopardy.

The Applicant states that the said Project would enure to

the benefit of the Citizens of not only the city of Mumbai,

but also to the State and the Country as a whole."

For reasons best known to the Applicant/Collector, no efforts were

made to move the said CA/84 of2016. The Petitioners crave leave to

refer to and rely uponthe said CA/84 of 2016 when produced. The

Petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court calls for the records and

proceedings in the said WP No. 5792 of 1996. The land available at

Kanjur Marg is a larger piece of land that the Aarey Depot.

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

(0

ix.

10

Instead of moving the Hon'ble High Court for urgent hearing and

disposal the Respondent No. 4 has allowed the application to remain

pending. Without having moved the said application and in the garb

of alleged delay, Respondent No. 4 now seeks to claim that the

Kanjur Marg site is unavailable. The Respondent No. 4 addressed a

letter to Respondent No.1 on 01.04.2016, interalia stating that 7

months time have lapsed, hence they now cannot proceed with the

Kanjur Marg option. Respondent No. 4 insisted that the Car-Depot

can only be constructed at Aarey Depot. The Respondent No. 4

further informed the Respondent No. 1 that they are also unable to

comply with the recommendation (No. ii) of the Technical

Committee to construct a smaller depot at Aarey Depot and insisted

for entire 33 Hectares of land, in which 5 Hectares will be kept open,

i.e. 28 Hectares will be required to be utilised. The Petitioners state

that the matter regarding allotment of Kanjur Marg land is pending

before this Hon'ble Court entirely on account of the Collector and

the Respondents taking no active steps to move this Hon'ble Court

and have thereby created a situation which suggests that there is a

delay being caused. In the circumstances, the stand of Respondents

that Kanjur Marg site is unavailable is wholly untenable. The

demand of the Respondents to seek to proceed with a Car-Depot at

Aarey Depot is unjustified and is in teeth of the recommendations of

the Technical Committees Report. The Respondents have

deliberately not moved the Hon'ble High Court for urgent hearing

and release of land at Kanjur Marg. Hereto annexed and marked as

EXHIBIT-G is a copy of Respondent No. 4's letter dated

01.04.2016, addressed to Respondent No. l, along with plan

showing Car-Depot Modified-Option-1 at Aarey Depot. It is

apparent that no useful purpose has been served by obtaining the

Technical Committee's Report if it was only to be disregarded. The

Technical Committee's Report appears to be a mere eye wash to

assuage the concerns raised by the Public outcry against destruction

of a large part of the Aarey Milk Colony. The real reason for seeking

land at Aarey appears to be the first of several steps to exploit Aarey

Milk Colony commercially by eventually permitting residential

Chippi

Highlight

11

and/or commercial buildings. It is pertinent to note that presently,

though there are no buildings or habitation in the vicinity a metro

station 'Aarey Station' is planned at the Aarey Depot site. It is not far

to see that in terms of its pristine location Aarey Milk Colony will

attract numerous purchasers at very high prices.

x. On 16.03.2016, the Respondent No.I issued a GR under which 30

Hectares of land plus an additional 3 Hectares of land at Aarey

Depot is sought to be transferred to Respondent No. 4 for metro-car

depot and commercial use. Under the said GR, while recording that

30 Hectares of land has been surrendered a further/additional 3

hectares is also sought to be surrendered. Further, with a view to

avoid any financial implications on the Central or State Government,

it is suggested that the land be put to commercial use, with the

purpose of raising funds through property development. The said GR

refers to an Application No. 34 of 2015 filed before the Hon'ble

National Green Tribunal ("NGT") to declare the area of Aarey Milk

Colony as a forest and as an eco-sensitive zone. The transfer of land

at Aarey Depot under the said GR, is subject to the decision by the

Hon'ble NGT. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon

the Orders passed by the Hon'ble NGT when produced. Hereto

annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-His a copy of the said GR dated

16.03.2016 issued by Respondent No. I. Hereto annexed and marked

as EXHIBIT-Ht is an English translation.

XI. On 06.12.2016, the Central Ministry of Environment & Forest

("MoEF") issued a Final Notification, notifying the area around

Sanjay Gandhi National Park as an Eco-Sensitive-Zone ("ESZ"),

including the area of Aarey Milk Colony. In it's press release dated

06.12.2016, the MoEF stated that an area of 1.65 Sq Kms (165

Hectares at Aarey Milk Colony) had been excluded from the ESZ on

the request of Respondent No. 4 for the purpose of constructing its

Metro Rail-Shed. Admittedly the area is ESZ, but has not been

notified as ESZ solely for the purpose of accommodating the

Respondent No. 4's car-depot shed. Hereto annexed and marked as

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

12

EXHIBIT-I is a copy of the Press Release dated 06.12.2016 issued

bytheMoEF.

xii. On 30.12.2016, the Respondent No. 1 approved the Modified Depot

Layout-1 at Aarey Depot, as proposed by Respondent No. 4, subject

to fulfilment of conditions mentioned in Recommendation No. (iii)

of the said Technical Committee report dated 11.08.2015. The

Respondent No. 1 however appears to have completely ignored and

over-ruled the Recommendation Nos. (i) & (ii) made by the

Technical Committee. Despite the Technical Committee being set up

by Respondent No. 1 itself, Respondent No. 1 appears to be bent on

favouring Respondent No. 4 at the cost of the environment and is

actuated by mala :tides. This brazen but deliberate act by the

Respondent No.1 is clearly detrimental to the interest of the

environment and public health. Hereto annexed and marked as

EXHIBIT-J is a copy of Respondent No. l's said approval dated

30.12.2016. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-Jl is an

English translation.

xiii. On 29.12.2016, the Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice seeking

objections/suggestions to their proposal to change the 1991 DP

reservation of the said land at Aarey Depot from 'No Development

Zone' ("NDZ") to 'Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied users and

Commercial C-1 Zone'. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-K

is a copy of the said Notice dated 29.12.2016, with Plan.

xiv. The Petitioners and various concerned citizens filed their objections

to the said Notice dated 29.12.2016, before the Respondent No. 2.

During May & June 2017, the Respondent No. 2 called the

Petitioners/citizens for personal hearings. On 21.07.2017, the

Respondent No. 2 passed an Order/findings, in which it was

recorded that 2,382 objections were received against the proposal to

convert land at Aarey Depot from NDZ to Metro-Car-Shed C-1

Zone. The Respondent No. 2 recorded the objections/suggestions

made by all persons who attended the public hearing, including the

Chippi

Highlight

13 ;

Petitioners. The Respondent No. 2 also noted that the Respondent

No. 3 has also filed his objections to the proposed change in DP

zone, by recording that the Improvement Committee of MCGM has

rejected/disallowed the change of zone/user for Aarey Depot.

Despite objections filed by so many persons, including objections

filed by Respondent No. 3, the Respondent No. 2 approved the

proposed change in land use by giving no cogent reasons whatsoever

and by brushing off all the objections received with completely

irrational reasons. The complete non-application of mind has

rendered the process of receiving objections meaningless and

perfunctory. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the

said Order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the

objections filed by Respondent No. 3. The impugned notification is

in turn based on the Order/findings dated 21.07.2017. The said basis

itself being vitiated by complete non-application of mind, the

decision making process leading to issue the impugned notification

is itself flawed and the same stands vitiated.

xv. On 29.06.2017 the Respondent No. 4 issued a press release

informing that they have issued civil work contract for Aarey Car

Depot. It is surprising that, way back in June 2017, the Respondent

No. 4 took it as a foregone conclusion that Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

would sanction the impugned notification and permit the change in

land usage. The entire exercise if inviting objections and giving

personal hearings was a charade, to keep Jaw-abiding citizens

engaged in the process though in reality Respondent No. 4 had

already commenced steps to construct the Aarey Car Depot. On

perusing the said tender documents issued by Respondent No. 4, the

Petitioners were appalled to find that the BOQ (Bill of Quantities)

annexed to the tender document reflects a proposal to cut 3, 184 trees

and transplant just 200 trees at Aarey Depot. The Petitioners crave

leave to refer to and rely upon the said tender BOQ when produced.

The Hon'ble Minister of Forests, Government of Maharashtra has

publicised that the socio-economic value of a healthy tree is Rs

23.72 Lakhs per year, i.e. the value of 3, 184 trees is in itself worth

,\

14

Rs 755 Crores per year! The Hon'ble Minister has also publicised

that there is not enough space available to grow more forests.

xvi. On or about 03.08.2017, the Petitioners learnt that the Tree

Authority, MCGM had issued a Public Notice dated 24.06.2017 to

cut 49 trees on the 3 Hectare at Aarey Depot. The Petitioners

belatedly learnt about the said notice and were told by the Tree

Officer that as per law, the said tree cutting was deemed to have

been sanctioned within 45 days of date of application unless

objected to or denied. The Petitioners were thus informed that the

tree cutting proposal had automatically been sanctioned.

xvii. The Petitioners state that there are vanous other Metro lines

operating/under way in Mumbai. The Metro 1 (Andheri-Ghatkopar)

car-depot operates within 17 Hectares (which includes real estate

development). The Metro 7 (Dahisar E to Andheri E) car-depot is

sanctioned to operate within just 17 Hectares (40 Acres) ofland. The

Metro 2A (Andheri W to Dahisar W) car-depot is sanctioned to

operate within just 9.35 Hectares. Land for the Metro 2A Car Depot

was approved by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.06.2017 in a Notice

of Motion filed by the Hon'ble Collector as recent as 21.04.2017.

The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the Hon'ble

Bombay High Court's Order dated 15.06.2017 in NM(L)/963 of

2017 in Suit 3780 of 1991, when produced. Car-Depots can be

located at any convenient place. The Car-Depot for Metro 1 & Metro

2A are not located at the start/end points. The Metro 2A car-depot is

located over a Kilometre away from the Metro route. In the

circumstances, there is no justification for the requirement of 33

Hectares of land for the Metro 3 Car Depot at Aarey, nor is there any

justification to have a Car-depot at Aarey. Any other less

ecologically damaging .location would also suffice for the Car

Depot. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon details of

Metro 1 & Metro 7 car depot sizes, when produced.

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

15

xviii. Furthermore, the Report & Recommendations of the 'Fact Finding

Committee on Mumbai Floods' ("FFC"), which was constituted by

Respondent No. 1 to look into the flooding during July 2005, has

interalia recommended that the fragile eco-system within Mumbai

city needs to be restored, rejuvenated and upgraded, as the incident

of flooding will only increase in future. The city of Mumbai has

already once again seen the flood situation in August and September

2017 although there was much less rainfall. These occurrences are a

direct result of deteriorating environment and the ongoing damage to

the fragile eco system. Hence it is necessary to preserve and protect

the existing eco-sensitive areas of Mumbai city. Hereto annexed and

marked as EXHIBIT-L is the relevant extract of the said FFC

report. The Petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the entir.e

report when produced.

xix. Similarly, in the· Recommendations contained in the Parliament

Report on 'Disaster in Chennai Caused by Torrential Rainfall and

Consequent Flooding' presented to Parliament on 12.08.2016, it was

observed that unplanned urbanisation and growth of cities is one of

the main contributing factors to floods in all metro cities (Para

7 .2.5); that floods are taking place more frequently in all cities

including Mumbai (Para 8.8); that due to global warming flooding is

more likely to happen frequently (Para 8.9). The said report also

recommends that flood channels should be cleared (Para 7.1.3); and

that all metro cities must prepare action plan for flood proofing well

in advance (Para 7.2.4). The report clearly states that faulty town

panning is one of the major cause of floods (Para 7.2.3); and that

town planning in all cities must be reviewed to give due importance

to clear flood channels, safe-passage to excess water in lakes and

other water bodies (Para 8.8). The Petitioners crave leave to refer to

and rely upon the said Recommendations & Observations and the

said Parliamentary report when produced.

\ . \

xx.

16

The Respondent No. 4 has already started some work on the 3

hectare land at Aarey Depot, by filling up about 30 feet height with

land-fill. Photos and Google Earth images showing the destruction

of this eco-sensitive area are annexed as EXHIBIT-M. This has

immediate implications to the environment as biodiversity &

wildlife will be gravely affected, the mithi river catchment area will

be gravely affected, green area with terrestrial biodiversity as also

fauna! diversity are also gravely affected.

5. There was a recommendation by MCGM to fully develop Aarey

Milk Colony (much like BKC) in the Draft DP-2034 for Mumbai

City. The Planning Committee appointed by Respondent No. 3,

faced with a public outcry against the commercial exploitation of

Aarey Milk Colony, recommended that the land at Aarey Milk

Colony be kept free from human intervention by introduction of a

Green Zone ("GZ'') for entire Aarey Milk Colony, save and except

the area for metro-car-shed. On 07.08.2017, the Respondent No. 3'

(as the Planning Authority) issued a Notification on the publication

of final Draft DP-2034, which included, at Serial No. 266, a

modification to delete the reservation for Metro-Car-Depot at Aarey

Depot and to include it in the Green Zone by observing that the land

at Aarey Depot is very important for the health & eco-system of

Mumbai city, and in view of the citizens movement to Save Aarey

the land should be included in Green Zone and that no construction

should be allowed. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-N is

relevant extract of Report on Draft DP-2034 showing original

proposal to fully develop Aarey Milk Colony. Hereto annexed and

marked as EXHIBIT-0 is relevant extract of the Report of Planning

Committee to include Aarey Milk Colony in Green Zone, save &

except the area for Metro-Car-Depot. Hereto annexed and marked as

EXHIBIT-P is the relevant extract of Respondent No. j's

Notification wherein the land at Aarey Depot is also converted to

Green Zone and proposed reservation for metro-car-shed is deleted.

Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-Pl is an English

translation. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-Q is sheet No.

17

WS24 of the final Draft DP-2034, showing the reservation/land-use

status at Aarey Depot.

6. Despite the deletion of metro-car-shed reservation in the Draft DP-

2034 (published on 07.08.2017) in the impugned notification

(published on 24.08.2017) the development zone of existing

sanctioned DP-1991 of the land at Aarey Depot is converted from

NDZ to 'Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied user'. The Petitioners

state and submit that after publication of notice of Draft DP-2034

there can be no change of user in DP-1991 which is not in

consonance with Final Draft DP-2034. The change of DP-1991

under the impugned notification, after publication of draft DP-2034

is illegal and ought to be quashed.

7. By Respondent Np. l's GR dated 23.08.2017, a directive was issued

u/s 154 of the MRTP Act to all Regional Planning Authorities that

no reservation should be shown on forest land without prior NOC

from Forest Department. This is in consonance with the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980. The said land at Aarey Depot is forest land.

A Petition is also pending before the Hon'ble NGT for a formal

declaration that Aarey Milk Colony is a forest and is part of the eco

sensitive-zone of Sanjay Gandhi National Park. In view of the

Respondent No.l's own GR dated 23.08.2017, the Respondent No. 1

ought not to have changed the land use/zone at Aarey Depot by

impugned notification dated 24.08.2017, without prior NOC from

the Forest Department. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-R

is a copy of Respondent No. l's GR dated 23.08.2017. Hereto

annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-RI is an English translation.

8. The Petitioners state that the impugned notification is unlawful,

illegal and liable to be set aside/ quashed for the following reasons

which are in the alternative, and without prejudice to one another:

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

1. The existing 1991-DP plan for K/East Ward shows an NDZ area of

221.60 Hectares (as per ·information received from Respondent No.

2) I 165.79 Hectares (as per information received from Respondent

No. 3). The 1991-DP plan also shows NIL area for Metro Car Depot.

Under the impugned notification, an area of 33.00 Hectares is

proposed to be removed from No Development Zone (NDZ) and

converted to Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied users, i.e. the area

of land falling under NDZ is being reduced by over 10%; and the

area of land falling under Car Depot is being increased by over

100%.

ii. As per Section 22A of the MRTP Act, the following changes to DP

plan are defined as 'Modification of a substantial nature':

(a) any reduction of amenity by an area of more than 10% in

the aggregate;

(b) modification of a reserved site;

( c) increase in area of any zone by more than 10%.

The impugned notification clearly falls under the definition of

'modifications of a substantial nature', since:

(a) NDZ area is planned to be reduced by more than 10%;

(b) NDZ/reserved zone is planned to be modified;

( c) Increase in Metro Car Depot Area is more than 10%:

However, the impugned notification is issued u/s.37(1AA) of the

MRTP Act, which is applicable only for urgent modifications of

such a nature that will not change the character of sanctioned DP

plan. The proposed change evidently changes the nature of the

sanctioned DP plan, and amounts to a modification of substantial

nature. Even otherwise, the impugned notification is contrary to the

statute and is illegal. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have clearly

circumvented the provisions of the MRTP Act, by issuing the

impugned notification. ·

Chippi

Highlight

Chippi

Highlight

19 ...

iii. The impugned notification is not in compliance of the provisions of

S.37(1AA) of the MRTP Act, hence the same deserves to be quashed

on this ground alone.

iv. S.18 of the MRTP states that:

{I) No person shall, on or after the publication of the notice that the

draft Regional plan has been prepared or the draft Regional plan has

been approved, institute or change the use of any land for any

purpose other than agriculture or carry out any development in

respect of any land without the previous permission,-

(i) in case the land is situated in the limits of Municipal

Corporation or a Municipal Council, or a Nagar Panchayat

or a Special Planning Authority or any other planning

authority, of such Municipal Corporation or Municipal

Council, Nagar Panchayat or Special Planning Authority or

other planning Authority, as the case may be, or

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time

being in force, the Village panchayat or, as the case may be, the

Collector, in considering application for permission shall have due

regard to the provisions of any draft or Regional plan or proposal

published by means of a notice under this Act.

The impugned notification is not compliant with the provisions of

S.18 of the MRTP Act and in fact is in breach of the said provision

of Law, hence the same deserves to be quashed also on this ground.

v. The provisions of the MRTP Act are regulated by the Development

Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 ("DCR-1991").

Under the DCR-1991 there is no land user classification for 'Metro

Car Depot/Workshop, allied users'. The impugned notification has

thus sought to amend the land user for usage which is not recognised

in Law and is thus illegal. The impugned notification is not

20

compliant with the provisions of DCR-1991 and the same deserves

to be quashed also on this ground.

9. The Petitioners state that the entire Metro 3 project was proposed to

be funded by way of real estate development of the Car-Shed-Depot

land at Aarey Depot. For this reason the Respondent No. 5 had

sought for change of land-user at Aarey Depot to include a

Commercial C-1 Zone on entire 33 Hectares of land. A request was

also made by Respondent No. 4 for 3 FSI on entire 33 Hectares of

land. However, by way of the impugned notification, no Commercial

use of the said Aarey Depot land is permitted. However, the

notification is silent about the residential development/usage of the

said land and the FSI usage. The impugned notification permits

'allied users', without defining what is permitted under such usage.

The Petitioners submit that the term 'allied users' must have a direct

and immediate relation/connection and nexus with a Metro Car

Depot/Workshop. The said expression cannot include commercial

exploitation by constructing residential buildings or any other type

of development. The impugned notification is merely a back door

entry to permit the eventual real estate development of the land at

Aarey Depot.

10. The Respondent No. 4 ought not to be permitted to start construction

of a Metro Car Depot at Aarey Depot, on the following grounds:

a) eco-sensitive land and forest will be destroyed forever;

b) once DP-2034 is sanctioned the land will once again be unusable

as it will be under Green Zone; and

c) the car shed is a hazardous industry and falls under Red Category

Industry, which will affect the ground water table and pollute the

adjoining Mithi river.

Respondent No. 4 is running roughshod over every provision and

every Authority which is responsible for the preservation and

protection of the environment.

, '1,,y ~ ;

.;-:. /

.. //

21 '

11. The proposed car-depot for Metro3 can be constructed anywhere in

Mumbai. There is no need to destroy a fragile eco-sensitive area for

such 'development'. In the case of the Metro 3 stations, the

Respondent No. 4 has given an undertaking to this Hon'ble Court

that, after construction on the underground metro stations, they will

restore the land and tree cover. This Hon'ble Court thus permitted

temporary damage to the environment for the larger public good. ·

However, in the case of the metro car-depot it will be a permanent

structure. No amount of fresh tree plantation or transplantation can

compensate the destruction of a pristine natural area like Aarey

Depot. Article 48A of the Constitution places upon the Respondents

a statutory duty to protect and improve the environment and to

safeguard forests and wild life. The impugned notice violates this

completely. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution places upon the

Petitioners a fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural

environment. Hence this Petition.

GROUNDS

12. Being aggrieved with the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017,

the Petitioners beg to prefer the present Petition on the following

amongst other grounds which are in the alternative and without

prejudice to one another:

A) The Respondents; by way of the impugned notification, seek to

permit an industrial activity in an existing Green!NDZ area;

B) By way of the impugned notification, pristine land at Aarey Depot,

which acts as a Green Lung and Green Sponge for Mumbai, is

proposed to be destroyed by the Respondents;

C) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, have given a

complete go-bye to the recommendations of the Technical

Committee's recommendation not to construct a Car Depot at Aarey

Depot;

22

D) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, indirectly

overrules the Responde11t No.l's own directive that the Metro Car

Depot should be constructed at Kanjur Marg;

E) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to over

reach the application pending before the Hon'ble High Court to allot

land at Kanjur Marg. Without having moved the application before

the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondents seek to wrongly contend

that the land is unavailable;

F) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, indirectly

seeks to sidestep the Stay Order dated 19.08.2015 passed in

Application No. 34/2015 (WZ) granted by the Hon'ble NGT. The

statement of the Asst Conservator of Forests recorded in the said

Order indicates that 'entire Aarey Colony area is shown as Eco

Sensitive Area (ESA), and that the Chief Conservator of Forest have

not granted any permission for tree felling or construction activity

within the area.' By the said Order the BMC, the Director of Aarey

Colony and the Chief Conservator of Forest were directed to 'keep

status till further orders are passed in this Application'. However,

with a view to avoid the Order dated 19.08.2015, MoEF has by a

notification dated 06.12.2016 excluded 165 Hectares of land at

Aarey Milk Colony, which includes the said Aarey Depot land. The

said issue is pending hearing and final disposal before the Hon'ble

NGT. Pending that, the impugned notification is one more attempt of

the Respondents to defeat the operation of order of stay;

G) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, have

breached the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act;

H) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seeks to

establish a Red Category hazardous industry in a ESZ, which is

impermissible, illegal and/or otherwise hazardous to the human life,

flora and fauna;

23

I) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, have

completely disregarded the numerous objections filed by the public

and by Respondent No. 3. The no-objection of Respondent No. 2 is

given by complete non-application of mind and is patently illegal;

J) Respondent No. 4 plans to cut 3,184 trees in brazen violation of the

recommendations of the Technical Committee;

K) By way of the impugned notification, socio-economic damage will

be caused to Mumbai city, exceeding Rs 755 Crore per year;

L) The Respondents have allotted 33 Hectares of land by ignoring the

fact that a Car Depot can be built even in 9 Hectares, as in the case

of the Metro 2A Car Depot. In any case, undisputed land of about 41

Hectares is available at Kanjur Marg as stated above;

M) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

fact that a car-depot can be constructed at any other location and that

such location can be made available i.e. at Kanjurmarg. The

Respondents are bound and liable to make available land at a place

other than at Aarey, since Aarey is a critical eco sensitive area for

the city ofMumbai;

N) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

huge environmental damage that will be caused due to

flooding/blockage of flood plain ofMithi river;

0) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

recommendations of the Fact Finding Committee on Mumbai Floods

(of July 2005);

P) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

recommendation of the Parliamentary Report of Flood Disaster in

Chennai (in December 2015), with respect to the recommendations

for Mumbai city;

24

Q) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

public outcry against development of Aarey Milk Colony;

R) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignored the

fact that entire Aarey Milk Colony is included in Green Zone in the

published Draft DP-2034;

S) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignored the

law that no land user can be changed (in DP-1991) after publication

of Draft DP-2034;

T) The impugned notification ignores Respondent No.l's own directive

that prior NOC of Forest Department is required;

U) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

reduce total NDZ area by more than 10% from the sanctioned DP-

1991 which is impermissible and/or unlawful;

V) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

change the character of the sanctioned DP-1991, which 1s

impermissible;

W) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

modify a reserved site in the sanctioned DP-1991, which 1s

impermissible;

X) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

change the zone (for Metro Car Depot) in sanctioned DP-1991, by

an area exceeding 10%, which is impermissible;

Y) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

make substantial changes to the sanctioned DP-1991, which is

impermissible;

25

Z) The impugned notification is silent on the residential/real-estate/FSI

usage of land at Aarey Depot, and is indirectly tending to permit an

unauthorised activity which has no nexus with or has no connection

or relation to a Metro Car Depot/Workshop under the guise of 'allied

users';

AA) The entire financial planning/funding pattern for the Metro 3 line

originally was based on the footing that funds would be made

available through real estate development at Aarey Depot. It is not

known/disclosed as to how the Respondents will raise finances for

the project. The Respondents have some hidden I undisclosed

agenda on how to encash the real estate potential of the Aarey Depot

once the work of the Depot commences, which ought not to be

permitted;

BB) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore the

fact that eco-sensitive and forest land will be destroyed forever, that

use of the Aarey land as a Car Depot as also other development will

cause over a period of time, further damage and destruction of the

forest land;

CC) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, ignore

Article 48A of the Constitution which places upon the Respondents

a statutory duty to protect and improve the environment and to

safeguard forests and wild life;

DD) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, have ignored

the public outcry and also Article 5 lA(g) of the Constitution that

places upon Respondents & Petitioners a fundamental duty to protect

and improve the natural environment;

EE) The Respondents, by way of the impugned notification, seek to

permit land usage unknown to DCR-1991. The proposed change is

sought to be made for an unauthorised and/or illegal user neither

recongnised in law nor under the existing DP/DCR;

26

FF) There is no Public Interest nor urgency in issuing the impugned

notification, without first exploring all other alternative sites for

Metro Car Depot. On the contrary, the impugned notification is

contrary to the Right to Life of the Citizens as enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is contrary to public

interest and health;

GG) There is no Public Interest in destruction of pristine ESZ & Forest

land;

HH) Even before obtaining statutory permission, the Respondent No. 4

has started activity, thus already causing environmental destruction;

II) That damage to the pristine eco-sensitive land will be permanent and

can never be undone;

13. In the circumstances, the impugned notification ought to be set aside

and/or quashed. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of

mandamus and/or a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate

writ order or direction thereby directing Respondents to quash and/or

set aside the impugned notification.

14. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or a

writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction

thereby restraining the Respondents from in any manner

implementing the impugned notification and/or otherwise

constructing a Metro Car Depot in the Aarey Depot land.

15. The Petitioners do not have any equally efficacious or alternative

remedy available except to approach this Hon'ble Court.

16. The Petitioners have paid the prescribed Court fee of Rs. 250/- on

this Petition. The Petitioners have filed this Petition within a period

of one month of coming to learn about the impugned notification,

·-~ ~

.• ..

27

hence this Petition is not barred by Limitation.

17. The Petitioners have not filed any other Petition in this Hon'ble

Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nor in any other Court, in

respect of the subject matter of this Petition. The subject matter of

the Petition falls within the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

18. The Petitioners shall rely upon the documents, a list whereof is

annexed hereto. ,,

19. The Petitioners crave leave to add, alter, amend, delete all or any of

the grounds as and when necessary.

' .

20. The Petitioners, therefore, pray that;

a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a

writ in the nature of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or

any other appropriate writ order or direction thereby directing ''":>

Respondents to furnish and produce all papers and proceedings

relating to construction of the Metro Car Depot including the

impugned notification dated 24.08.2017;

b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue such appropriate writ order

or direction thereby directing Respondents to quash and/or set

aside the impugned notification dated 24.08.2017.

c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or

a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or

direction thereby restraining the Respondents from in any manner

implementing the impugned notification and/or otherwise

constructing a Metro Car Depot in the Aarey Depot land.

d) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to

implement Respondent No. l's directive, dated 16. l 0.2015,

(Exhibit-F) approving the Technical Committee Report and

allotting land at Kanjur Marg to Respondent No. 4 to enable it to

28

construct its car-depot at Kanjur Marg, in order to prevent the

destruction of trees in Aarey Depot and to prevent harm to the

environment.

e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation, hearing

and/or operation of the impugned notification and/or otherwise

restrain the Respondents from acting upon the said impugned

notification;

t) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer ( e) be granted;

g) Costs of this Petition be provided for;

h) For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit.

;tt.. This 5 day of October 2017 at Mumbai

Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattaeharjee '.~· . . . .

~-\,rsayeed Y. Mulani)

·~~LANI & Co.

Advocate for the Petitioners

Petitioner No. I

. .:_ ::_ . >, :.> ~;f •.'.

~~~:7;::;··.:,. Mr. Biju Augustine Kamiin '':·'· :<' ·': · ·"

. ·. 'l /, Petitioner No. 2 ,_ .. . ..

-, ·~

.. 7.: ... ~- ~:~ ·:~-... _ . .. :.··

·<:· ~'.

29

VERIFICATION

I, Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee, aged 43 years, the

Petitioner No. 1 abovenamed, Indian Inhabitant having address at:

A-401, Raj Rudram, Golkuldham, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400063

above named do hereby state on solemn affirmation that whatever is

stated in paragraph no._!_ to paragraph no. __f_.Q_ are true and correct

to my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai _ _H-

this _Jz_ day of October 2017

)

)~ Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee

Petitioner No. I

~ \ '

Sayeed Y. Mulani) MULANI&Co.

Clvocate for the Petitioners

1·5 OCT Z0l7




In the matter of Article 226

of the Constitution of India;

And

In the matter of Articles 14,

21, 48A and 51A(g) of the

Constitution of India;

And

In the matter of Notification

issued u/s 37(1AA)(c) of

The Maharashtra Regional

Town Planning Act, 1966

("MRTP Act"), dated

24.08.2017, issued by the

Urban Development

Department ("impugned

notification");

1. Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee, )

aged 43 years, Occupation self-employed, )

having address at: A-401, Raj Rudram, Golkuldham, )

Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 )

2. Mr. Biju Augustine Kattain,

aged 49 years, Occupation Business,

)

)

)

1o

having address at: 223 Master Mind-4, Royal Palm

Aarey Milk Colony, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400065 ) ... Petitioners

Versus

11

1) State Government of Maharashtra )

through Urban Development Department (UDD), )

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 )

2) Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, )

ENSA Hutments, E-Block, Azad Maidan, )

Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001 )

3) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )

through Chief Engineer (Development Plan), )

Head Office, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400001 )

4) Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (MMRCL), )

NaMTTRI Building, Plot No. R-13, E Block, )


5) Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, )

(MMRDA), C-14 & 15, E Block, )


6) Union of India (through Urban Development Ministry) )

Income Tax office building, Ground floor, )

Marine Lines, Mumbai 400020 ) ... Respondents

VAKALATNAMA To, The Registrar, (O.S.) The Prothonotary & Senior Master,

High Court, Mumbai,

We, Ms. Amrita Bhattacharjee & Mr. Biju Augustine Kattain,

the Petitioners above named do hereby appoint Mis Mulani & Co,

Advocates High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead for us in the

above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have set and subscribed our

hand to this writing at Bombay.

;:t Dated this J day of October 2017. ~};;;

We Accept For Mulani & Co.

~· ~tSayeed Y. Mulani \Advocate for Petitioners

308, Shivam Apts, J .P .Road, Andheri (W),

. M).lmbai 40053 [email protected] O.S. Reg. No. 9330 Advocate Code: I-16134

Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee Petitioner No. 1

Mr. Biju Augustine Kattain Petitioner No. 2

HIGH COURT 0. 0. C.J.


Ms. Amrita P. Bhattacharjee

&Anr. ... Petitioners

V/s.


... Respondents

VAKALATNAMA p

Dated this ~ day of October 2017

MULANl&CO. Advocates for Petitioner

44-B, 4th Floor, Prospect Chambers Annexe, Pitha Street, Off. P.M. Road

Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Tele No. 022- 22657036/

22817036 [email protected] Adv Code. I-16134

}1 ' ......





Vs


.~. Petitioners

... Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER

For the purpose of this Petition the Petitioners shall have the following address of their Advocate being:

MULANI&CO. · Having their address at 44-B, 4th Floor, Prospect Chambers Annexe,

Pitha Street, Off. P.M. Road Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 [email protected]

Adv Code. 1-16134

~~ ~ Advocate for the Petitioner



WRIT PETITION NO.


Vs


OF 2017

... Petitioners

... Respondents

LIST OF DOCUMENTS ON WHICH

THE PETITIONERS SHALL RELY

1. All the documents exhibited from A to R, referred to and

relied upon in the Petition.

2. Any other documents prior to filing of this Petition.

~/A ~· ~dvocate for the Petitioners

EXl-HBlT, /::}

35

~

The Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966.

• Notification under Section 37(1AA)(c) of the said Act.

• Modification to the . Sanctioned Revised Development Plan of 'K (East)' ward of Greater Mumbai, 1991 in respect of land bearing CTS No. 9(pt.), lO(pt.), I !(pt.), 12(pt.), 13(pt.) of village Prajapur and CTS No.2 (pt.) of Village Vyravali

Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. Dated: 24th August, 2017.

NOTIFICATION

No.TPB 4312/92/(Camp)!CR-39/2012/UD-11:

\

Whereas the Revised· Development Plan of "KIE" ward of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the said Development Plan") hall been sanctioned by the Government in the Urban Development Department, under section 31 (I) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") vide Notification No.TPB 4392/4716/CR-181/92/ UD-11, dated 12th November 1992, so as to come into force with effect from the 29th December, 1992;

And whereas, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority is implementing Mumbai Metro Master plan through Special purpose Vehicle Company "Mumbai Metro Corporation Limited( hereinafter referred to as "the said Authority" );

And whereas, the said Authority has requested that the land admeasuring about 33 Hectare., bearing CTS No. 9(pt.), lO(pt.), 1 l(pt.), 12(pt.), 13(pt.) of village Prajapur and CTS No.2 (Pt.) of Village Vyravali (hereinafter referred to as "the said land) is required for Arey Car Depot for Metro line-III, Colaba-Bandra Corridor and also requested to change the use of the said land in the said Development plan from No Development Zone to Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied facilities and Commercial (C-1) Zone;

And whereas, the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide memorandum dated 5<h March 2014, has accorded sanction to transfer the land in their possession bearing CTS No. 9(pt.),

-~-! ... ==.. _,=:::,. ___ __,,.,.._ ___ ~-----· --------·-------------

36 : L I.

·--. ,_..' ·--- --~-.. :~:'.;:-;::-:

!O(pt.) 1l(pt.)12(pt.)13(pt.) of village Prajapur admeasuring about 29:79 Hectare for Arey Car Depot and also accorded sanction to transfer additional 3.00 Hectare land from CTS NO. 12(pt.) and 13 (pt)vide Government Resolution dated 16th March 2016 for the same purpose.

And whereas, in the meantime the State Government has constituted Committee vide Government Resolution No. MRD-3315/CR 23/UD-7 dated 11th March 2015 under the Chairmanship of the Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority regarding the proposed Car Depot on the said land to study the alternatives for locating Car Depot, if possible and to minimize damage to the trees on the site if suitable alternative is not found and also to suggest mitigation measures to minimize environmental damages;

And whereas, the Committee has submitted report with their recommendations to the State Government and the said Authority vi de letter dated 1st April 2016 has jntimated to the State Government that the alternative site is not available and the said land can be utilized for Car Depot by saving more than 50% of trees and plantation will be undertaken as per statutory requirements of 1 :3 trees for every tree cut as per Committee's recommendations and requested to sanction Car Deport on the said land.

And whereas, the State Government was of opinion that in the public interest it is necessary to delete the said land from the No Development Zone in the said Plan and to reserve it for Metro Car Depot/Work shop, allied facilities and Commercial(Cl)Zone. (hereinafter referred to as "the proposed modification" and more specifically described in the Schedule appended hereto ")

And whereas, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-Section (!AA) of Section 37 of the said Act, Government had issued Notice of even no. dated 29th December, 2016 for inviting suggestions/objections from the general public with regard to "the proposed modification" as mentioned in the Schedule appended to the said Notice and appointed the Dy. Director of Town Planning, Gr. Mumbai as the Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the said Officer") to submit a Report on the suggestions/objections received in respect of the proposed modification to the Govt. after giving hearing to the concerned persons;

And whereas, the said Notice dated 29th December, 2016 was published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette (Extra-Ordinary Gazette) dated 29th December, 2016 and the said Officer has submitted his report vi de letter dt.2 l /07/2017 through the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, after completing the legal procedure stipulated under Section 37(1AA) of the said Act;

And whereas, after considering the above stated Report of the said Officer and after consulting the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune, the Government is of the opinion that the modification is required to be sanctioned with some changes;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 37(1AA)(c) of the said Act, the Government hereby:-

(A) Sanctions the said modification proposal with conditions as follows :--

Sanctioned Modification "The land admeasuring about 33 Hectare bearing CTS No. 9(pt.), lO(pt.), l l(pt.),

12(pt.), 13(pt.) of village Prajapur and CTS No.2 (pt.) of Village Vyravali (as more particularly shown on the part plan attached herewith) is deleted from "No Development Zone" and is reserved for reservation of "Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied users " The Appropriate Authority for development of the said reservation shall be " Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation limited."

Conditions:-

1) Open area shown on the Part Plan of proposed modification shall be kept open and the it shall be binding to conserve the trees on part of the said land permanently.

2) To mitigate the environmental impact to Aarey Colony following measures shall be undertaken :

i) Ground water recharging arrangements to be provided in the Depot. ii) Plantation of Trees as per recommendation of the Committee. iii) Trees above l 0 feet height of native variety only be planted. iv) Plantation to be undertaken by professional agencies only. v) Annual Audit of plantation by third party and reports posted on the Companay's

web site.

vi) MMRC to maintain these trees for 5 years. 3) Total 33 hectors of land shall be used only for Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied users

only. Commercial user shall not be permitted. 4) Before development of the land for the purpose of Car Shed, Mumbai Metro Rail

Corporation Limited shall obtain necessary permissions· from concerned Department as required under the all other prevailing laws.

5) The character of overall construction shall be such that the under ground water table shall not get disturbed.

(B) Fixes the date of publication of this Notification in the Official- Gazette as the date of coming into force of this modification. ·

(C) Directs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Muml:iai that, in the Schedule of Modifications appended to the Notification sanctioning the said Development Plan,

~the last entry a new entry as per (A) above shall be added.

·' l

'· I I !I ..

. i .J. I

The part plan showing the said modification shall be kept open for inspection by the general public during the office hours on all working days for period of one month in

· the office of the Chief Engineer (Development Plan), Greater Mumbai Municipal

Corporation.

This Notification shall also be published on the Government : websitewww.maharashtra.gov.in

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.

Under Secretary to Government.

( )

lHdlcMI:

,~ \/ H ' ,.~. '"I- a I:./\ d l::i l -

I , l I

qtm~~

' "1"R ~ fcri:rrrr

$1f ~ wEr - 3 ~~-C!W-~ 'lli<l~<H ~ ~ ~ "1+1(>lii1'1t(CIOfl Cfi~Ul(('« mi:r ww11JI ~ ~0<11ii11ii1a.

WltR Ral<r ~ : 1l.1i.arTW-'l ~ ~ ~/>!".$!>. ~¥v-ifcr-19, ~.~)(coo~'(. ~: 'l~. '(o~¥.

~ '"l(>H'R l'J~¥11ffiH ~Cf 4R<W1 "'1€1~'"1~ ~ Cfi{U4('&U ~ ~ cj- 'I

fci;.i:fr. ~~'l"llcl"1f'"1Cfi 4R"l~'1'&fC!"2Tf~<R0T~~~~'"l(>H'I{~ fcrm:r ~ ~¥0)-1 W.i:fr. Hi<ifl'&II ~ ~ '"IIfi'ICfii'ciJ w:rrcm ~ ~ ~ l'JCfi<."'11'i"ll

~ 311{1©'51 (Master Plan) <l<IR" ~ 31W. flll'j;-01{ (~) ~ <'!$f-~ i:nfl'rctiT: qzjlcrr-~"llC:Cfilq{ (<Fl<l lilffr<t>l), <'li<ft ~t¥o <fft.i:fr. ('<) ~ <'!$r-'1 i:n\Trq;r: ~-OfiITT-~

(<Fl<l ~)~ <'li<IT.~tc:l9~ <ffr.i:fr. er (~) ~ <'!$r-~ i:nfl'rctiT: "¥fl"IT-<iliITT camn; ~ <1

<AO '"llfflchl), ffi<IT-'10 W.i:fr. <rrciR~~ 'llffICfii{:\ W-0'11~ ~~~ 31W. ~llfl'114 ~ ~ m f.lo\41;:q<J l1Rffil fc;:Mli-OR ~ 11lfflCfiT $!>.~ : "¥fl"IT

<ifiITT (amn: ~<f<Flil11lfflCfir, ffi<rr-'lo w.i:fr.) m~.-Olcl"1f'"1Cfi-<9!"1lfT~ ''<Jim, cnw Cf (>fC1kHtfl <n\T (BOT)" <IT <ITTlcR ~ '"l(>HI[{ ~ fciq;ra >rffelCfi{Otl'"ll<hfl CJil'll~a

Cfi{Olj['OJ 'li{"llcilfl l'J«'llfqfl "ITT#.~""' l'JCfl("qlflli'll OlJ%14a1 (ft:fi]C(('[Rlfr (VGF) )(o ~

~"Im[ 311€l~'ICfi 31fl{'<ll4 ~ ~itflrtl4 \1<Rmm<f~ Cfi{U41fl '3lfl'1~fli <(i/lf<1<"ft. ~ . \1<R WITT"! ~ 31ictHI'%(\4 fct'1Hct05 ~ (MIAL) ~ ~. ~ ~-

31 ictHl'%'.\4 f'1'1H¢fo5I'il "11:sa41-01dl ~ <'!$1-~ ~ f'1tctJ=t\Cfi{uJ ciw.r "¥fl"IT-cM-~ <rr i;riIB: ~~i:J1ff1~il1 ~~m~"l11Ra:tict«1'%'.\<1~~ ~ t1w211<t1

ol"'llill >rfC11Cf (f<[K Cfi{Ul\IC! 31ITTT. <"lli'l' 114 :<!T >!Cfi<"ll'i\Ji'll "fCIFf 31if1Hl'%(\'l ~ ~

(JICA) 'li'&llCfi<fl ~ "{1.n,'l~~ 'CfiTit -w.f W<4" Cfiul'ti414 ~ Cfi{U4k1 am;)- -31"f! ~ f!lcl"1f'"1Cfi A<W 4'5051'&11 (i:ft.awr.-.ft.) '11''*lifli{ f<;;ffi; '119 ~. ::ion \Mr~ tjflltj;s0514

~ QCfi('tl till I ¢i4H"1"1 IC\9flf!1Jl "CfiT(>'T 31it-~ 1!PfflT ~ 31W. ~ Wfl'i itlJ I ~

~ fclCfim ii'llH'lt-il 'l'f $!>. K-140ll/36/2009-Metro/MRTS-II (Vol.III), Daied 18 July, 2013

.a:pi;i( '1<R !>\"l'>Mililio"1 <>.'l~.ni;, 'CfiTit <rr Wli<"l ~"4F'Jct'T RHT ~ {l"lifflD'l/*"llRCfi

~ ~ Wfi"f "{>. <00!;, 'CfiTit W~i\ci@ olcti!'41'8 \1<R $\CfiNF\4 "{> 'l'l,~¥'1 Cfilir ~ ~ .aiW.

: I II

I I I

2io

~ >!Cfi01 l'filo1 ~ ~ll'lii'11Cfi'%_'1 ~ WM ~O'l l'fi kll ~ >!Cfi('ll l'fi li'P'.li1T ~ <l1<f ~I l'fi"ll""'ll ~ m. <IT~~ fcti:I Riffi ~ W'fi"'1' RuFr ~ "<ITT"1

'IITTH~~f.!u\<r~ am-.

11iRB f-:i~rn :-~ ~\0!$r-~ <IT~~ >!Cfi('llict•lct ''¥fl"!T-Cf&-~· <rr'f'l<r: ~~ 41M<fi"'ll

!4Cfi011'fi Bt<llitlll qfifo..,;-~ ~ aqf~l\'\l'fl'!R ~ w:rrUr ~ ~ii'fi11"<f! lJF'l'ffi' >!GR

Cfi{Ul{\d ~am-.

~- ·~~m cnlcifl~H fMf'lts" <rr~~ ¢Jl<:"l1 ~~'fl$r-~ >1Cfi011B1a1

~ ~li'fi'11'6\I er.~ W'fi'11'i:ll ~ t.,0% W'!'WT 3i'fiJ\(il:ll ~ 41\'\.ct>'\'<41 "~~ Wr Cfil4lhH f&imts" <IT fcffii;r ~ ~ (SPV) ·.cfi<Rt· ~ ~ "<ITT"1 {'ll<\1'1"41 . { )

qRfy1"l-~ ~ ~ if;Ml>l410l fcMi;r ~ CfltR' (SPV) cfi<Rl ~ Cfi{Ul{l'fildl 1'{P:lm

~<mom-.

~. ~ >!Cfi011'fil<ll {'ll<lli""'ll yiHi!t..,-'R ·~ ~ if;('<ll>!41ul f.ttff ~ *°1li41'EI 1'{P:l<1T

~<tr~ er~ 3lict{{l&::'1'1 ~ ~ (JICA) 4i'6<ll<'ti'%'1 q;;;f ~O'llfUdl ~ ..

~. ~ "1idHl'\fl<i ~ m ""li""'ll"l'l.t"I'(. ~ ~ "11fUr ~ -oi•M"l"tlct"n""'ll ~t!Ct <'til~CllITTCfi{l\11~4~1'1 1 1{ ~fc1q;1~nrrfYoNi"1Ter~~

Wr Cfil4R¥1"1 feflf'lt:S <IT SPV <'f;q-1"1\'11~<'ti{U411'1<ffi31W.

~. ~ ilcnZ"41'ii1J\ "l4R ,;;iiai:<1«::'1<1 ~ m <JrcA) <1i'C41Cfi'%'1 tj11Jl<:"11 Cfi"tl'6<l1

4<ctif>:Sli:ll "t"ll"lt\1£\ ~ ~ Wr <til41hH f&1f'IU <IT SPV ;:ft-•. ~ SPV ~

q;;;f 4{ctif>s"td 'PW $110'"!\'fi q;;;f 4\ctif>:sl<l ~~ ~li<:l''lli41Cfi'fR~ •11;1111:(~ .

fcrcnm~~·· ()

'6. ~ ~-Cf&-fui:;;r ~ ~ 41M~'fildl {'ll"fcttlll 4RWI..,-~ ~ ~ ~i1'<\1>141u\ ·

'!icti~li ~ "'ll~<i{l'fi °4Blfil~<IB am-. <..,. 'lill"llitlll qQf!i1..,-t.., ~~ if;M1>1410l ~"~~Rm" '<l''lR"flilll ~

~ll'fi'11"1 I mq(f: li'P'.li1T ~ fll1>141u1 ~ 11g 11• R ~ fcrcnm ~ m ~ •';:j]Tffi 4Rct~'i Rm;'~ <'ti{o41"<fl Cfil4ct1~"1 Cfi\04111 <rrcft.

~. ~ "l~H'l{41feflif;fi ffi'l 0i'lilZ'iMI ~ 4g11•1<4ifefl<'til ~ ~<'.<'.<'. ~ {'ll"l\1'641

qQf?i1..,-t.., qfi'<Jc; ~-.III ~ ~ ~<:"ll>l'"llol ~ <'ti{U<il'fi ¥11'fi114 ~:

~ f<;ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ 'fl'"llfq"i': <'ji{Ol{l'filill fcmt er~~ <1<'011~ ~ ~ n<lR ~ ~ ~ fcM'li:is051'41 41"'ld«1CI <l1<i\ =-" ...< " .........,,_ <h{U'll"il <hl'1Cll~I <\){U'l\lli <iJq1.

"

~

-::r . .

~Jii !tf1l! lfi ~!iJtiJ ljii II "" ~ , " " .. -Ii . t I i l I t ~ • "

~ iiil• if j'.fi{~ I ~1 t} [•]It 111 i i ~ !!!11:11!111 111 i11l1

~ ~ ~ i l 1 i ! ~ l w j; Ji •e t;: Lo lb

jJ Ml l ~•i iti tt1i)~J1 · lfifj

~ i' J 1 t ·~ 1 i ~ i i I ~ i ,. , i 11 ~ ~ l t I I f 111 ~ 1 ,,:-

.0 -,j "'" 0 w w

("Y w

m-

&~,·~ " ~' -g,. ~ * '\,

/l ~ ~"?'- y; \; . f '."3.,;:,~ ~. £\ ' 0 ~~ .;r. ~ .- • 1/ .::i . ,_ ~ ~,:).. ~ : '1Z &~~~ ~. : \\ ~ .:f_j ~~.~<:> .. . -.:· '\ ~~'(' "~· . . r ..._Ji

~~" . '""·:t !/ '~ )i- , 'O-;>~·

'~'.'-. no',.-\"./ "'"'- V.\._ ·.\J ~---:·;:.··· '

. ~--:-·-· -·-;·.::--~·

. - . - ,. -

- ! •

ff·_. i w ~~ J. ti -~ - ~ 1 f _li·t. 1if ~i~ ~ ~·~ > ~ elf -~ f;j ~ ~ j t n: o. I'. , 1[ ~ $ I>' /r; - J;= . "" ! ·:e: .

"1>1!£'~t'i',.J!'.

j ii f . ~Ji ii1 i ;I j i . ·~. lt:l=. ~.~l ~J, -~ t:- )o. i

,t, ~ !;;: ~ .:f" --@ IY_ b-" •. ,.. J:!.. -;- Ff"Y 1P° .

*i I:~ 1 i ~ t 1j1 i J 1 i r · ! .. l:T $ -

Jil;ii!Jiiiilf!J1 ~ j ~ i ~ .f ~ f j ~ 5 ! ~ i ~ i

w ~ ~ . ~ w

~ .r - -,

,,.-;~~;_. .1:-~ -,.

_;:.:;:~- ~--- :-;.... ./--g;~ l· . . ~--~ ,;.- ._, tf"'I o:i,;::s-·~ ....'.'.''

r:..._ ~~-~-~ ~"~~ •Y .§......._ ... ~-~ ' \\'{!I tJ $'1*~ 'l '\~"" ~~if!$ · r~, IJ ~ :I, .fl> . -. 1, . Q:? \.) ,!;

;,... * ('-' - 1 """ G 0"' ,

~ 0 0

~

t .J 1

1¥ , -~ 'W'.~ ~i

0 i·i ' 0 . ' <Y ,,; g ,,,: ,. ~ ,,; g jro- )o. m- .>om- om-)o orY o . 0

0 g~Jgf· ~)ogt '

.~if~f!;~ili . ~-1 ·4.l~~-~-~.11~ . ' i•f i ff tlj1J1i JI 1' i U f{.d ~ t: ~~t~f~iiii~ ~ -

1¥ ; l ~ 1 ii ff. f, ff. ff. i cf IT IT Ii Ii Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ; . ..•. :--·

Ill I

' ,

>f'lRWqq ~. ~~. ~. 'foit.-oo oo< .. >f'lRWqq {'!fu-<). 'l'Rfuq;rn,~;·~. 'fo!t )>'oo oo< .

. >f'lRWqq ~ <!WT;wrfq'lil'l'm:~, ~. 'foit )>'oo o"< >f'lRWqq ~ <!WT;wrf-q'lil'l'm:~, ~. 'foit )>'oo o""< >f'lRWqq~~, ~. 'foit )>'oo o"< >f'lRWqq~ ~.~.'foit¥oo o"< ·'1fqq ~~. WlFflR'IR:R~. ~. 'fo!t )>'oo oo<. '1fqq~ftreurq·~, ~. 'foit )>'oo ol}< ~. <ll<f"lf'l'I>~~. ~. 'foit¥oo 00<. oqqt<114"'14 *1m". >i>rt <>1ian1"l[l4 f«~HaOl ~~~~. ""1'f>ur~.~'foit . . q)fffir ~. 'foit. ~ ~. 'fo!t'®'l'Rimrfuq;rn~. ~ ~. 'foit 'lroo o<>,t ~.~~~I~' i{qlf<'l'l>l, 'foit. 64Cifili4Cfnlj *1wr'I>", ~. ~· ~. ~~~. 'Kiii'r, 'foit. ~'foit~~. 'foit. '101llfffir ~~. 'foit ~*1wr'f>". 'foit~tof'l>tcifl¥H f<.r. 'foit. ~.=~.'fo!t. %1"ltjt<il4"', ~~. 'foit. %1"1'1"'114'1>, ~~~3!1lUr~~. {'RG), 'foit. '10Wqq, 'l'R'{'l"IT, 'l'Rfuq;rn~, ~. 'foit ¥00 oR *1m". 'l'R'{'l"IT, ~ >1¥11'<!'1>0

14 ~. ':!"1'. '34'Wqq, f<IB~. ~. 'foit )>'oo oo<. ~ ~ {'!fu-<~). 'l'RF3:'1>m~. ~. 'foit. f.rCl6 'ffi'ft ('!fu .19 ).

METROLJN.JGR03032014

TRUE COPY

l~ a Mulani & Co.

'' ' ... J , \

English translation of original document in Marathi

MumbaiMetroLine-3Project, Regarding Approval of the State Govt. to be obtained for Implementation of Metro Railway Project, on the Colaba-Baudra-Seepz Route ,

Maharashtra Govt. Urban Development Department

G.R. No.: MRD-3311/Prakra 149.UD-7 Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032

Dated: 3rd March 2014

Ref: G.R. No. MRD-3310/431/Project No. 55/UD-7 Dt. 15th June 2010

INTRODUCTION

MMRDA has prepared a Master Plan of the Metro Railway Project,

inclusive of 9 Routes of 146.5 K.M. length to enable speedy Public Transport

System at a distance of 1 to 2 Kms. with a view to improve the Traffic &

Transportation System in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Accordingly, 3

Metro Railway Routes, (1) Metro Line - 1 Route: Varsova-Andheri-Ghatkopar

(Elevated Track), length 11.40 Kms.; (2) Metro Line - 2, Route : Charkop -

Bandra - Mankhurd (Elevated Track), length 31.871 Kms. and (3) Metro Line

- 3, Route : Coloba - Bandra (Partly underground and elevated track), length -

20 Kms., have been granted approval by the Government.

As approved by the Government before, vide GR under reference, it was

initially proposed to implement Metro Track No. 3 : Colaba - Bandra (partly

underground and elevated track, length - 20 Kms.) by MMRDA .under the

principle of BOT "Build, Operate 84 Transfer" with the Public I Private

r-'":_,---~~ participation. However, since VGF was required to be more than 40%, the

·.·?~OT1t!?A * JAGRUTt H. SHAH '~\ ~~Al*ll

l'.? ~ega. ·No. 4842 )j ' . . ..,_, It '> ' .. . . ·.:-:·<!! \; .,_., - ~ / "' . ()''~ """'" ,,., , -~- ,., .,·,. . . . ... ·:-., ~ . .

.I I I

' '


Central Government expressed its inability to approve the said Project.

Thereafter, a proposal was made with the loan aid from Japan International

Co-operation Authority by preparing a Project totally of Colaba - Bandra -

Seepz Underground Metro Track through extension of Metro Line - 3 to the

Mumbai International Airport also with the financial participation of Mumbai

International Authority Ltd (MIAL), In pursuance to the same, totally

Rs.13,235 Cr. aid has been sanctioned by way of Loan from Japan

International Co-operation Authority (JICA) as per the approval of Central

Public Investment Board (PIB), the Central Government has granted approval

to the implementation of the said Project on 27.06.2013 subject to certain

Terms & Conditions. The approval has been granted to the expenditure of

Rs. 23,136 Cr. to the said Project vide Letter No: K-14011 I 36 I 2009-Metro I

MRTS-2 (Vol.3) dated 18.07.2013 of Central Urban Development Ministry and

taking into account total amount of State Level I Local Level Taxes of Rs. 806

Cr., the cost of the said Project is expected to be Rs.23,942 Cr.

The aspect of giving approval for extending expected assistance by the

State Government to the said Project was under the consideration of the

Government. The Government is taking the decision as follows in supersession

of the GR under reference after all-round consideration in this context.

GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION

The approval of the State Government is being granted as follows as per

the description in the enclosed Annexure - I, to the Project; of totally

underground Metro Track of "Colaba - Bandra - Seepz" under Mumbai Metro

Line - 3, Metro Railway Project.

1. Approval is being granted for converting the "Mumbai Metro

Rail Corporation Ltd, established before, for the Metro Line - 3

Project of the Company, into the Special Purpose Vehicle Company

I I I


(SPV) being "Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd." of the joint

ownership of Equity Share ef 50% of the Central Government and

the State Government, each.

2. Approval is being granted for the nature of raising funds for the

3.

4.

5.

6.

said Project and MMRDA and Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the

SPV Company have been authorized for availing Loan from Japan

International· Co-operation Authority (JICA), for coordinating with

Central Government, JICA and for all the further actions for

implementation of the Project, as mentioned in the enclosed

Annexure - Ill

The responsibility of repayment of the Loan availed from JICA

for the said Project will be of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the

SPV. If default is committed in repayment of the Loan by the said SPV,

the liability of repayment of the Loan will be of MMRDA on behalf of

the State Govt.

The approval is being granted to the estimated passenger fare as

mentioned in enclosed Annexure - IV for the said Colaba - Bandra -

Seepz Metro Railway Track.

The Government has approved in principle to the structure of

raising of the dedicated (Civil Transportation Fund) as mentioned in

Annexure - V attached and action may be taken accordingly for

establishing dedicated "Civil Transportation Fund" at the level of

MMRDA.

The Government has granted the approval to amend Mumbai

Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, applicable to the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation as per the enclosed Annexure - V, Para No. 3 and action

1.1 I


7

may be taken to prepare Draft Bill in consultation with Law & Judiciary

Department for incorporating the said provisions in the Act and to table

the Draft Bill in the next Session for approval of the Legislature.

The enhancement in the cost of the Project during the

construction of the said Project owing to. the currency rate, Central Tax

and fluctuations in the prices will be divided equally between the

Central Govt. and the State Govt. Therefore the MMRDA will be

required to bear all the costs including this additional cost of the share of

the State Govt., so also revision in the cost of the Project due to

Escalation, change in the Project, delay and other essential factors.

8. The Govt. has approved to grant interest-free subsidiary loan on

9.

behalf of the State Govt., to the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation, the

SPV Company, of totally Rs. 1615.l crores for this Project, meant for

share of 50% of different Central Govt. taxes/fees and for acquisition of

the required private lands as well as for expenses on Rehabilitation and

Resettlement so also has approved to grant interest-free subsidiary loan

to the said SPV Company, on behalf of the State Govt, to the tune of

additional Rs. 806 crores towards the State Govt and Local Taxes,

applicable to the said project, and orders will be released separately by

the concerned departments, by completing further necessary action in

this context.

It will be the responsibility of the Mumbai Metro Rail

Corporation Ltd, the SPV Company, to repay the interest-free subsidiary

loan payable by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. If the said SPV

Company makes default in the repayment of the loan, the liability of

repayment of the loan will rest with the MMRDA.

~ I I

English translation o(original document in Marathi

10 The Govt. has approved to transfer the land adjoining the Aarey Milk:

Colony Jogeshwari- Vikroli Link Road, of 30 Acres, by making

necessary change in the use of land, to MMRDA, for nominal rate on

rental basis, for Repairs and Maintenance Depot of the Metro Railway

Project and to transfer the said land to be acquired by the said Authority,

to Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. , the SPV Company as well as

to transfer 3 Hectare additional land near the Metro Car Depot, to

MMRDA at nominal rate, for residential/commercial development with

a view to raise Funds for the Project and the orders will be released by

the concerned Departments, separately.

11. The Govt. has granted approval to transfer the lands of the

Govt./Semi-Govt./Local Self Govt. required on permanent basis, for the

said project to MMRDA, at nominal rate, on rental basis as well as to

transfer the said land to be acquired by the said Authority, also to

Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation, the SPV Company, and the orders in

this context will be released by the concerned Deparhnents.

12. The Govt. has granted approval to use the open spaces of the

Govt. and Semi-Govt., near the said project temporarily, during Metro

Railway Construction period and the concerned Departments should

take action to hand over the said open spaces to the Mumbai Metro Rail

Corporation Ltd., the SPV Company, on their request, without delay,

13. The approval is being granted to acquire private lands required

for Metro Railway Station facilities, under Central Metro Railway Act}

MMRDA Act, 1974/ Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,

1966/ Land Acquisition Acts, in force.

I I ' ' ' '


14. The Govt. has approved to make use of the place of Metro

Railway Station and Car Shed for commercial use and the right of

making commercial development of the said lands subject to established

Development Plan and Development Control Rules, will rest with the

Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., the SPV Company.

15. The approval is being granted to implement the rehabilitation and

resettlement of the Project Affected Persons under this Project under

MUTP-R &R policy, as concurred by the Japan Internatiorial Co

operation Authority.

16. The Colaba-Bandra-Seepz Metro Railway Track is being declared as

the "Essential Public Project" and " Important Civil Transport project"

To,

This Govt. Resolution, Planning Deptt. Unofficial Ref. No.

205/1444 dated 23110/2013 and Finance Deptt. Unofficial Ref. No.

545/Expen.-3 dated 13/0112014 are being released considering the

remarks received.

By Order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.

Sd/-

(Manukumar Shreevastav)

PrincipalSecretary, UrbanDeveopment Department (UD-1)

Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor, Maharashtra State The Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, Mantralay, Mumbai, 400 032 The Secretary to the Hon'ble Dy. Chief Minister, Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Private Secretary to Hon'ble, Minister of State,(UD), Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Hon'ble Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State, Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Hon'ble Secretary, Urban Develoment Ministry, India Govt. Nirman Bhavan,

New Delhi

\ JAGRUTI H. SHAH \,

,, 1 KANDIVALI, MUMBAI * )' \ MAHARASHTRA i

:).\ fltegd. No. 4842 , ""-. '_.. 1

()~ / .,..., .. ·, •. ,.,.;.,. ..... ,,....,.. ' ' 1,

"-... i/""i- ...... _. :::. ~:·: ',I u • ;

'• >~~.::::::..;:~·:,.::

. I. I


Add!. Chief Secretary,(Revenue), Revenue & Forest Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032

Add!. Chief Secretary,Home Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Add!. ChiefSecretary,(Finance) Finance Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Add!. Chief Secretary, Planning Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary,(UD-1) UD Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary,(ADF) Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Business Development and Fisheries Business Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary,(Transport) Home Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary,(UD-2) Urban Development Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary,(Industries), Industries, Energy & Labour Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary, Housing Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Principal Secretary, Environment Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Secretary,(Special Project) General Adininistration Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Secretary, School Education & Sports Deptt. Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Secretary,PWD, Mantralay, Mumbai 400032 Mnaging Director, Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division Mumbai Police Commissioner, Mumbai Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Commissioner, BMC, Mumbai, M.D. CIDCO Mumbai Commissioner, Dairy Business Development, Worli, Mumbai Dist. Collector, Mumbai City/ Mumbai Suburbs, Mumbai Jt. Police Commissioner Traffic, Mumbai, M.D. Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Mumbai General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai General Manager Greater Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best), Mumbai Jt. Secretary, Town Planning, Urban Development Department, Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Director, Town Planning, Central Administrative Building, Pune Dy. Secretary, Finance Deptt., Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Desk Officer (UD)., Mantralay, Mumbai 400 032 Selection File, (UD-7)

TRUE COPY

~ dMulan; & Co.

I.I I

c5 \

MMRC Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited

(JV of Govt. of India and Govt. of Maharashtra)

MMRCL/WRIT365/2017/ Inspection I SJJ; /2017

/

To, . Mulani & Company 44-B, Prospect Chambers Annexe , Pith a street Off P.M.Road ,Fort ,Mumbai 40001

Date:6.2.2017

Sub: High Court 0.0.C.J.WRI PETTION (J) 365/2017 (NINA VERMA V/S TREE OFFICER & OTHERS

Ref: Your request letter dated 20.2.2017 for documents inspection in response to affidavit filed on 16.2.2016 by Respondent no 2

Your representatives were present in MMRCL office on 28.2.2017 and as requested in your letterthe copies of the documents inspected /information shared and the copies of documents requested are provided ·as under.

i. The Copy of DPR prepared by RITES in Nov 2011 for Metro line 3 DPR is available on MMRCL website. This can be downloaded from www.mmrcl.com.

ii. Metro line 3 project, It is proposed to cons.true\ 26 underground stations. The 27'" station is at Aarey depot at grade level (please see the Gazzette notification under Exhibit 'A' at page 77 of affidavit. In exhibit -'K' list shows the proposal of'tree ·removal submitted to Tree Authority for the 26 stations only. The 27'" station and Aarey Depot is proposed in Aarey. Tree proposal for Aarey sation and depot is not yet to be finalized.

iii. a. CRZ clearances: Affidavit by MCZMA has been submitted in WRIT petition 2907 I \ 2016, the copies of the MCZMA clearances for metro line 3 are submitted therein. Your representative has told that the copies of the clearances will be available to them from the said affadavit b. Forest Clearance: As per MML3 alignment only two stations are affected by forest area. The proposal are submitted to the concerned authorities for clearances.

iv. This is agreement signed between Govt of India and JICA. Not relevant for the issue in the petition.

v. Extract of the contract conditions and intimation letter to General Consultant is attached herewith (attachment 1).

vi. The credentials of expert agency is proposed by GC and same is approved by MMRCL. The copy of apprc\1al is attached (attachment-2)

vii. The EIA report for metro line 3 which was submitted to JICA is available on MMRCL website. This can be downloaded from www.mmrcl.com. Reference to the JICA agreement is not relevant in the petition

viii. The Government Resolution: MRD-3311/Pra.Kra.149/NaVi-7, dated 3.3.2014 is already submitted with affidavit, The Copies of any reference mentioned in the said GR is not relevant in the petition

CIN UG0100MH2008SGC181770

O~ice Address: NaMTTRl Building, Plot# R 13, E Block, BKC, Sandra (E), Mumbai - 400.051 T +91 22 2638 4602 F +91 22 2659 2005 E [email protected] www.mmrcl.c~m

Registered Office: MM RDA Building, BKC, Sandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051

.I.I. I

ix. The Government Resolution: MRD-3311/Pra.Kra.149/NaVi-7, dated 3.3.2014 is already submitted with affidavit, the copies of any reference mentioned in GR shall is not relevant

in the petition x. MMC Act: Revision to that effect is not available. xi. The copy of Government order is attached (attachment-3)

xii. Not yet prepared. Hence not available. xiii. So far no parking plans are proposed in MML3 project. Hence not available. xiv. The copies of letter dated 23.09.2016, 19.09.2016 (which is mistakenly mentioned as.

09.09.2016), 03.03.2016 and 29.09.2016 are attached (attachment-4) xv. During inspection it was pointed out by representatives of the petitioner that they have

got has got the tree cutting plans for affected area/ stations drawings for Churchgate, Vidhan bhavan , Hutatma Chowk and Cuffe Parade .Hence they want the copies of the

· plans for the remaining stations. The said plans are made available to

them.(attachments-5)

Thanking you. ~ (Ashok Bhasme)

DGM

Copies of the documents as above received:

R~__._d~:/I 7~;,L. .

f <-r;;~ /Jlfffll,,c-ll ( !) ,(h,.,.i', L.Ji J/g,f~M-< "4 / di'-f,'°'~r-,., For Mulani & Company CJG/ ,1 / U'I '.(-

' , ·,

"

;/o'.-·o ~ ·- --....... \. .\

~ .. ~ ~ ~ j;; v/;.\ '( .3 >oC> O' p_jl;-:::o '

"" ;:o §' c: \ o ~c~ , . en¥ .,,., .

~fj~ ....................... ·~19:~········ ..... ··@·. •.• •,•• ~ .. . ~ ~ "-~' • 1' ~ ~/.<~ Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited ~ · "- )f. . -4;' ----·- • ~-;~~.~--·

· c:o1at>a-uandi"a·Seepz - MML:S

e>[ s. ,"1"., Dl 2. R' () 0 ..

;

' '

'-1 JJ c m i() !O •\J -<

Sr. No. Station Name Package

1 Cuffe Parade 2· .. Vidhan Bhavan

UGCOl 3 Churcflgate

4. Hutatma Chowk s. CST

6 Kafbadevi UGC02 7· Girgoan

8 Grant Road

9 -Mumbai·Central -10 .. Mahalakshmi 11" Science Museum UGC03

.12 Ach<irv.a· Atre 13 Wo.rli 14 Siddhivinayak 15 Oadar UGC04

. 16 Shitladevi 17 · Dhara~i 18 BKC•

UGCOS 19 Vidyanagari

20 Santacruz. 21 Domestic Airport 22 Sahar Road UGC06

23 International Airport 24 Maro! Naka ts MIDC' UGC07:

26 Seepz

'l!;'~KC. pith.-.'~0~Y\ rJv:l.i''°:'~:

S.ummarlsed Tree Inventory for all stations ( LA fr" u .... v- \")-,::.."f"' ~~"" 11-c..'-'l ~-, \ - ':

MCGMWard To be Transplant To be Cut To be Retained Total Trees

A izone I) 109 161 2S 29S A (Zone I) 86 97: 112 29S. A (Zone I) . 47 Si 70 168 A (Zone I) 76 4S 11 . 132' A (Zone I) 90 80 . i09 279

· C(Zone I) 0 ·- 1 33 . 34 C & D (Zone I) 9 11 27 47

D (Zone I) 21 26 60 107 E·(Zone I) '44 32 0 76

. E (Zonel) · lOS ... 26. ·21 1S2 · G South·(zone II) 87 99· 37· 223

G South (Zone II) 21 SS . 26 :(.02 G. South (Zone II) 1-12 6;\ 6- 181 G South (Zone II) 32 98 84 214 G North (Zone II) 26 32 106 164 G North {Zone II) 27 27 17 71 G North (Zone II) ' 27 2 43 72 H East (Zone Ill) 79 7S 14 168 H East (Zone Ill) .69 47 6 122 H East {Zone Ill) · 23 7• 9 39 K East (Zone Ill) 112 3 14 129 K East (Zone Ill) 226 4 19 249 K East (Zone Ill) 4 O· 4 8 K East (Zone Ill) 50 9 ·24 83 K East (Zone Ill) 130 11 110 2Sl K East (Zone Ill) llS 12 103. 230

Total trees 1727 1074 1090 3891

~ (Vet

.;i

1

~ w

( 511 EXHIBIT - 0 /j#U

l ~~ •.•

. .;-

. ~ it ·~\ ~

55

\RUE coPY

,~ ~\\/lulani & co.

,J.l. I

•.

"'

""

-

EXH.IBIT ~ £ 56 ~

Mumbai Metro Line 3 Depot Selection Assessment

Technical Committee Report

' )._ ·-··''-"··

I.I. I

"

...

..

... TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ___ . ......,.._. _ _,,.,.,._,_ __ ~~. -·~·~···' -----···"·-~-·-~-~---·'"" ........ ~~--·- ,_.,.,.,......~-~-·--·~·-,.··-·--·- ·-···-"·'"--·-~---·

Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3

2.0 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 14

3.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT-HISTORY AND BACKGROUND .............. 16

5.0 ALTERNATIVE DEPOT SITES ........................................................................................ 19

6.0 MREY DEPOT SITE-FACTS AND FINDINGS ............................................................ 30

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 39

Table of Figures:

Figure - 1 Current facilities Planned at Existing Site ..................................................................... 19

Figure - 2 Various Depot Alternative Locations .............................................................................. 20 Figure - 3 Mahalaxmi Race Course ................................................................................................. 21 Figure - 4 Sandra Kurla Complex ............. : ..................................................................................... 22

Figure - 5 Mumbai University, Kalina ............................................................................................. 23 Figure - 6 Backbay Reclamation ..................................................................................................... 24

Figure - 7 Mumbai port Trust...: ..................................................................................................... 25.

Figure - 8 Dharavi ............................................................................................................................. 26 Figure - 9 Sari put Nagar ................................................................................................................... 26

Figure - 10 Kanjur Marg (Option suggested by Citizens) ............................................................ 27 Figure - 11 Aarey Colony Depot Site ............................................................................................. 29 Figure -12 Aarey Colony Plot in Proportion to the Total "Green Lung" ..................................... 30 Figure - 13 Tree Cover and Transplantation Area at Aarey ....................................................... 32 Figure - 14 Realignment of Depot to the North ............................................................................ 33 Figure - 15 : Realignment of Depot to the West ......................... , ................................................. 34

Figure - 16 Depot shifted completely to North .............................................................................. 35

Figure - 17 Original Depot Layout .................................................................................................. 36

Figure - 18 Modified Depot layout 1 ................................................. : .•..••..••.•..•........•..••••.•.....•.•..•••• 37 Figure' 19 Modified Depot layout .................................................................................................. 38

Page 12

~ . ! I

.....

.~I

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is prepared by the Committee constituted vide Government Resolution No. MRD-3315/CR23/UD-7 dated March 11, 2015 by the Government of Maharashtra regarding the Metro. Line-3 (Colaba-Bandra-SEEPZ) Car depot at Aarey colony, Goregaon.

Following is the constitution of the Committee:

1 Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA . Chairman

2 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Member Greater Mumbai

3 Principal Secretary (1 ). Urban Development Member Department

4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Director, NEER! Environmental Expert ·

5 Dr. Rashmi Patil, emeritus Fellow, Centre. for Environmental Expert Environmental Science and Engineering, llT Powai .

6 Shri S. D. Sharma, Director, Delhi Metro Rail Metro Expert Corooration Ltd

Brief Scope of the Committee is:

i. To study the alternatives for locating car depot, if possible, ii. To minimize damage to the trees at Aarey depot site if suitable alternative is not

found iii. To suggest mitigating measures to minimize environmental damages to the

Aarey colony.

The Committee is authorised to call experts as per the Committee's requirement. The Committee is to evaluate facts and submit its recommendations to the State Government. Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC) is to assist the Committee in arranging the meetings with the various groups, site visits including technical & secretarial assistance. Logistics also shall be provided by Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation as required by the Committee.

Out of the above constitution Dr.' Rashmi Patil had shown her inability to participate in the Committee due to personal reasons. Subsequently,. vide Government Corrigendum No MRD-3315/CR23/UD-7 dated March 31, 2015, Dr. Shyam Asolekar, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay was appointed in place of Dr. Rashmi Patil in the Committee as the Environmental Expert.

The Committee deliberated on the subject matter and held several meetings on the following dates:

• March19,2015

• April 06,2015

• April 18,2015

• April 24,2015

• May 13,2015

• May 22,2015

Page J 3

... II .

.:.!. I

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

• June 12,2015

The Committee also studied objections and suggestions related to construction of the depot at Aarey Colony received by Authorities from the citizen groups. Primary concerns of citizen groups are about the damage the proposed depot at Aarey would cause to the tree cover, ecology and loss of open public spaces in the city.

Committee members, in small groups, carried out visits to various possible depot sites, consulted with the citizen groups as well as rail and metro experts to comprehensively understand and address the following key issues:

• Essential functions and facilities required to be housed within car depot for MML3

• Feasibility of alternative sites for locating car depot

• Measures to minimise damage to trees at Aarf!y depot site, if suitable alternative is not found. '

• Recommendations to mitigate measures to minimize environmental damage to Aarey colony. ·

The Committee studied nine locations. Some of these locations were proposed by the citizen groups. In addition, various alternative arrangements and modificat'1ons within and around the existing site in the Aarey colony area were also explored.

The nine sites studied by the Committee are: 1. Backbay Reclamation, Colaba 2. Mumbai Port Trust 3. Mahalaxmi Race course 4. Dharavi 5. Bandra Kurla Complex 6. Mumbai University, Kalina 7. Aarey Colony 8. Sariput Nagar 9. Kanjur Marg

Page 14

••

"' J J J J J J J j J J J

I .... i

J I ~

J J J J ~I J J

I I

J.j I

....

1.8

,,..,

1.9

Figure E ~ ·1 Alternative Sites for locating MML3 Depot

The Committee followed a systematic process to screen and analyse the alternative locations based on pertinent factors such as:

• Adequate land to accommodate the depot • Impact on trees, environment and social factors • Cost and time impact of feasible alternatives

Based on the study of the reports and discussions with the domain experts following requirement were identified for the car depot for the project:

(i) Project Demand and Service needs: • MML3 is projected to serve significant public transport needs of Mumbai and is

forecasted to carry 17 \akh 'passengers per day by the year 2031. • This would require 55 Rakes and 440 Coaches for its operations by 2031.

However, within first 10 years of its operations, an estimated 47 Rakes and 282 coaches will be required.

(ii) Essential functions and facilities required to be housed within the car depot for MML3:

• Daily and periodic maintenance of these coaches and train sets are undertaken for safe operation. A depot has provisions for about 30 different facilities to help in the operations and maintenance of the system. Some of the important facilities in a depot are:

~" '

• Operation Control Centre (OCC) • Stabling Lines for parking of trains in secure area While waiting to be put

in operations • Inspection Bay to inspect the train before putting it in operations

Workshop to repair and maintain the trains

Page 15

6\ .: . .1. I


• Train washing plant Coach unloading area· Wheel lathe plant for wheel profiling Maintenance units of traction/signalling/telecommunication and track systems along with their rail-road maintenance vehicles

. Test Track of 600 to 1000 m length to test the train after undertaking servicing Auxiliary Substation (ASS)

(iii) Depot Location

• A depot should ideally be located close to a terminal points on the alignment, rather than at an intermediary location, so that it can facilitate efficient operations of the system including feeding of trains during peak period at required headway, allow quick turnarounds and cater to the demand needs to meet operational headway requirements.

• Location should be in proximity of the main alignment to avoid empty runs and waste of energy.

• The Land must be of a shape and size that will permit a feasible depot layout for the required depot facilities.

1.10 Considering these factors, the Committee assessed the merits and demerits of each of the alternative depot site. On consideration of the availability of adequate land, all of the sites at intermediate locations were found to be not feasible on these criteria itself as none of these were found to be close to meet the 6are minimum sizing requirement. Only the following sites at or beyond the ·terminal points of the corridor met this requirement and were further studied:

i. Backbay Reclamation, Colaba ii. Kanjur Marg iii. Aarey Colony

The committee studied these sites in further details.

1.11 Backbay Reclamation: In case of the Backbay reclamation site following are the outcome:

i. The land of required size, though not available as such, but can be created by reclaiming from the sea. An area of about 15 to 20 hectares need to be reclaimed from the sea. This would, however, cause environmental impact.

ii. Approximately 3.25 hectares of ecologically sensitive Mangroves exist on the site. These would get destroyed irreversibly for making space for the depot.

iii. Approximately 9 hectares" of the access area on the land side is presently encroached by slums and will require ResetUement& Rehabilitation (R & R) of approximately 7,000 to 8,000 families.

iv. For the entry and exit into the depot, a switchover ramp and spur will have to be constructed cutting across Colaba Woods and Capt. Prakash Pethe Marg.

v. There are environmental, social and financial implication of selecting this site. Reclamation of land would have environmental impact. Construction of connecting ramp will affect about 700-800 trees and relocation of PAP will cost about 1,000 crores.

vi. Process of clearances for reclamation of 15-20 Ha sea land is also expected to take significant time. Additional cost of implementation of reclamation is expected to be in the order of approximately 900 crores,

Page 16

"

J I

"'' ! ·I

\ill !

.,.1

\[ii ' J J J J J J -~ J J I

"" J J J J -I I ~

I -I I ~

J I ....

.I.I I

~-

....

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ..... ., .... ., ........ .,, .. ~~···~~, .... .,..,.,._ .. ., ..... ..c.--~.-· , .... , ...... ,.,. ···-· --·--··--··· -"•" . , .. --.. ·~·~-----····"'·-------·-... ~~---~

vii. Additional time will be required to design and construct depot by reclamation and for extensive R & R at the site. This may result in a consequential delays of about 5 to 7 years to the project and related cost escalation to the project.

viii. Plans for in situ slum re-development have been under consideration for over a decade for this area. Modifications to such plans could complicate acquisition of the land and may result in delays to the project.

ix. Because of the environmental and social implications, this site is also likely to be opposed by citizen groups.

1.12 Kanjur Marg: In case of the Kanjur Marg, site proposed by the citizen groups following are the outcomes:

i. Adequate land is not available at the location indicated by the citizen groups, which is the area mart<ed adjoining JVLR and Eastern Express highway.

ii. The parcel of land is not contiguous and is intersected by the Vikhroli- Bhandup road.

iii. Private owners as well as Salt Commissioner and Govt. of Maharashtra are involved in a dispute over the ownership of this parcel. This land is under litigation.

iv. The land has a reasonable amount of tree cover.

1.13 Close to the same area, the Committee, however, identified another tracts of open land further north towards Bhandup which has the potential for developing a depot. Both these plots are shown below:

Figure E - 2 Two Options at Kanjur Marg I Bhandup

Page 17

' ' "

.J .I. I

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT , M-·---~--.......... -·--'~·-·-·--·M·~--" .. ~---··"-'' -~-·•>>O•>O~ _._M'>Y' ''' ~---•~->=•=·'-·~·~~~~

The Committee identified this as a.n option and noted the following:

i. Land for depot can be easily made available. ii. This land is, prima facie, technically feasible in terms of location and has

less impact on trees and environment. iii. It is located in vicinity of Eastern Express highway and can be integrated

with proposed Jogeshwari.:. Kanjur Marg line presently under planning. iv. The ownership and title of the land is, however, in dispute and in litigation.

This will need to be resolved in order to get timely possession for development.

v. There is relaf1vely less tree cover as only 170 trees are identified in subject land.

vi. To build a depot at this site the existing Line 3 will have to be extended by about 7 .5 Km. Th'1s extension can be designed and constructed either as an elevated corridor with stations at appropriate locations or as a service connection with the proposed Jogeshwari ,.. Kanjur Marg line.

vii. Estimated additional cost of the construction will be approximately Rs 1700 crores in the case of the former. In case of the latter, use of the other line for carrying coaches of MML3 would pose operational consequences. This has been explained in this report in item 1. 17 ,

viii. It is estimated that the time required to undertake additional changes including acquiring the land and design .and construction of the required works for extended of Line 3 to Kanjur Marg will take at least 3-4 years. A depot is essential and timely required facility for assembly, testing and commissioning of train sets. This extension may, therefore, cause delay in commissioning of the project if related decisions including handing over of the Kanjur Marg land are not concluded wi\hin 3 months.

Another option of a having a part of the Car Depot in Kanjur Marg and partly in Aarey Colony, as suggested by DMRC, has been discussed in item 1.16 & 1.17 of this Summary.

1.14 Aarey Colony: Aarey colony site is already identified location, which is being objected by the citizen groups. In absence of other clear cut suitable options, the Committee explored ways to minimize damage to the trees.by alternate planning. Following three additional options were first considered by the Committee ;

' • To realign the depot and move it partly North of the present site • To realign the Depot and move it partly 1o· the West of the present site • To realign the Depot and move it completely North in an open interior part of the

Aarey colony. '

Figure E - 3 Realignrnent Options at Aarey Site

It was however found that in each of these options the impact on trees and environmental and social impacts were broadly of similar extent.

Page 18

"

'

' ' ~

~-

" ~

~

"' ·~

" ~

ii

Iii

\I

"' ~

liil

~I .I

~·

J I

J I ~

J J _1 I

Iii I

Iii

J J J J J J J j

I

I.I I

--...

jf{


1.15 The Committee thereafter undertook further review to save trees and a revised depot layout for Aarey Colony Depot was prepared by curtailing some of the depot facilities. These facilities will be required at a later date in the life cycle of the project

The revised layout had following features: • Eastern part of the plot and at the periphery were avoided to save large number

of trees • Only 4 sheds were planned to be constructed as against 10 sheds and with less

stabling lines with capacity limited to cater to 240 coaches to meet needs up to year 2030.

Approximately 1, 000 to 1200 trees can be saved by this arrangement and work can start immediately without further delay. Figure E4 and E5 below show the present layout and the modified layout respectively. Extent of saving of trees is clearly visible in the figure E5.

+

' . ,-

Figure E - 4 Original Plan at Aarey colony superimposed one with tree cover

Page 19

'!I

.1.1. I

TECHNICAL COMMITIEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ---· __ ...,"~'"'-·-~·'"""''"•''--"''"'"....,"~'~ .. n-•·-----··~··""~"''""--· "'"""""''-•r•~•"••''-·~n-,<~··-

1.16

1.17

1000 ·1200tree~\o\'ill be impacred

Totalla.ndrequlred .... 23.47 H•

Figure E • 5 Modified layout of Aarey ~o save Trees

Suggestions by DMRC Technical Team: Subsequent to evolution of the above options, a technical team led by MD/DMRC, during another discussion on new metro lines in Mumbai, advised that the Aarey Depot should be retained for proper and optimal functional efficiency of the MML3. To minimise the' impact on trees they suggested double decking of the depot. They also suggested that the workshop facilities required on a future date may be planned in the Kanjur Marg' by connecting through a service connection with the Jogeshwari- Kanjur Marg line pr13sently under planning as a new corridor.

Accordingly, another depot layout for Aarey Colony was prepared with expert help of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation officials. New alignment tias following features:

• Realignment of the main line to save trees

• Extension of underground portion • Change in the orientation of depot towards land pockets void of trees or with

lesser tree cover • Double decking stabling facilities by creating underground stabling facility • Providing elevated test track

Page 110

"

'

'Ii

\

~I ~I iii.I

J

~ J

I

J ~I J

c;J

J I

-i J J ~I tllil

J J _1

J J J J

.I.I I

.....

-'''"

-

..

446 trees will be impacted

Total land required ~ 20.82 H

•... ,..

Figure E - 6 Double Decked layout of Aarey Depot

Even though the initial proposal of DMRC was to provide a double decked depot with provision of locating some of the workshop facilities in the Kanjur Marg, it is worked out in the detailed planning that a full service depot with restricted mobility can also be planned at the site without the need of further extension to Kanjur Marg. While the Concept· plan has been worked out th help of DMRC experts, detailed plan is under preparation. In the new planning the tree cover has been substantially protected.

There is some advantage in constructing full depot at Aarey colony by double decked stabling facilities and with elevated test track. Even though the project cost increases by approximately 750 crores due to civil construction In extension of underground corridor, in civil construction of double decking and also due to elevated test track, the depot can be constructed without any uncertainty .

Another alternate will be to provide the main depot with stabling lines and workshop at · the Kanjur Marg site as suggested by DMRC and as agreeable to all the members of the committee. But to maintain operational efficiency of the sensitive 33.5 km long fully underground system, a smaller depot with limited stabling facilities at Aarey colony would still be required. By this option intervention in Aarey could be minimised without compromising on the operational requirements of the system. By adopting this option substantial increase in cost can also be avoided. This option has to be drawn by engineering team. They would however have to Ii.mil the plans with no substantial cost impact, and the impact of tree within 500.

This option becomes a preferential option when seen together with the proposed Jogeshwari - Kanjur Marg line. Both the lines, when developed as one system, can share the same depot facilities at Kaiijur Marg and operationally compliment each · other.

Page 111

"

.I.I. I

For such an arrangement to work, the new line will have to be planned and operated as a natural part of the. MML3. Operations of sending I receiving line-3 rakes during its hours of operations as well as during night time has to be coordinated with the operational and maintenance requirements of the new line in a seamless manner. Both the lines have to be designed with the same signalling system as well as other systems of telecommunication and Over Head traction etc. and controlled by the same OCC.

The other option of a depot at the Backbay reclamation as insisted by two members of the committee are not considered feasible in view of larger administrative, social and environmental implications than the Aarey colony option as already discuss in item 1.11. Their views on Kanjur Marg and Backbay reclamation sites are appended as Annexure 1. Their earlier submissions during the deliberations on different alternatives are also include as Annexure 2.

1.18 Conclusions:

Following are the conclusions of the Committee:

i. Mumbai Metro Line 3 is a critical Infrastructure project for Mumbai's public transportation needs. Government and Authorities ca'nnot afford delay in commissioning of this project

ii. Timely completion of the depot is necessary in order to bring in the trains, test thern and keep them ready in time. Depot finalisation and construction is always on a critical path of the MRTS project schedule.

iii. Timely commissioning of Line 3 will have enormous impact on mobility, quality of life and larger overall environmental benefits. Commis~ioning of Line 3 will help reduce use of private vehicles and avoid worsening situation of congestion and air pollution impacts for the community.

iv. Equally important is the aspect of green developrpent and need to avoid/minimise adverse impact on tree and green cover in the city. Therefore, balance between the need of project and on the impact on trees and the environment has to be achieved.

v. Out of the sites finalised for detailed consi.deration Backbay Reclamation site will have more environmental, social and administrative implications due to reclamation in sea, loss of 3.2 Ha of mangrove cover and serious R/!<R. Remaining six sites are not considered feasible on the basis of criteria discussed in item 1.9 of the report. ·

vi. Large open tracts of land towards Bhandup at Kanjur Marg does not have major tree cover and is considered a feasible option. But, the ownership of this land is in dispute and under various litigations with legal encumbrances. Such litigations and ownership issues need to be resolved to develop the depot with.out undue delay in the completion of the project.

vii. However, if a decision is made to locate the depot at Kanjur Marg, Line 3 will have to be extended by at least 7.5 Km with additional stations _with an estimated additional fund requirements of approximately Rs. 1, 700 crores. Extending Line 3 up to Kanjur Marg may delay commissioning of the Line 3 project if the subject land is not handed over to MMRCL within a 3 month peri.od.

viii. An option is of double decked depot in Aarey colony near the present location. This option reduces the land requirement to 20.82 Ha. and t~e impact .on trees to about 446 trees if a full service depot is constructed. There Is an advantage of constructing full depot at Aarey colony by double decking stabling facilities .and with elevated test track.

Page/ 12

"

J

,I

~ I ]

J ,1

,I I

•' ~I ~I I

~I ~· '

~I I

J J i

Ii

j I

~I

J .I 'j

J J J J Iii 'ii.I

J J J J J j -.;.I

.:.!. I

---...,,

...

But the double deck depot will cost approximately 750 .crores more but would save trees and can be completed in time.

ix. Alternatively, the main depot with stabling and workshop of MML3 to be planned in the Kanjur Marg, with limited stabling facilities lo be provided al Aarey colony. This Depot at Kanjur Marg will be common with then planned Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg line. For such an arrangement to work, the new line will have to be planned and operated as a natural part of the MML3 for seamless operations. Both the lines will have to be designed with the same signalling system as well as other systems of telecommunication and Over Head Traction etc in an integrated manner. and controlled by the same OCC.

x. All the available sites and options have their. merits and demerits and related consequences. Hence timelines of commissioning the project also be given importance.

xi. The committee is of the view that in the larger interest of the society and "benefit to the greatest number for the greatest good" must be achieved while at all times ensuring protection to trees, open spaces and environment.

1,19 Recommendations:

i. In the overall scenario when GOM is seriously considering construction of Kanjur Marg - Jogeshwari corridor and constructing a depot with lesser impact on trees, costs an additional amount of 750 Cr, the Committee consider that larger benefits will be achieved by adopting the following:

a) Construct the main depot of line 3 al Kanjur Marg by integrating Colaba-Seepz corridor (MML-3) with Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg corridor.

b) This entire arrangement shall be totally integrated with same system specification for seamless operations and implemented by MMRC.

c) GOM to allot Kanjur Marg land within 3 months so that MMRC can proceed with further activities.

d) To maintain the operational efficiency of underground corridor of MML3, a small facility consisting only of 16 stabling lines shall be constructed within Aarey colony land, However MMRC will ensure that, this facility is developed on earth fill to economise on cost and total impact on trees should be less than 500.

ii. The committee further recommends that in case the land at Kanjur Marg Is not made available for some reason, then the modified layout of a full service double decked depot al Aarey colony as suggested by DMRC near the present site as detailed in Item 1.17 of the Executive Summary may be considered, In this case the project cost will increase by approximat!";tly 750 crores due to civil construction in extension of underground corridor, in civil construction of double decking and also due to elevated test track, but the depot can be constructed without any uncertainty and within the time schedule of the project. The options entails a substantially smaller impact of only 446 trees, and the Depot area is also reduced to 20.82 Ha from the present area of 30 Ha. Number of trees and the depot area may change a bit subject to detailed planning,

iii. The Committee recommends following measures to mitigate the environmental impact to the Aarey colony:

• Ground Water charging arrangements to be provided in the Depot • Plantation of trees as per ·statuary requirements of 1 :3 trees for every tree cut • Trees above 10 feet height of native variety only to be planted • Plantation to be undertaken by professional agencies only • Annual audit of plantation by third party· and reports posted on the Company's web

site • MMRC to maintain these trees for 5 years.

Page 113

-~LL._

.J.I. l.

TECHNICAL COMMlTIEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT -----~,---~=,·~··='-'"'~·.·.··'"""''''-"~~" .. "'"'"""".__~

INTRODUCTION 2.0 BACKGROUND

Mumbai Metro Master Plan envisages construction of 146 km of MRTS for Mumbai consisting of at least 9 corridors. One among them is the Cuffe Parade (Colaba)Bandra-Seepz Corridor which is an approximately 33.5 km underground corridor that runs from South to North from Cuffe Parade and Colaba to Seepz in Goregaon. It is also known as Mumbai Metro Line 3 corridor ("MML3 "or "Line -3').

At the North end, this MRTS corridor terminates in ·a plot of land that comprises part of the Aarey Colony area which is adjoining JVLR. At this termination point, a 30 hectare area has been earmarked for one station and developing a Workshop cum Depot for the rakes that will operate on this Metro Line. This project is being developed by Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited (MMRCL) which has b.een formed on the basis of a Joint Venture entity comprising Government of Maharashtra and Government of India.

Recently, some sections of the society objected to ihe choice of the depot land. The main contention is that the land for the Depot falls within a green zone comprising Aarey Colony and the adjoining area of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which together make up a large part of the "Green Lung" of Mumbai. The assertion of these groups is that any construction or development in this area will irreversibly affect the natural environment of the area which will have long term negative impacts'on the surroundings. Specifically, these Groups have pointed out that that as a consequence of the depot construction and land development, an estimated 2,200 plus trees will' have to be cut, which will reduce the green cover in a city, already depleted ofthis much needed natural resource.

2.1 Technical Committee- Scope and Objective , Taking cognizance of these concerns raised by various citizens group the Government of Maharashtra vide Government Resolution No. MRD-3315/CR23/UD-7 dated March11, 2015, has constituted a Technical Committee regarding the Metro Line-3 (ColabaBandra-SEEPZ) Car depot at Aarey colony, Goregaon'.

2.2 Following is the constitution of the Committee:

1 Metrooolitan Commissioner, MMRDA Chairman 2 Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Member

Greater Mumbai 3 Princioal Secretarv (1), Urban Development Deoartlilent Member 4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Director, NEERI Environmental Expert

5 Dr. Rashmi Patil, Emeritus Fellow, Centre for Environmental Expert Environmental Science and Enaineerina, llT"Powai

6 Mr. S. D. Sharma, Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Metro Expert Ltd

Brief scope of the Committee is:

i. To study the alternatives for locating Car depot if possible, ii. To minimize damage to the trees at Aarey depot site if suitable alternative is not

found iii. To suggest mitigating measures to minimize environmental damages to the_Aarey

colony.

The Committee is authorized to call experts as per the Committee's requirement. The

Committee is to evaluate facts and submit its recommendations to the State

Page 114

"

~I

'iii

J , Ill

J ,J j J J J J J J J J J J

I , , ""'

.I.I. I

....

.....

-....

--

-

""'· -.~

' ' '··I

Government. Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation (MMRC) are to assist the Committee in

arranging the meetings with various groups, site visits including technical & secretarial

assistance. Logistics also shall be .provided by Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation as

required by the Committee.

Out of the above constitution Dr. Rashmi Patil had shown her inability to participate in

the Committee due to personal reasons. Subsequently vide Government Corrigendum

No. MRD-3315/CR23/UD-7 dated March 31, 2015, Dr. Shyam Asolekar, Professor,

Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay was appointedin place of Dr. Rashmi Patil in the

Committee as the Environmental Expert.

2.3 The Committee deliberated on the subject matter and held several meetings on the

following dates: • March19,2015 • April 06,2015 • April 18,2015 • April 24,2015 • May 13,2015 • May 22,2015 • June 12,2015

2.4 The Committee also studied objections and suggestions related to construction of the depot at Aarey Colony received by Authorities from the citizen groups. Primary concerns of citizen groups are about the damage the proposed depot at Aarey may cause to the tree cover, ecology and also the loss of open public spaces in the city.

2.5 The Committee members, in small groups, carried out site visits to various possible depot sites, consulted with the citizen groups as well as rail and metro experts to comprehensively understand and address the following key issues:

• Essential functions and facilities required to be housed within Car depot for MML3

• Feasibility of alternative sites for locating Car depot • Measures to minimise damage to trees at Aarey depot site, if suitable alternative

Is not found. • Recommendations to mitigate measures to minimize environmental damage to

Aarey colony.

2.6 The Committee studied nine locations. Some of these locations were proposed by citizen groups. In addition, various alternative arrangements and modifications within and around the existing site in the Aarey colony area were also.explored.

Page 115

~\ ,:.!. Ii

3.0 UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT-HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

The Mumbai Metro Line 3 is a project envisaged more than thirty years ago. Previously known as the "7th rail corridor", it was originally planned by the Indian Railways for North South connectivity within Mumbai. This rail and public transport corridor has been extensively studied, analysed and defined as part of part of the Mumbai Metro Master Plan prepared by Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) under the leadership of Dr. E. Sreedharan. Thereafter, in 2008 feasibility study and in 2011 a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was prepared by Rail India Technical Services (M/S RITES) and this corridor was earmarked to be developed as Mumbai Metro Line 3 to be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the Mumbai Metro Master Plan.

The DPR carried out a detailed analysis of the project terrain and included an Engineering as well as Environmental and Socio Economic study of the proposed project. The report looked at various alternatives and identified 27 station locations and Depot site at the north end of the alignment to be constructed. The engineering report also developed a demand analysis and operations model for the MRTS system that identified the specific needs for procuring a forecasted number of trains and coaches to serve the public transport demand expected along the corridor.

A detailed Socio Economic Analysis, Environmental Impact Analysis and related scientific technical studies was undertaken for this dorridor and written documentation has been published of the findings. Prior to approving the recommendations of this DPR and freezing the alignment, station location and' the depot location, the authorities (MMRDA) carried out specific public disclosure a~ early as 2004. This meetings included among others, official announcements in news media, public outreach meetings and consultations so that awareness of the· project is made and comments and objections of the public at large is sought.

In November 2011, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments were carried out and findings publicly announced in all leading' newspapers. The Committee's understanding therefore is that the project alignment and its locations are not new and have been in public domain for niany years and available for public review.

Further, during 2012 and 2015 additional public consultations, public notifications, and disclosures were made. A public consultation with open invitation was made to all and was also conducted by authorities as part of the project's EIA and SIA disclosure requirements. At this meeting, the location and impacts of the project and depot was widely disclosed.

Subsequently, in July 2012 and September 2012, The Japanese Government thru JICA also conducted their own independent assessment of the Line 3 and the Aarey Depot site. In an independent assessment it was concluded that no major or critical environmental or ecological dangers were posed by the project and it was mandated that the project must comply with all local regulations.

An official notification of' the project was made in a Government Gazette dated September 18, 2013 published by the l\!1inistry of Urban Development.

;

Based on review of the DPR and background information, following are the key highlights of the MML3 project:

Page 116

"

'

.. \o.

";~

~

'~ .. (ii{.

" "' \I

Iii

ii

Ii

J I

.. I

J J J J J J I i

I 'ii

I 'ii

J J J J

I .I .,.,

J I

~

J I

;J .,.I I

'.! I I

.I.I I

~-

--

..

• It is a key North South Rapid Transit corridor that is expected to vastly decongest vehicular traffic- MML3 is estimated to carry almost 17 lakh passengers per day by 2031.

• It will both, complement and supplement the current north south suburban rail corridors of Western and Central Railway and connect additional areas not within easy reach or influence areas of the transport nodes.

• Mumbai's Urban Transport connectivity will improve and bring places of residence and work to closer. It is expected to directly reduce the inhuman crowding currently experienced by commuters in Mumbai's rail.

• It is expected to reduce environmental impacts and encourage use of comfortable public transport over private vehicle usage, thereby reduced congestion and carbon emissions from vehicles which will have direct social, environmental, health and safety benefits.

• Project will be constructed underground with minimal impact on above ground facilities and land.

• Will serve six CBDs and provide connectivity to Airport; will also provide connectivity to hospitals and places of worship, work and recreation across the city.

• Analysis has determined that the project will have an Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) of 17.94 % -which considers costs and benefits of various Economic factors that affect a community.

Essential functions and facilities required to be housed within Car depot for MML3

Consistent with its Terms of Reference, the Technical Committee assessed and analysed the fundamental factors that determine the design and selection of cardepot site. The Committee members ~nderstand that following broad considerations are critical for a proper depot site planning and design:

• Size: A depot must have sufficient space to cater to present and future needs of the designed operating system to ensure safe and reliable maintenance and operations. ·

• Proximity: It needs to be in close proximity of the alignment such that "dead miles" are minimized and operations are efficient and cost effective without waste of energy and resource. Ideally, a depot should be located near to one of the terminal points on the corridor (as opposed to an intermedi.ate location) in order to efficiently serve the operational requirement of a system and avoid any 'empty" runs and associated wastage of energy and costs.

• Ease of Movement: the depot site should be such that tracks can be planned to permit ease of movement of rakes within the depot for different internal requirement and for their entry and exit for current and future needs.

• Security: The depot should be planned keeping security in mind and has to be fenced around the perimeter with high walls to prevent unauthorised intrusions.

In addition, a proper and safe depot design must cater to the following operational needs of the system:

Page J 17

; I. , II.

.1.1. l

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ~·-=-·-..-··· .. - .. ~~=--==="""'-'""""--"'"=-... '~-"'~-,.-· ___ ...,,...., ___ __,,.~ ...... ~-

1. The entry and exit tracks within the depot sh.ould be such that the headway and operations on the open (main) line are not affected or delayed and unnecessary shunting is avoided. Ideally, simultaneous receipt (entry) and dispatch (exit) of trains from the dep,at line should be made possible-for which sufficient space to layout such tracks is necessary.

2. Train movement within depot to be possible in logical sequence of operations.

3. The layout should, as far as possible, be at-grade level for least power requirements in shunting movements. An underground depot or elevated depot, require additional energy usage for 0 & M.

4. Other facilities required to be planned and constructed in a Depot include

• Operations Control Centre and Administrative Buildings

• Stabling Lines • Inspection lines • Workshop for overhaul, unscheduled maintooance, major repairs, • Wheel lathe plant for wheel profiling • Train Washing Plant and Facilities for cleaning of Interior and exterior

cleaning ·of rolling sock , • Maintenance units for traction/ Signalling/Telecommunication and track

systems along with their rail-road maintenance vehicles • Test Track of 600 to 1000 m length to test the train after undertaking servicing

• Access area for a switchover ramp-in case of a Metro that arrives from Underground to an at-grade location

• Space for unloading of coaches • Auxiliary Substation(ASS)

These requirements are critically governed by the Operations Plan developed for metro administration and has to be adequate to meet the forecasted demand needs and headway and schedule requirements of its proposed services.

Specific to Line 3, the Consultants have determined that the depot will require facilities that can cater to the maintenance and operational peeds of a55 rakes with an Scar composition which is necessary requirements of train sets as per the forecasted traffic demand for the corridor in year 2031 and beyond.

That is, for Line 3, the Depot needs to be large enough to service the operational needs for 440 coaches that will be put in operation during its service life.

Based on this, the land selected at Aarey Colony was planned accordingly and numerous facilities were accommodated in the area. Figure 1 identifies the 3.0 different facilities planned and necessary for the MML3 Depot

Page J 18

"

l(j

\iii <oil

J J J J J J J J J J J J . I ~I 1111

J · 1

~

J J J J

.I.I J

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AARF.Y DEPOT , ---~~- .. ··-- ·-·-~-·---·•>.'""-"•~·~•· -····--·•·>'-•""·' ·<~;.·~·--••••--~•"'"' 'M•~··--., .. -.~~ .·~,,..-•W•••---•··'·•"¥•~~---·••

5.0

----------------------.. ...-:--------------------- ..... / ,,, .. \

r • Facilities for 55 rakes~ 4+0 coaches .:.r:·~~~-.."'·-'"· ~ l has to be planned :/,'_, 0: ~ .. ,:!;[~. J

I · Various facilities required for safety & ·'r' ~ft,~~t;:~~k ·---- _. __ · .. ~·'-'~:.. ..... --.. I I • I timely operation of1netro.

I I I I I I I I I

_· ! :

1t::

I ' [I

! /

· Rcliar11:esub St..1io11

ALTERNATIVE DEPOT SITES

The Committee met on six occasions and deliberated extensively an all possible options. In the meeting held on 24'" April, 2015 various citizen groups, who had raised concerns, were invited to present their case. The suggestions made by the groups in · the said meeting were examined carefully in the subsequent meetings.

As part of the Depot Selection process during review of DPR, for the Mumbai Line 3 corridor, the Consultants Mis RITES had considered several alternatives, among the shortlisted sites were:

Mahalaxmi Race Course Exhibition grounds at Bandra Kurla Complex

• Mumbai University, Kalina. Aarey Milk colony land.

In ·addition, during an earlier assessment during preparation of first DPR DMRC had suggested the Backbay Reclamation, Colaba as the Depot site.

The Citizen Groups had suggested the following additional sites during the meeting conducted on April 24, 2015:

Mumbai Port Trust land • Dharavi

Sariput Nagar near JVLR and; Kanjur Marg at the intersection of JVLR and Eastern Express Highway

Page [ 1S

.I.I. L

_TECHNICA1;_~0MMIITEE REPORT~~ MREY DEPOT .... ~·---~-~·"-·--------~--'"M'~~ .. ..,h,,._,'~'"•~~-·,~~ ...... _.U~o·-,·-..

,J I! 1

'

Figure M 2 Various Depot Alternative Locations

In due consideration of the purpose of this study, the Commijtee Members reviewed all of these possible sites in detail and deliberated on the attributes of each of the possible locations. In context of the objections raised against the Aarey depot, following were some of the criteria that the Committee considered when evaluating each of the Alternative sites:

• Adequate land to accommodate the depot • Impact on trees, environment and social factors • Cost and time impact of feasible alternatives.

"

.I.I I

-

-...

16

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ~~~~-----"-'"""'------~~·.~~~~~~-~--~·-•M 0 ··-·-·· ,,,. ..

Following summarizes the observations made on the various alternative Depot sites:

Alternative 1: Mahalaxmi Race Course

Mahalaxmi Race Course is a large open area that was leased by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to Royal Western India Turf Club (RWTC) which operates the race course. The site is located opposite to Mahalaxmi Railway station on the Western Railway and adjoining Dr. E Moses Marg of the city. The Grandstand at the Race course is a designated heritage structure and cannot be disturbed.

In order to develop a depot in this area the horse stable area of race course occupying an area of about 19.2 hectare is at most, available for locating a depot, which is not adequate.

Fig1.ire - 3 Mahalaxmi Race Course

Description

Area

Proximity to· Alignment

Land Ownership

19.2 Hectare

Less than 1 Km

Leased to Royal Western India Turf Club

Upon reviewing the site conditions for selecting this site, following merits and demerits are observed:

Merits:

• The site is in the vicinity of the corridor, within a distance of 1 Km from Science Museum Station

Demerits:

• The area available is inadequate to construct a depot. • It is an intenmediary location which. is not desirable for optimum operations • The_ area is equally sensitive in tenms of trees as about 500 trees would be affected.

Building a depot here will destroy the existing tree cover as well as available open space in an area already starved of such amenities.

• The Grandstand, a designated heritage structure will be affected during construction if at-grade or above ground depot is constructed.

• This is a large public facility that serves both as sports and cultural and event venue for the city of Mumbai.

• In addition, the land lease dispute will have to be resolved with Royal Western India Turf Club, which has the patronage of several large citizen groups. Locating the Depot here will face objections from other citiZe·n groups:

Page 121

' ' "-

I.I. I.

i'·

J .

TECHNJr.AL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ---·----,----"~~_.-,..,,.....,....,_.....,~,_ ...... ,_ ... ,-~····-~A·-~-·---.. -~~

• One option could be to develop ·an entire.underground depot. Underground Depots are considered unviable for various reasons of safety and commensurate impacts of perpetual cost of operations and maintenance.

• The Cost of construction of an · underground depot is typically, 4 times the construction oi an at-grade depot apart from the additional operating cost throughout the life time of project.

Alternative 2: Exhibition Ground at Sandra Kurla Complex (Bl(C)

Sandra Kurla Complex (SKC) exhibition ground is spread over 20 Ha. The site is located opposite Diamond Sourse development and north of Asian Heart Hospital at SKC. This site is closEfto Sandra and Mumbai University Kalina stations on the proposed alignment.

.. :i.:...: Figure - 4 Bandra Kurla Co1nplex

Description

Area

Proximity to Alignment

Land Ownership

In selecting this site, following merits and demerits can be noted:

Merits:

20 Hectare

Less than 1 Km

MMRDA

• The site is in the vicinity of the corridor and less than 1 Km from station

• Since MMRDA is owner of the land, acquisition can be done relatively easily. However R & R and Land acquisition for switch over ramp will become necessary.

Demerits:

• The Depot will have to be developed at an intermediary location which Is not recommended for operations.

• This land is designated for construction of International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) and was also not made available for the Mumbai -Ahmadabad high speed rail connectivity.

• This land is an extremely valuable economic asset. The revenue estimated to be generated from this land is about Rs 30,000crores. Such funds are planned to be used to develop other equally important infrastructure and transport projects in MMR.

• At this stage this is the only land available with MMRDA to consume the available FSI with MMRDA.

• A switchover Ramp will have to be constructed to bring the trains from underground to the at-grade section. This will require approximately 400 m tract of land to build

Page 122

"

.:.1. I

•.

...

.....

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ---··---~· -·------·-···-·-•"•''"'-~••••~>-•, "•-'-"-'••'~"~ '""'"K-.o ~.,. ••. .---···--·-··-----·-·--

'' the ramp.· Such a ramp would ell! across main .BKC road and will require R & R issues to be addressed.

• Cost of such a ramp will require an additional cost of at least Rs 30 crores .

Alternative 3: Mumbai University, Kalina

Mumbai University is located at the western edge of Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC) with a total vacant area of 20 Ha. This area too, along with a station was considered and proposed for development of a Depot.

Figure· 5 Mumbai University. Kalina

Description

Area -...!


Land Ownership

In selecting this site, following merits and demerits can be noted:

Merits:

• Construction of the depot can be at grade.

20 Hectare

Less than 1 Km

Kalina University

• The site is in the vicinity of less than 1 Km, and a station is proposed at this site.

Demerits:

• Land is not available to develop a depot. This area is earmarked for expansion of Mumbai University facilities. University facilities cannot be compromised for a possible depot facility.

• Any proposal to develop a depot here may result in oppositions from affected stakeholders comprising a very large number of student and academic body. Land acquisition process will be complicated and cause further delays to the project.

• The Depot would have to be developed at an intermediary location on the alignment which is not desirable for optimum system operations .

Page 123

.1..1. I.

TECHNICAL COMMIITEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ·---.-.--..-·.-.-"·"·---··--·~--~-~q-p~·~-----"' ·~ ~=-··~ ---··-~---'" -

Alternative 4: Backbay Reclamation

This is the area that was.initially. identified by DMRC as one possibility. This site is actually off-shore and is the body of water that is behind the World Trade centre site.

Figtire - 6 Backbay Reclatnation

'

Description

Area


Land Ownership

28.81 Hectare

Less than 1 Km

Undecided

Committee Members visited this site and surveyed it from strategic locations. Following are the key findings

Merits:

• The site is in the vicinity of less than 1 Km from the alignment and at a convenient Terminal location.

• Area (if reclaimed) is sufficient for developing a·reasonably sized depot

Demerits:

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

An area of about 15 to 20 hectares need to be reclaimed from the sea . Approximately 3.5 hectares of ecologically sensitive Mangroves exist on the site . These would get destroyed irreversibly for making space for the depot.

Approximately 9 hectares of the access area on the land side is presently encroached by slums and will require Resettlement& Rehabilitation (R & R) of approximately 7,000 PAPs. ' For the entry and exit into the depot, a switchover ramp and spur will have to be constructed cutting across Colaba Woods and Capt. Prakash Pethe Marg. There are environmental, social and financial implication of selecting this site. Reclamation of land would have environmental impact Construction of connecting ramp will affect about 700-800 trees and relocation of PAP will cost about 1000 crore. Process of clearances for reclamation of 15-20 Ha sea is also expected to take significant time. Additional cost of implementation of .reclamation is expected to be in the order of Rs 900 crores. Additional time will also be required to design and construct depot by reclamation

'i' .

and for extensive R & ~.at the site. This may result in consequential delays of about 5 to 7 years to the project and related cost escalation to the project.

Plans for in-situ slum redevelopment have been under consideration for over a· decade for this area. Modifications to such plans could complicate acquisition of the land and may result in delays to the project.

Page 124

j ~1 J J J J J J J J J J

.I.I I

...

' '

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT -----·~·~,--.,.·-----~-~~--~-"''"''" -··--·•- ~·~ •'• _._,_ ... ,.,., ~·---~H..,, __ ,.........., __ ....,_,_._.~--~--·--~--~

• Because of the environmental and social implications this site is also likely to be opposed by citizen groups.

Alternative 5: Mumbai Port Trust Land:

Figure - 7 Mun1~qi port-Tn1st

Demerits:

Description

Area 17 .5 Hectare

Proximity to 2 Km from Alignment Alignment

Land Ownership

Mumbai Port Trust

• There is no contiguous land parcel available to develop a depot. Land is inadequate to develop a depot.

• The larid in MPT is leased to various private and government agencies and it is not possible to clear and acquire such land within a reasonable period of time to develop a depot.

• Most of the area in Port Trust is already proposed for expansion of the Port facilities. MPT is not in a position to part with any land for MML3 project.

• The area is at least 2 km from the alignment and an additional underground corridor would have to be constructed- adding to the financial cost of the project.

• Additional Rs 500 crores will have to be expended to construct a spur from the main alignment to MPT in case a depot is developed there.

• The extended line to the Port Trust area will have to cross two railway lines and will have additional engineering and permitting complexity.

• Such an extended alignment may not be feasible -for it would have to traverse under some of the densest neighbourhoods of Mumbai between CST station and the Port Trust Land.

• A switchover ramp of at least 400 m will have to be created for the trains to arrive at-grade from an underground alignment. This will affect narrow busy roads and built up area in the vicinity. Additional cost of building a switchover ramp will be Rs 30 crores

Page [ 25

~ .. :

·- •.-L .. .11._,

8\ .1:.1 •. )_

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT -------· -""''"'"'" ,.,..,. ___ ~ ... " ...... --··-·h··~·-----·--~----·"'·---·-. ;f;

Alternative 6: Dharavi

Figure - 8 Dhi:travi

Demerits:

Description

Area Proximity to Alignment

Land Ownership

No Vacant Land 1.Km from Dharavi Station

Undecided

• The entire land is encumbered by very dense slums. There is no vacant land available.

• The Depot would be located at an intermediary location on the alignment which is undesirable.

• There will be a major Social and R &R impact in the area-as slums will have to be moved to develop a Depot. For an area requirement of 30 Haabout18, 000 families would be shifted out of Dharavi. '

• Any proposed acquisition of the land will cause further delays to the project. • There is insufficient area available to do R & R for the existing families-the Dharavi

Redevelopment scheme is itself facing difficulties in implementing the project and accommodating the present Project Affected People (PAPs). Hence, providing land for a depot would be near impossible •

• A switchover ramp will have to be created .near. Dharavi to transition from Underground to at-grade and back. This will disrupt locally congested area roads as well as the mangroves in the adjoining Mahim creek.

Alternative 7: Sariput Nagar near JVLR

This is a plot of land as.~ suggested by one section of the Citizen Group. Their contention was that the ;Depot should be developed adjoining certain slum and

' f,:

Figure -_9Sariput Nagar

habitation pockets just outside the Aarey Colony and towards the eastern edge of the proposed existing Aarey Plot.

Description


Land Ownership

12.2 Hectare 1 Km from SEEPZ

Undecided

Page J 26

"

• "' ~

,.j

\I

It)

Iii

~

iii.

'<l,

'&

Ill

.1:1. J

. A

....

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT -. --··-··.,-~.~-·•·----·~----•·~·-••••--•; ·-•· •••' .. .-~_, .. --•·••<>·-·'""'"••-••·-~~-----'"''''"'"'""'~'~.,...,,_,_...,.,._.,n~

However, this plot of land as sugge,sled is not feasible for a variety of reasons: • Land available is grossly inadeq\iate to develop a depot. • It will require the ramp and aligrlment to go in close vicinity of the Mahakali Caves

Archaeological site, which is prohibited. • The plot as identified by the Citizen group has established habitations. Permanent

structures and buildings would have to be torn down

Alternative 8: Kanjur Marg

This is a plot of open land that has been identified further east of the alignment near the junction of JVLR and Eastern Express highway .

At and in the vicinity of this site, the Committee identified two options:

• The site adjoining JVLR as indicated by the Citizen's Group and; • Additional Open Land adjoining eastern Express Highway and closer to

Bhandup. ·

The Committee made following observations about the site suggested by the Citizen groups:

i. Adequate Land is not available at the site indicated by the Citizen Group, which is the area .marked adjoining JVLR arid Eastern Express highway. This land is under litigation.

ii. Such land is also part of the Salt Pan notifications and acquisition or transfer to MMRCL is likely to be delayed.

iii. To Develop Kanjur Marg as, another depot site-the existing Line 3 will have to be extended by 6 kms. This will have to be designed and constructed as an elevated corridor with additional stations. Estimated cost of such construction will be approximately Rs 1,3,50 crores.

iv. Design, Engineering and ~evelopment of this additional length will also require time and further delay COITJP.letion of MML3. .

Figure - 10 Kanjur Marg (Option suggested by Citizens)

Description

Area


Land Ownership

12.2 Hectare

6 Km from Alignment

Undecided

Whereas, the Committee on its own while reviewing the open land area at Kanjur Marg have also identified larger tracts of open land adjoining the Eastern Express highway, and approximately 1.5 km further east of the site suggested by the citizEill groups. Concerning this site, the Committee has made the following observations: ·

Page 127

"

'··'·

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ~ ....... _ _,,.,...__,,,.,,,,,_._,,,,,...,,,__~_,;,.,,.,.,=,.,.~.,.,.,,.,-""'"'--~,.,,.,.,,_,.~-~·--""··--"'=·=-~~......,.,.._

Merits:

• Land for depot ean be easily made available. • This land, prima facie, appears technically feasible in terms of location and has

nominal impact on trees and environment.

• It is located in vicinity of Eastern Express highway and can be integrated with proposed Jogeshwari - Kanjur Marg line presently under planning.

• it would be an ideal interchange for the future Line 6 which is also planned in the same area

• All of the operational requirements of Line 3 can be accommodated and is not in a congested urban area.

• it will provide good connectivity to areas between Kanjur Marg, Bhandup and further north towards Thane in future.

Demerits: • The biggest disadvantage is that the land is und~r complex litigation and ownership

is dispute by several parties. There is also a status quo order of the High Court of Mumbai on this iand.iIThe possession of this can be inordinately delay the Line 3 project--rnsulting in further adverse economic and environmental impacts.

• Earty possession of the land for the project appears difficult • To build a depot at this site the existing Line 3 will have to be extended by about

7.5 Km. This extension can be designed and constructed either as an elevated corridor with stations at appropriate locations or as a service connection with the proposed Jogeshwari - Kanjur Marg line.

• Estimated additional cost of the construction will be approximately Rs 1700 crores in the case of the former. In case of the latter, use of the other line for carrying coaches of MML3 would pose operational conse'quences. This has been explained in item 1.17 of this report.

Recently, a technical team led by MD/DMRC during another discussion on new metro lines in Mumbai, advised that the Aarey Depot should be retained for proper and optimal functional efficiency of the MML3. To minimise the impact on trees they suggested double decking of the depot. They also suggested that the workshop facilities required on a future date may be planned in the Kanjur Marg by connecting through a service connection with the Jogeshwari - Kanjur Marg line presently under planning as a new corridor. It is wori<ed out that stabling facilities, inspection sheds and some of the workshop facilities can be provided at Aarey colony with remaining workshop facilities to be planned in the Kanjur Marg as proposed by the DMRC team ..

For such an arrangement to wort<, the new line will have to be planned and operated as a natural part of the MML3., As operations of sending I receiving line-3 rakes during its hours of operations as well as during night time has to be coordinated with the operational and maintenance requirements ofthe new line in a seamless manner. Both the lines have to be designed with the ·same signalling system as well as other systems of telecommunication and Over Head Traction etc and controlled by the same OCC.

Page 128

. II

~

.I I

J

J J

J /J J J J j J "I J J I ~ j J J J I

6i'

J J J J J J loll

J J

. I. I I

--

.....

...

...

Alternative 9: Aarey Milk Colony Land

Aarey Milk Colony land is spread over 1,287 hectare of land and is adjacent to the JVLR. The site is located in Goregaon (East), close to the North terminal of the corridor. In Detailed Project Reporl of line 3, approximately 30 Ha land along JVLR opposite to SEEPZ is identified for the depot. Even though this location is approved by the GOM and GOI, it is being opposed by the certain citizen groups .

Description


·30 Hectare

1 Km from SEEPZ

Land Ownership

Aarey MilkHanded over to MMRCL

Figure~ 11 Aarey Colony D-~pot Site

The Merits and Demerits of this location as observed by the Committee are;

Merits

• Adequate land is available and is already in possession of MMRCL • Land is available at terminal point of alignment which is recommended for MML3

operations. · • MML3 requires trains to ultimately operate at 90 second headway, for which

adequate land to stable and accommodate depot facilities is available. • There are no significant social impact or costs • Safe and Efficient Depot Layout can be planned • . Area in southern tip of Aarey- which will not impact interior of Green Areas • Work can start at the earliest with no additional cost

Demerit

• • • •

2,298 trees to be impacted, Including 300 Trees in the Ramp Portion Requires shifting of Pylon I Cable of HT lines Relocation of Water Mains Underpass has to be construct~d for Aarey Colony Road

f:

Page 129

,!..I. r_

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ........ - ...... =""'"'"'"L•f'" ...... ~'"""~·-""'~"=""-'"'--==-<'<>=~~h.....,._o~;-----·--·-~--"-~·~--

6.0 AAREY DEPOT SITE-FACTS AND FINDINGS

Some members of the Committi>e specifically visited the Aarey Depot site to personally review the site conditions, study the plans of the depot and gathered the following facts:

• The land is an open space area with numerous trees that offers a change to the congested landscape of the city.

• It is relatively a green site that makes up part of the important so called "Green Lung" of the City

• The area is not completely covered with trees. Part of it is grassland with a major MCGM water pipeline and a power line crossing the plot of land.

• The plot is surrounded by developments including an electric substation and a manufacturing RMC plant that adjoins it. The plot is also surrounded on three sides by road which has significant daily traffic.

• The plot is on the southernmost edge of the Aarey Colony and makes up about 2.3 % of the overall Aarey Colony and 0.25 % of the Green lung that comprises Sanjay Gandhi National park and Aarey .Colony areas. Following table summarises the land area.

Location Area Statement/ l)ercentages

Total Area of Aarey Colony 1,287 hectares

Total Area of Sanjay Gandhi National park 10,400 hectares Total Area of Aarey Colony and National

11,687 hectares nark Total Area earmarked for Depot 30 hectares Depot area as percentage of Aarey Colony area

2.30 %

Depot Area as a percentage of Total 0.25% "Green Lung" area

Figure~ 12 Aarey Colony Plot in Proportion to the Total "Green Lting"

"

\

J ,\ 'ii J I

'ii I

·~ !

1(1

~ I

,.; I

lli! I

~ i

~!

I

~ I

lilil

~ ~: I

,..1

~ J J J J J J '!iii

J J J J J J

.1,1

""· ... ... ""· "" ... ,.., ~

-· ""' ""' ""' .... -... """ ""' """' "" ..... ,,.., ... ,,.,

""'

!·.'

8-6

TECHNICAL COMMl'ITEE REPO~~.ON .~!!Y ~EP~.'.!°._ • ...,,,. ...... .

With regards to the trees and its impact at the Aarey Colony Depot, members of the Technical Committee had a walkthrough of the site and also consulted with horticultural experts to assess the real impact as detailed below:

• A tree survey carried out at the site jointly by official of MMRDNMMRCL and MCGM determined that about 2,298 trees would be impacted by the construction of the Depot, Station and the Approach ramp.

• The complete plot is not covered by trees. It is estimated that approximately1/6~ (about 17%) of the total area is covered by trees.

• A substantial part of the plot is grassland and an undeveloped area that is used as a grazing ground for cattle housed in the vicinity. A majority of the tree cover is in the eastern half of the plot.

• As per survey and the construction plans, some of these trees would be cut and others would be transplanted. The selection of trees to be cut or to be transplanted has been assessed by MCGM on the basis of age and estimated species of the trees.

• As per the original survey, 254 trees were to be cut and 2,044 to be transplanted . [Committee members were informed that for each tree to be cut, 3 new trees would be planted. Thereby, it is estimated that about 800 new trees would be planted and nurtured.]

• In consultation with tree experts and horticulturists it appears that many of the trees that exist at the site are non-~~tive to the area and are considered non-indigenous or exotic species by definition. Some of these non-native. trees that _are present in the area are:

• Gulmohar tree(93) • Rain tree(125) • Subabaul tree (270) • Peltopherum (49) and others .

• However, there are also several trees which are native or indigenous to the area. Such tree species that are indigenous are typically:

• Arjun """ • Pimpal

• Wad ~ • Umbar

• Bibba • Kadamb • Mango • Katesavar etc.

• In this regard, Horticulturists affirmed that the more critical aspect is to protect the Native or indigenous trees. It was pointed out that while non-native (or 'exotic") tree species are also important, while considering · transplahfalioh or compensatory program, only the ingenious species should be considered, It was stated that many of the non-native species can be harmful to the local ecology and at times may be of invasive nature as it does not allow local species to flourish.

Page J 31

.I.I. I

. ,,.,

' '

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ----------~-----~·~--••'•• ""••-"••- o"''""''·' ~~·-··-·--·~'~--~M--•···--·--·- .. ~H~~-~-.~-. .. --.. ~---~

• It was also brought to the notice of the Committee members that the "National Forest Policy" documents published by M6EF in ·1988 expressly states that that "No exotic (non-native) tree species should be introduced, unless long term scientific trails undertaken by specialists in ecology, forestry ad agriculture have established that such trees are sui~able and have no adverse impact on native be vegetation and environment''.

• As per survey carried out by MMRCL native versus non-native enumerated at the site is as listed below:

• Total trees_ Impacted: 2,298

• Total native Species Impacted: 1, 169

• Total Non-native trees impacted: 1,129

• Thus about 50 % of the trees .Impacted are of native species. Experts have opined that while the non-native species are equally il)lportant, it will be better if these could be substituted with species that are native and indigenous to the region.

• During this visit, MMRCL pointed out that they have already started developing for transplantation and compensatory plantation on an area of 3.6 Ha and450 numbers of trees have already been planted in advance of any tree cutting.

1;

"

\

~

~I I

"' J J J J

~ J J J I ~

.I ijl

-J J ~ J ~I J J J

.I fi

J J 41J

; I I

"'·

...

TECHNICAL COMMITIEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT ·-·-· ~,.·---·-··--·-~·~-"--·~· ··-·· ··-·- .....

Realignment of Aarey Depot ' ~·; ~

Since the tree cover in the area i·s· scattered in the presently selected site, the Committee desired to explore the possibilities of realigning/relocating the depot to such locations in the vicinity where trees 1w6uld not affected. Options were worked upon to see if these could avoid adverse imp~'ct on tree cover.

~i

The Committee also noted that a majority of the tree cover at the Aarey Depot is on the Eastern side or edge and along the periphery roads on the Eastern Side and North edge and; that the depot is occupyinfi this whole area since it is planned to serve the needs of the project up to the Horizon year 2030 and beyond.

I

The Committee observed that there could be scope to save trees, if the Depot is realigned away from the Eastern Edge and if the depot is developed for the immediate capacity requirement and an alternative site is secured in the mean time for increased operational requirements.

Based on this premise, the Committee looked at the fo(rr additional alternatives:

• Realign the depot Partly to the North • Realign the depot Partly to the West • Shift the depot completely to the North or; • Reduce the requirement in the Depot to save major cluster of trees in the eastern

edge and along the peripheral road.·

These options are elaborated as below:

Option 1 Realign the depot partly to the North:

• 2,000 trees will still get affected. Recently compensatory plantation of trees has been undertaken in the area north of the existing depot site. At least additional 1,000 trees would be affected.

• Plot size and shape does not facilitate optimum layout of the depot.

Page 133

.1.1._ l. I._ I ; __ I_

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT --·-·~-..,-.·~~~-~-,-"._,,,,·~·~·••- '• """' 'c••.~· .. ~~ .. ~~-·-·~'"'-"-~-~-.-·~·--'---,. ... ---..,...,_..,...~

Option 2 Realign the depot partly ,to the West:

• , Large no of trees still get affected

• Adequate and appropriate size and shape of land is not available to accommodate a depot and test track.

• Some habitation exists:in the plot which will have social and R &R problem.

Figtire · ·15: Recilig11111ent of Dep9t to the West

Page/ 34

"

) I ,, J

! J

I ' !

J

J ,I

..1 ' ii I ' I 1 I

J

j

~ J J J ~

I.I. I

....:.-:..

.....

""'·

...

.~

....

' ' ,,

TECHNICAL COMMITIEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT

Option 3 Shift the depot completely to the North:

• •

•

Very few trees will be affected . Plot encroaches upon land being curre.ntly cultivated by local habitants claiming "adivasi" status. During site visit, the local community seemed opposed and were aggressive and confrontational on observing survey by MMRCL. Development of this area can be potentially more harmful to Aarey colony since it encroaches into the deep interior of the open spaces and may give rise to more construction in the future .

Figure -16Depot shifted (!Ol11pletely to North

Page J 35

I J _ II

.1 .. 1. ).

TECHNICAL COMMlTIEE REPORT ON AAREY DEPOT

Option 4 Reduce the requirement in depot plan and layout:

Since other options within Aarey colony are unworkable for a suitable depot, the Committee ascertained that one of the logical options would be to reduce the. capacity of the depot to meet the immediate forecasted demand of year 2020 i.e. to service the needs of approximately 280+ coaches and to explore alternate location, say at Kanjur Marg, to create capacity to meet increased operational requirement of year 2031 onwards. • Committee asked the Engineering team of MMRC to modify the Depot design and

prepare a plan to develop a smaller capacity Depot. Original depot design is as per Figure - 17 and where Figure -·18 shows Modified Option I with curtailed facilities. Modified option I layout will meet the operational requirement up to year 2030.

• Preliminary design indicates that modification can saves at least 1 DOD to 1200 trees as indicated in the figure below.

• Consequence of this initiative would be that MM!,.3 project would not be delayed, at the same time a majority of the tree cover would be saved and a proper compromise could be made between immediate development needs of public transport and saving of open space and trees. .

• The proposed depot layout would be much srhaller,. In the meantime for future needs an alternative Depot towards Kanjur r.iarg could be considered by the Government.

1 O SlabJi119 Lirics accomr1iodated.,. SO rtrl.-c.~

QnMoir11.i11t_') 2298 Trees impncled c.ftlmaterl

Figure - 17 Original Depot Layout

Page 136

~I "' \I J J J

~ J

I

1li

J J J J I

"" J I

to'

J J Iii

J I

Iii

J ,J

.: I. I

--

_ ...

Modified Option 1

6 Stablin9 Lines accomn1odated .....

30 ra1'es Facilities for47 rakes -376 co a dies esti1nated 1072 trees bnpacted (esti1nated 1226 Trees saved)

Modified Option 2

' '

"i'··

.; ,, .:~ ...

Subsequent to evolution of the above options, a technical team led by MD/DMRC during· another discussion on new metro lines in Mumbai, advised that the Aarey Depot should be retained for proper and optimal functional efficiency of the MML3. To minimise the impact on trees they suggested double decking of the depot. They also suggested that the workshop facilities required on a future date may be planned in the Kanjur Marg by connecting through a service connection with the Jogeshwari - Kanjur Marg line presently under planning as a new corridor.

.fl' .

Accordingly, another depot layout for Aarey Colony was prepared with expert help of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation officials. New alignment has following features:

Realignment of the main line to saye trees Extension of underground portion ' Change in the orientation of depot towards land pockets void of trees or with lesser tree cover Double decking stabling facilities by creating underground stabling facility

• Providing elevated test track

Even though the initial proposal of DMRC was to provide a double decked depot with provision of-locating some of the workshop facilities in the Kanjur Marg, it is worked out in the detailed planning that a full service depot with restricted mobility can also be planned at the site without the need of further extension to Kanjur Marg. Detailed plan has been worked out with help of DMRC experts. In the planning.the tree cover has been substantially protected. The fol\owing are the key findings

... ~ •. 'I.' .,_ .... Page i 37

"

.1 .. 1. L

Merits

I I

F_iguri:) - ·19 ~-~od:"fied De.pot layOLlt !I

It is possible to plan depot near the present available land in the land pockets which are void of major tree cover In this planning less than 500 trees will be impacted If the depot is located at this site, the work can start immediately and there will not be much impact on the commissioning of the MML3 Relocation of Pylon of HT line will be avoided 1

Demerits • The new land pockets will have to be acquired by MMRCL

Marol - Marashi Road will have to be permanently diverted Execution of civil works and operation thereafter would be challenging in view of the layout of depot prepared in the available space. Detailed planning work needs to be carried out in order to verify that the above layout fits in the available land and if not, some of the facilities needs to be located at Kanjur Marg Additional Cost of Construction approximateiy Rs 750 crores will have to be incurred in view of double decked depot

On the Wider issue of the Aarey as a depot site, two committee members had earlier raised that there is wild life being present in Aarey Colony and that the proposed land identified for the depot falls in the catchment area of Mithi River. They feel that the making the car depot at Aarey will affect 1he water retention ability of the plot. In this regard the committee has perused the EIAfor the project. As per item 3.7.2 Page no 3.37 of the EIA, the report clearly states that there is no wild life. This EIA has been scrutinised and vetted by the JICA as well. It is noted that the area identified for car depot as per is a part of larger catchment area of Mithi river. However, the major portion of the depot is unpaved and will continue to allow ground water charging for the remaining run off, the drainage system for the area would be designed guidelines and would be got approved from respective department of MCGM in accordance with BRIMSTOWAD. The existing plan of depot at Aarey has already been dealt in similar ways and has received approval of the MCGM.

Page j 38

Ii

• ·~

"' Ii.

'i

" li

llj ~~

\I

' 1

l/j

1ii

i.

111

.. 1

J J "'I J I ~

\J J J J J ~

J J J ~I J ~I J ,.I -.I

.:.I. I

....

....

~-

.....

...

...

•••l

TECHNICAL COMMI'ITEl:: REPORT ON AAR!-:Y DEPOT .•. ,__ ····-··-··-·-·······-· ······-·--···. . ..

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

After due deliberation, understanding of the background issues and keeping in mind the larger objective of delivering efficient public transport project for Mumbai the Committee has arrived at the following summary Findings. Conclusions and Recommendations:

Conclusions:

Following are the conclusions of the Committee:

i. Mumbai Metro Line 3 is a criUcal Infrastructure project for Mumbai's public transportation needs. Government and Authorities cannot afford delay in commissioning of this project

ii. Timely completion of the depot is necessary in order to bring in the trains, test them and keep them ready in time. Depot finalisation and construction is always on a critical path of the MRTS project schedule.

iii. Timely commissioning of Line 3 will have enormous impact on mobility, quality of life and larger overall environmental benefits. Commissioning of Line 3 will help reduce use of private vehicles and avoid worsening situation of congestion and air pollution impacts for the community.

iv. Equally important is the aspect of green development and need to ·.avoid/minimise adv.erse impact on tree and green cover in the city. Therefore, balance between the need of project and on the impact on trees and the environment has to be achieved.

v. Out of the sites finalised for detailed consideration Backbay Reclamation site will have more environmental, social and administrative implications due to reclamation in sea, loss of 3.2 Ha of mangrove cover and serious R&R. Remaining six sites are not considered feasible on th.a basis of criteria discussed in item 1.9 of the report .

vi. Large open tracts of land towards Bhandup at Kanjur Marg does not have major tree cover and is considered a feasible option. But, the ownership of this land is in dispute and under various ·litigations with legal encumbrances. Such litigations and ownership issues need to be resolved to develop the depot without undue delay in the completion of the project.

vii. However, if a decision is made to locate the depot at Kanjur Marg, Line 3 will have to be extended by at least 7.5Km with additional stations with an estimated additional fund requirements of approXimately Rs. 1,700 crores. Extending Line 3 up to Kanjur Marg may delay commissioning of the Line 3 project if the subject land is not handed over to MMRCL within a 3 month period.

viii. An option is of double decked depot in Aarey colony near the present location. This option reduces the land requirement to 20.82 Ha and the impact on trees to about 446 trees if a full service depot is constructed. There is an advantage of constructing full depot at Aarey colony by double decking stabling facilities and with elevated test track. But the double deck depotwill cost approximately 750 crores more but would save trees and can be completed in time.

ix. Alternatively; the main depot with stabling and workshop of MML3 to be planned in the Kanjur Marg, with limited stabling facilities to be provided at Aarey colony. This Depot at Kanjur Marg will be common with then planned Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg.line. For such. an arrangement to work, the new line will have to be planned and operated as a natural part of the MML3 for seamless operations. Both the lines will have to be designed with the same signalling system as well as other systems of telecommunication and Over Head Traction etc. in an integrated manner and controlled by the same OCC.

x. All the available sites and options have their merits and. demerits and related consequences. Hence timelines of commissioning the project also be given importance.

j;

Page 139

'-·'·-"IL

. l.J. !.

TECHNICAL COMMl'ITF.E REPORT ON MRF.Y DP.POT

xi. The comm~tee is of the view that in the larger interest of the society and "benefit to the greatest number for the greatest good'' rrnist be achieved wtrile at all times ensuring protection to trees, open spaces and environment.

Recommendations:

i. In the overall scenario when GOM is seriously considering construction of Kanjur Marg - Jogeshwarl corridor and constructing a depot with lesser impact on trees, costs an additional amount of 7 50 Cr, the Committee consider that larger benefits will be achieved by adopting the following:

e) Construct the main depo\ of line 3 at Kanjur Marg by integrating Colaba-Seepz corridor (MML-3) with Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg corridor.

f) This entire arrangement shall be totally integrate\! with same system specification for seamless operations and implemented by MMRC.

g) GOM to allot Kanjur Marg land within 3 months so that MMRC can proceed with further activities.

h) To maintain the operational efficiency of underground corridor of MML3, a small facility consisting only. of 16 stabling lines shall be constructed within Aarey colony land. However MMRC will ensure that, this facility is developed on earth fill to economise on cost and total impact on trees should be less than 500.

ii. The committee further recommends that in case the land at Kanjur Marg is not made available for some reason, then the modified layout of a full ·Service double decked depot at Aarey colony as suggested by DMRC near the present site as detailed In Item 1.17 of the Executive Summary may be considered. In this case the project cost will increase by approximately 750 ·crores due to civil construction in extension of underground corridor, in civil construction of double decking and also due to elevated test track, but the depot can be constructed without any uncertainty and within the time schedule of the project. ,The .options entails a substantially smaller impact of only 446 trees, ana the Depot area is also reduced to 20.82 Ha from the present area of 30 Ha. Number of trees and .the depot area may change a bitsubject to detailed planning.

iii. The Committee recommends following measures, to mitigate the environmental impact to the Aarey colony: • Ground Water charging arrangements to be pcovided in the Depot • Plantation of trees as per statuary requirements of 1':3 trees for every tree cut • Trees above 1 O feet height of native variety of)ly to be planted · • Plantation to be undertaken by professional agencies only • · Annual audit of plantation by third party and reports posted on the Company's web

site • MMRC to maintain these trees for 5 years.

No.\:. \v-. O..jA.12.e.rt'lent W~ conc\u.s\Or-i,<; (V..., tx) "'"'! ,,,\\ ~ .. h<.CO"'"'"""'~"'o"" sl-o.t.,! ".'ocv ... 1',t .. .,, ... n.ef.v,. to -1;1\e / th/\..&.&. f\o\::f!.s o:\t~eho..l c:t.S A'nV'l4.)o;Uh.eS• ~/,..,.

~"'""' '21(. ~.,.-:_/' ~ ~:· 1Zfos{2.of5" ./ Dr. Shyam Asolekar Shri S. D. Sharma Professor, \IT Mumbai Director, DMRC

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Director, NEER\

·~··"-·.

. ..

2.~ Q_j ' tt.J,.k- lJ-fflA~ --

Sh~y Mehta _._ ..... ·S.hri U.P.S. Madan --//:.--· ... S:t1r~~~reer · ..... Principal Secretary, Municipal Commissioner Metropolitan Commissioner,

Urban Development MCGM MMRDA .Page 140

"

I.I I

-

-

' ' '

PROPOSED CAR DEPOT OF METRO LINE-3

(COLABA-SEEPZ CORRIDOR)

COMMENTS ON 'll'HE AAREY COLONY, GOREGAON SITE

13•h May, 2015 Mumbai

Mumbai Metro Line-3 is a critical infrastructure project for the city of Mumbai. It is also single underground construction projects currently being planned and initiated in the world. Consisting of 35 km of underground alignment w1d 2 stations-the Metro once completed win· connect the South end of Mumbai in Cuffe parade of the Northern End terminating in SEEPZI Goregaon.

The new urban transit System will provide a much needed secondary North South Artery required for the ever growing mobility needs to Mumbai. This new 011d modem Urb011 transit system is expected to vastly decongest reducing the vehicular carbon emissions for an environmentally friendly system.

The Metro Depot

The project was conceived and planned with the. assis\011ce of RITES (India) that carried out a comprehensive feasibility study 011d alternatives assessment of the potential project corridors including evaluating various alignments and locations for· siting the Metro Depot. As part of the detailed study, it was determined thai-the most appropriate site for the Depot would be the plot of open land located in the North end of the corridor abutting the NLR and adjoining the Relaince Power Sub-Station in the Aarey Colony premises.

Recently, certain concerns have been raised about the choice of this land for siting and constructing the Metro-3 Depot - particularly in the context of depletion of green cover and cutting and transplanting of trees in conjunction with pl011ting compensatory trees and nurturing them. In spite of that, the Metro-3 project will be seen as one of those developmental activities that has rather large and unjustifiable "environmental and ecological footprint".

In order to address these concerns of the general public and denizens of the City and ensure that proper due diligence and care has been taken in determining the Depot site and in its subsequent planned construction-a thorough review and secondary assessment is necessary by a committee of senior officials and subject matter experts.

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page I of 13

J_ I _!I

I I. L

TORs fo.r the Committee

The Committees is required to assess whether the Depot site selected for the Line-3 is the most optimal site based on a multitude of factors including , environmental, technical, socio economic and project time line. Thus, ti1e Corrunittee is expected to ensure the maximum social advantage for the City of Mumbai I and at the same time maximizes the benefit to the project.

Methodology

The authors of this leclmical note have adopted the following three-pronged approach and this note was articulated:

I. The EIA Report of Metro Line-3 Project was studied' in depth,

2. The technical team in the MMRCL gave a presentatibn on the project. It brought forward the ooncerns and view points of the project propon~nt - especially on the potential sites for car depot,

3. The viewpoints of the NGOs and citizens' groups were learnt from the MMRCL. They invited the NGOs and tried to understand the views of NGOs - in which meeting the authors of this.note were not present,

4. The information on the five proposed potential sites were compiled and presented in the Table 1 shown on the next few pages.

5. All the above information, secondary data and view~ were considered by the authors and their comments on the suitability of the site in Aary Colony were placed at the end of this

report.

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page2 ofl3

"

'

" ~1

"" ~I .. 1

J l<J

I.:

"'

~ "

~I ~I J J J ~I J \oil

J J J ,.I %11

J I

~I

J J J J

,1

J J J

h J _:,~ ..;

/;; "1c.;i \ / 1:,.' ~- ' . ~~"'~;, ·.

. l -&. ~1'.!r~-~ . , ! ""<?' .~ ~' <f'-5-1' .-; '-, \ -t ~4-~ I

" _, ' . ~ : '1 'i-1 \,'. r \... . . .'%> ' / _,• \~\ ····)~-, ~

'-~ __ r /JI,;].!!'~ . . ·~..:.::.;·~~~ ';' .;J \ '

) ) • ) )

Attribute

(1) Location

Description

\,

) ) J J ) ' ) ) ) ) ) J ) ) ) l ) ) ) ) J '

~

~

ii>

Table 1: Comparison of the five proposed potential sites for the Metro Line-3 car depot based on the available information and secondary data

Site 1: Site2: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Mahalaxmi Race Exhibition Grounds Mumbai University Aarey Milk colony Colaba Site

Course atBKC

It is a large open )> It is spread over )> It is located at the )> It is spread over )> Total area is area that was 21 Ha. The site is western edge of 1,287 ha of land. available in leased by the located opposite Bandra Kurla )> . The site is located excess of 40 ha. Municipal to Diamond Complex (BKC) inGoregaon )> Its located at the Corporation of Bourse with a total vacant (East), suburb of very end of the Greater Mumbai development and area oflO Ha. Mumbai close to metro line. (MCGM)to north of Asian > This area too, the North terminal J> Its close to the Royal Western Heart Hospital of along with a of the corridor. major south India Turf Club the city. station was )> Based on the mumbai region (RWTC) which )> This site is close considered and Detailed Project )> The site is hav.ing operates the race to Sandra (Metro) proposed for Report for the sparse and course. and Mumbai development of a proposed corridor, degraded forests The site is University Kalina Depot the land along of about 5 ha located opposite stations on the JVLR opposite to )> It has to Mahalaxmi proposed SEEPZ unauthorised Railway station alignment comprising of slums on the western about 30 hectare railway and is available. adjoining Dr. E Moses Marg of the city. The Grandstand of the course is a designated as heritage structure. 19.2

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page 3of13

, ) ) ; ) ·~ j ,-

__CJ

~

~ G

c

i ..

J Site.I: Site2: Site3: Site4: Site 5: Attribute Ma,alaxmi Race Exhibition Grounds Mumbai University Aarey Milk colony Colaba $ite

Course atBKC

Ha.

)> The site is close l> The site is in the )> Construction of :> Adequate area is l> The site Is very (2) in the vicinity of vicinity of the the Depot can be available for close to the metro

Merits less than I Km corridor and less at grade. setting up full- end last station from Science than I Km from )> The site is in the fledged Depot and l> Depot can be Museum Station station vicinity of less workshop constructed at

l> Rakes can easily l> Since MMRDA is than I Km, as l> Depot can be grade be placed and the Owner land station is constructed at )> Operationally its retrieved from acquisition can be proposed at this grade efficient depot from done relatively site. Hence would l> No major )> Rakes can be Science Museum easily not result in any complication easily placed and station )> No major "empty runs". involved in retrieved

__ .. ;:?::::::··~::.~ . _"-·--....:.: ->" -~ij 0 ' / ~""" . "1,...'· '·1 ..... ,

1(0 /1i~:(/l/1; ~~; 1_1 ,-:--. .. -t ~~( "~- "'. \\ '? -~.~"'lb~~ \\ ·--;..' . ' 4o )t,,:'~$.,,. \\ .,-".>· • '4:.."r1 'ii \\ • "Uijt__., -.:

"' 0 < . -· .. , -:.. .. '--; ·-~~·- ~~:!·~ .:,,. t·

complications l> Rakes can easily shifting of public )> Future expansion

involved in placed and utilities possible as more shifting of public ·· ·retrieved from J> Rakes can easily area is available utilities depot from either be placed and > Though its a CRZ

J> Operationally it is direction of the retrieved from alignment. area, it is highly

I efficient and depot. degraded and "

;

Maintenance depot l> No major )> Future Expansion mangroves are ., at this location can complications of depot possible encroached upon.

" serve the corridor involved in ifneeded. .. from Colaba - shifting of public If no action taken ., Bandra or Bandra utilities the whole land

-SEEPZand will become a

. ' future expansion to slum

SEEPZ/Colaba, in J> Limited impact on ecoloov as onlv


-€ ff L· _ If__~_· _,6._._ll __ tf?.____£':_~_, _€-__£_·· _1~1il:...._ __ /F..:.._ __ Et___tr2____&-_:____E __ *-"!___c __ 6it:._____J[_ __ €~~_2__~ ilK "" # .c.- ~-··-"'£__~-~""-" _.o!:

·'~.;·01 , • , , ) , ) ' , ·, ,. • , ' > } , > , • , ~ . . "~.1.-

~ t ) ) t ) ) , ~ ; } *

~ .· . ,· ~

. . / 'C'INDn;, H. SHAH ! ~ I 1i4AHA~I, MU/l{BA/ \ '.· '-:'. •. \ i!egd. v SJ;·r,~4 .. · :• ..

, 1 ; • •O, 4D,0 ' .... -. \ u;lc

'-_ .~~;~~~ --· ,_ ~ .. f)-· .,.,_ ~·

: .... : l.( .~

Site l: Site 2: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Attribute Mabalaxmi Race Exhibition Grounds Mumbai University Aarey Milk colony Colaba Site

Course atBKC

case it is decided to about 5 ha of land take up the work in with mangrove phases affected with

about 500 mangroves

)> Adequate area is )> Land is not )> Not enough land )> Land will need to )> Its a coastal area (3) available only for sufficient to to develop Depot be acquired from and would need

Demerits setting up a minor create a full- and Workshop-..,. Aarey colony and part reclamation depot -- A full- fledged Depot only a "Minor" Cow sheds, will and rehabilitation fledged Depot as and Workshop depot can be haveto·be of slums required to serve )> Constraint on constructed rehabilitated. )> May need special the life cycle need future )> Will disrupt )> Green land: it has care for mangrove of the corridor development of Mumbai significant tree protection or will require the area that has University cover which wi II compensatory additional area tremendous facilities and be disrupted and plantation. and disruptions is commercial constraint its adequate not available. potential expansion plans mitigation

)> This is a large )> Opposition from in an already measures will public facility that buildings close to congested need to be serves both as the site campus. This will adopted. Sports and

)> Is an important also result in cultural and event CBD area where

oppositions from venue for the city land prices are

affected of Mumbai, plus stakeholders the land lease

high-much of comprising its revenue is dispute will have used to student and to be resolved infraStructure academic body with Royal development and

and result in Western India further

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page S.ofl3

p i-

~

-a 0

--a

Sire 1: Slte2: Site 3: Site 4: Site 5: Attribute Mahalaxmi Race Exhibition Grounds Mumbai ,University Aarey Milk colony Colaba Site

Course atBKC

Turf Club, which projects in MMR complication in· has the patronage through land acquisition of several large MMRDA. It :i> Additional citizen groups and would be a major clearance will be locating the Depot loss of revenue required for here will face earning asset Coastal objections from which can be Regulations zone another citizen used for other . as the site being group. development proximate to

:>:- A major green and projects. Vakola Nala, open area in the falls in CRZ - [] centre of the city zone. would be affected.

:>:- The Grandstand -a designated heritage structure will be affected - .. -· .. .. .. - - - -

~~;~~ ·. I ~~

·r JAG'" ., ... , + ., riU'TJH · '; I '''ND11r~1 . SffAH \ ' l<JA1-1:::-.1. "~ !'. '"" ,_. "VTllSJn>.. _BAI I

·:. 1 Rega. M '""'1 * ! ·, 0, J11,~ I . ~ ~ !

").; ~ '?· ' r'\ .,.('' •• l .l ;,.. -p::. \ .1

during construction if at-grade or ab?ve ground depot is constructed.

:>:- The only option would be to develop an underground depot which is unviable. Underground


-~-~---·--------·,.-._-~_.__...., _____ ~----· -·---------....,~-""-'--""'----------""---- --·--~--~-· __ £ __ ~ £_· --~--=----· __ ,_. --~·

.. ,..>=~ .. -t;' .,..,.-~. """. ' .. :i. .~' ~.J 1·~· . , , .;.----~"'1. / .. "~J .~

,, .. _J-ic ' .. •? .. . , · · ·~wa "i!uJ! ' · A~

.• -'i' . ¥1-'.-i/ IY.·s. ., .... \\ · ?e "·'Y..i_,,,_/ Alu, C/'f/tfr \\ \ :90'. J\I, Sftrr.. '4!13~1 • E ,, .0.4_.~'t'/ ;,. I

'' ' '<Ki<. . ' . ··• - ,/ :._.~·.:. 7 r:<f~_j\.~' ..

-·~-:;·.;.::: ' ..

:>. ) ,

Attribute

) ) . , } .~ , • )

Site 1: Site 2: Mahalami Race Exhibition Grounds

'.Cou~~ ,.atBKC .· . - . . .. . .. Depots are considered unviable for various reasons of safety and commensurate impacts of perpetual cost of operations and maintenance.

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R, Asolekar

) } .) , } ) ) ) ' } , > .~ ~

Site 3: Site4: Site5: Mumbai University Aarey Milk colony ColabaSite

Page 7of13

) ) ~ J ) ~

c

~

a ~

::{:·

...?-~~:':'!:.::_-,

v'"' rt All.~:;". f',f.-.o r'"

?' fi~G"-\)i\ \\.Si\~ •i ::\ l . 1· ·~Ol'J~I. ~\l\A°" -fl \ 1.-~ \. ~s~ l '\ \ 11.e¢· ~o. t.Sf.'2 -q:; I

·\ r;'- S ·,_>'.'0-,_ A.._} ·' L - -<":'>. -.,,._ V'T 1-/". \ •· . '.';.

(1) Mahalaxmi Race Course

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Sltyam R. Asolekar Page 8of13

~ ~

----------------=------------------·-~~----~ =

-0 w

·----·--

--::...--

,.-~·;:-.,. '1 •'. -~ ... .-: ~~ '4:.-r" ~ ·~ of" - 11 - -;-·

~AGRUTl'H. SHAH I KANDIVALI, M~UBAI * L \ MAHARASHTRA Jj

\ -. • Regd. No. 4842 °"" /i ' . \ ''/• . ·~.'\. ~·/, --· .. .»'-. <"'iJ :._. l_,.,,..,..,.. ......_ ___ ~•·-~Y -··

·-, j · .----., ···-. 'I \ h ·,,_ -~~-;_~~_;;;:7

)

m:

) , ) , ) ) ) , l J , ) ) , ) ) ) } ) )

(2) Exhibition Ground at Bandra Koria Complex


) ) } ) ) .;t ) • ) ~ .)

~

Q

s

~ .. s ·.;.,1<1~· ~.~:$;

~: .. ~."O·;f A:>> , ·~ . . ....__ -~·i"' .

.'/ JAGRUTI H. SHAH ·.r .. * KANOIYALI, MUMBAI -. : MAHARASHTl!A

\. '.':) ~Regd. No. 48'i2 J '<r \...... /.1,,,~

0 ,, \ ,. z<..

'·-... ~.. ~-~· ·- ./ ,-... ·--;· ~.

~

(3) Mumbai Univer~ity (Kalina)

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page IO of 13

___.

0 \j\

.'f~:"-~

. 'i'i' 14· .. ' ' // -"'- . ' " .1 -\;' ' .· ' . .t.~ .. , ..

,/ . . ' " \

f/ .jAGRUTfff SHAH ;\ ii "' :<._ANOJVALJ, MUMBAI * p , i rAAHAf1ASHTRA /!

, .Regd. No .. ~'!'!? · """'./ \: "' ·' .. . ~· ... r :"-... 4 I , . :::;1~~;\~', ';·.

;,-~

·.if

l it

J,t.}.~) ) ) ) . ) t ) , )

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar

) ) • • , ) } J ) )

Page 11 ofl3

) if } ) ) ) >

-(2) ())

;J!'

}i,; ],

:f

j, ~~ ·~;

:;;.

~J·

~-~·-~.;-·-.' < 1.-.~ :

~~J.· //.i ). . - \.

/ - I JAGRun H. SHAH \ 1

* ( kANDIVAJ.1, ~EM/ * j i I /I.Mu"• ~-SHTRJ, ' , I ·~ llVTl'i ;-: () \ Reg;i.No. 4342 ~ _ ' 0~ . :.<~ ................ ......__ __ ~ .... ,\

/. () ,~' ·~ ..

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page 12ofl3

CJ --µ

--------'"--'----------------------------------.:c· '----"""·~--""'-·-__.._.,,_· __ .. ..-_,___,zy.. __ ~P--£•_. __ ,.,._..______~~ /1:: ~· e. £- Ar t!;;___t.l.,·-c· --"""----'#c{c· _ _,c~·--1~""------------------

.I.I I

. "" ~,.,; c t I .

""· .. ...,

f, "

' '

Closing Comments on the Aarey Colony Sfre

The area earmarked for the Depot is roughly rectangular in shape and is a total of 30 hectares. The location is in the extreme south end of the Aarey colony adjoin the busy .JVLR corridor in the vicinity of an electric substation owned by Reliance Energy. The plot is surrounded on three sides by roads and under passes and does not appear to be particularly entrenched in the co.re of any green area. In fact extensive vehicular traffic is observed in the vicinity of this plot of land that is part of the larger Aarey colony area.

> Aarey Colony is home to leopards (Panthera pardus) and other wildlife, a fact supported by various studies and media reports. The discovery ofLychas aareyensis a species of scorpion that was first found in Aarey and named after it also points towards the biodiversity there .

}> Proposed site.in Aarey is right next to the Mithi river forming its catchment area. "If the car shed is constructed, then during monsoons the water retention ability of the plot will be lost due to concretization and hence, all the .excess run off water will find its way in the Mithi, which will increase the risk of downstrOl:lm flooding in Chakala and the international airport area".

> The whole of Aarey is a contiguous green area with terrestrial biodiversity as also faunal diversity. It can not be easily equated)~ith number of trees but elimination of biodiversity. The possibility of such development iS'iikely to break the sanctity of the place. Though this place is subjected. to severe encroachment in multiple parts, its essential to recognise that this area would in long term will provide immense services in terms of biodiversity.

The authors of this note are of the opinion tl)at, irrespective of the site selected for the said Car Depot, the "compensatory pre-forestation" of JO times of the trees to be cut will have to be initiated at the outset at any site chosen before tree felling and construction activity commences. It would be critical to achieve 95%.survivai in the period of 5-years and any deviation from this would jeopardize the permissions and clearances granted to the project. It.would also send wro_ng message about the intentions of the Government, MMRDA and MCGM.

It does not appear practical to construct the Car Depot of Metro Line-3 on this plot because approximately 2,000 trees! It would be in't~resting to note that, prima facie it appears that the . Aarey Colony site will not be suitable for constructing the Car Depot - especially in the light of ecological damage it may cause on account of tree felling and disruption of catchment of the Mithi River. Weall know.the importance of green spaces in the City of Mumbai in the context of the disaster faced after the flash floods of261

h July 2005 and the escalating air pollution and other pressures on Mumbai's environment.

. ~c.;!Jv;,,._""' ~. __,___, .. · · ."if' · 1H~•l.1=!?.!.'~"--- -----·-··--·-" kesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page 13 of 13

I' ',",

II.

-

~-

-

PROPOSED CAR DEPOT OF METRO LJN:E.;3 . (COLABA-SEEPZ CORRIDOR) ..... · · · · .· i

L. COMMENTS ON THE AAREY COLONY, GOREGA()~ ~ITE I

Note 2 l21h June, 2015 Mumbai

We are aware of the fact that we are addressing the critical component of an important project and we .are in agreement with the following conclusions presented in the "Draft Technical Committee Report" sent to us on 9" June, 2015:

a) Undoubtedly Mumbai metro Line 3 is a critical infrastructure Project for the city of Mumbai and is a well-pla11ned and designed corridor that will be bring much needed respite to congested streets of Mumbai. (extracted verbatim)

b) The project has substantial environmental and economic benefits that cannot be ignored. (extracted verbatim)

c) The project has been conceived and planned fOr over a two decade-at this juncture the City cannot afford further, pelays in implementation of such projects. Any delays also have resultant Economic. E;~vironmental and Financial cost impacts that must be avoided. (extracted verbatim) ·

d) A Proper and well-engineered depor site is absolutely necessary to ensure safe and efficient operation of an MRTS system-both, for routine as well as emergency needs. (extracted verbatim)

e) Notwithstanding all· of this, and despite !he many constraints-Trees and open spaces at Aarey Colony must be saved. No compromise should be made. It is indeed a much desirable ecological endowment of the Metropolitan Mumbai.

However, we are not in agreement with the following conclusion stated on page 32 of the "Draft Report": "The only practical and ideal space available is at the terminal nodes of the alignment -· every other alternative within the city has some problem or another that is as critical as the tree issue at Aarey".

From the environmental perspective wc .are convinced that the Kanjur Marg site and the B~ckbay site should be investigated further . even though it may entail some delay and additional work. The Kanjur Marg site appears to be the best and Backbay site appears to be the second best among those presented to us at this juncture. It may be useful to approach the Coastal Zone Management Authority (or any appropriate Authority) and check the possibility of using the Backbay site. We. sincerely believe that the Kanjur Marg and Backbay sites should be evaluated and then we should take a call. The Aarey land is certainly not suitable due to its ecological significance.

c;9.J*"""' ~" -·-·-····---·--------- (J . Note from Rakesh Kumar &· Shyam R. Asolekar

£.~~ Page 1 ofl

.. ~

"

I.I I

-~·

-·--·

-

-·

l I o ' ' '

..

OPINION ON THE 'ROPOSED CAR DEPOT SITES FOFlf METRO LiNE .. 3

(COLABA-SEEPZ CORRIDOR)

Note 3 30th July, 2015 Mumbai

The following view is articulated by us, based on the comparison matrix furnished

by the MMRCL. We believe that the metro rail lines can potentially prove to be of

great significance in providing east-west connectivity and in providing services to

many poCkets in the MMR region - which are currently deprived of the speedy

and Well-connected public transportation network. Therefore, one has to also

have a futuristic view With respect to selection of site for the Car Depot for Metro

Line-3.

1. It Is clear. that a lot of analytical, technical and planning-related thinking and

surveying has been completed by the MMRCL with respect to the Aarey Site

(AS). It is also evident that a lot of thinking and detailing is yet to be

completed with respect to the Kanjur Marg site (KMS) and even the other six

(or seven?) sites that were rejected.

2. More specificaliy, In the light of the matrix and comments furnished by the

MMRCL on the two sites, both the sites look comparable. In fact, when

MMRCL provided further. det11ils on the KMS in the comparison matrix; we

suspect that.the KMS nearlx appears to be better (ecologically and from the

point of view of ease of setting up of the Car Depot) than the AS.

3. It is clear from the efforts ~~.the Government that expansion of the eXistlng <G :

network will be a continuous· process of planning and execution In the decades

to come. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that a site with limiting

footprint may not ·be a prudent action - especially from the long-term . . '

perspective. If the AS is .chosen, in addition to the environmental and

ecological Impacts, one would be creating a facility which cannot be

augmented, Improved or ih(idemized in the due course beeause all the

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page 1 of2

,,, ;

,.·,

' "·

( \ \ ' '

···- .. - _ ..... - .. -· - -r .....

4. The alternative configurali1;m of the said Car Depot recently proposed by the

technical team of the MMR.CL appears to need much smaller footprint (about

20 ha) at the AS llltlen compared with the earlier presumed footprint of nearly

30 ha. We sincerely believe that the remaining six (or seven?) sites, which

were rejected eallier on the basis of inadequate land availability or on account .

of potential logistic difficulties are not tenable in the light of the comparison

matrix on AS and KMS. Clearly, the efforts should have been made for

. bringing those six (or ~even?) sites on to the "same page" of AS and KMS

before rejecting them.

5. The MMRCL has demonstrated that the creative and careful efforts can In fact

circumvent several obstacles on the path of "business as usual" or appRcatlon

of conventional approach". They achieved· notice-worthy minimization of

footprint and tree-cutting while redesigning the configuration al the AS in their

new revised proposal. Similar rigorous . efforts for redesigning and

reconfiguring at the other sites could have proved to be of the great value. In

absence of such efforts, ii would be difficult to arrive at the informed decision:

In sum, It is evidentthat the Aarey Site cannot be upheld as the singular "best' site

for construction of the Car Depot for the Metro Line-3. We anticlpa'le that services

of the Metro Rail will expand in terms of area c6vered and also length of track

'hilen compared with the today's coverage. Such footprint and possibility of any

augmentation does not exist at the revised propos~d 20 ha plan for the AS.

We have communicated to you earlier and we reiterate it that from the

environmental perspective we are convinced that the Kanjur Marg Site and the

Backbay Site should be investigated further - even though it may entail some

delay and additional work. The Kanjur Marg Site appears to be the best and

Backbay Site appears to be the second best among those presented to us at this

juncture. It may be useful to approac;h the Coastal Zone Management Authority

(or any appropriate Authority) and check the possibility of using the Backbay Site.

we sincerely believe that the Kanjur Marg and Backbay Sites should be evaluated

and then we should take a call.

Note from Rakesh Kumar & Shyam R. Asolekar Page2 of2

TRUE COPY

~~· ~·-·ulani & c;o.

I '

II I II

J J ~I I

1;;1 I

"! "'I -..I

I

~ I.ii

JI ~i

J J J J

' J I ~

J J J J J ~I J ~

~ ~I J J ~

J J J J J

I.I I

();/ . ~ ~.:- .....

EXH\B\T- F

, . . ,

~: ~31ITTT-~~~t_.,fif.~.~O~-\!J 11"R fercF;rn ~

~~-m. ~ <l"''l't> .•• tjjj{M"l, ~'too o~";(. ~: ~'G, <Bictdat<, ";(o~t.,

;_I . II

(~) "ll\H'I< ~.

~ "1$1'1' {{ ~ fercF;rn ~. ~(~),~'too ot.,t

•

(";() &1ct{'lq1qfq;4 aj-cuf<"1Cfii,

~~t;r CfiT4'fti/H f<1f'42::S, ~ "ll\ l'P 1 < ~ l~9i:r~nn~:rCITTUT, ~-¥IT~. ~ (~). ~'too ot.,~. ' ·

.. ·" .

~ : Jj;at~11'w1 31* CfiTM'1\ •il{•1ict ~ ~ ~ 'M$f-~ '!'MIOll-~-~ <IT 0"'1•41'ni41 'CfiR ,gq)aj<(,:iIB 31* CfiTM'1'1ffiM $il:Si-q'1 m'Cfilft Cfi(041f!ldl q

44\ct{Oi{-q'I m- {(©04tfllo'I ~ cli<Aii"'lt *1f'411iil '3'\l\ctlMl"lt"la

~ : 13;.l'f.>r.~.~ ~ML-~ Car Depot Committee/Report/~(,,, fcr-:ti<.n ~~ ~. ";(o~t., ~'BT .

• 34'1.l<:ftl fcttl"lITOfla ~ 4'11"41 3i'fl•11i\ 311qo1m mt Cfioofqo41it liffi· ~

~fc!;, 4'1~11IM 31* Cfilff'll. •ff{•1ict ~~~'M$f-~. '!'Mlatl-~-~<rr 0"'1'41' 1\"41

'CfiR ~ 31* i.filM'1l11l<ri $il:Si'Cfl m-'Cfilft Cfi(04\f!lol Cf 44\6\{o(t-q'i °l\Fft <.i@o"llf!IJi .. .· . ·. . ~ cl;<>i<""ll '<i~ffl'tj\ ~ @1~'1M Wt4iR<!:fifll\ i/iif!•t1il "'l'F<r~ ~ :- .

(i) In the overall scenario when GOM is seriously consitjefirig ~on()trllction of Kanjur . . - . . . .

Marg- Jogeshwari corridor and constructing a depo_t witlJJe;>ser. •impact on trees,

costs an additional amount of· 750. Cr., the Committee Cbhsider·that larger

benefits will be achieved by adop~ing the following : · ·· · · · .. , '

(a) construct the main depot of line 3 at Kanjur Marg by integrating Colaba

Seepz corridor (MML-3) with Jogeshwari-Kanjur Marg corridor.

(b) This entire arrangement sllall be totally integra~ed with same system ,. . . .. . . . .

specification for seamless operations and implemented by. MMRC.

(c) GOM t<;> allot Kanjur Marg land within 3 months ~~· ihat MM~C can proceed

with further activities.

1,.!, I.

(d) To maintain the operational efficiency of underground corridor of MML3, a

small facility con~isting only of 16 stabling lines shall be constructed within

Aarey colony land. However MMRC will ensure that, this facility is developed

on earth fill to economise. on cost and. total impact on trees should be less

than 500.

(ii) The committee further recommends that in case the land at Kanjur Marg is not

made available for some reason, then the modified layout of a full service double

decked depot at Aarey colny as suggl!!sted by DMRC near the present site as

detailed in item 1.17 of the Executive Summary may be considered. In this case

the project cost will increase by approximately 750 crores due to civil construction

in extension of underground corridor, in civil construction of do lib.le decking. and

also due to eleva.ted test track, but the depot can be constructe.d w.ithout any . . . . . . ' . ' : ..• . ; . • ·, ' ,,: .. .' . i , ..• \';;. :• -:::

uncertainty and within the time· schedule of the project. The .options. entails a. . . . . . : .· ...... . -:.,.', .... •:-.... " .. -. ·.

substantial!~ smaller impact of only 446 t~ees, and. the Depot are.~)~, al~o ' . .. . . . . . . . . . '-" - " ... . .- ·- '.

reduced to 20.82 Ha from the present .area of ~O Ha .. Number of trees. and the . - .. . : ' . ..: .. ' '. . :· :·- ,,·_,' ," .. ' ,_,.~: ,':" .. ~";:

depot are<1 may _change a bit subject to detailed planning.

(iii) The Committee recommends following measures to. mitigate the. environmental . ~ , .. .-. - . ... . .. , .. ·.. . ' ... ·"; .. ~.,~; -~- .lt-1.

impact to the Aarey colony:

• Ground Water charging arran~ements to be providec! in the Depqt ·. c: .. ; .· , • Planatation of trees as per statuary requirements of 1 :3. trees for .every. . . * . . . . .. . . . -· . . -

tree cut . ·.,_ ...

• Trees above 10 feet height of native v_ariety onlY t() be planed ' .

• Plantation to be undertaken by professional.agenci!~s only.• ... ,

• Annual audit of plantation by third party and _reports· posted.-on: the.·

Company's web site

• MMRC to maintain thesetrees.for.5years.

o~. 34'1.iCffi ~~~~ -~ ('1;><'110\1-cOO-~) <IT J:tCfltyqR'IJJ\• ~ C!>l<'l4) •@.•I)"!, ~~ C!iR~~Cfl1"11*11J\ 71fui1 cl;~ef'!l1 ~fl'!11'11:1'1 ~14>1H1 'lilfH14-i:iRr·<¥J<ilU4i'oY':tf~J' cnl~cm;I cn<o<1111 "l!Tcft, l\Tf<RITT. · .

'l.OA LETTER ~o~.... ~~Oto. ~o~t...doc

"

.·

~ ·;it

0 Ii.[ ()

('-.\ I

~ 11~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r,,.i ft.tit ~ "' I .. ~ = = l1j !

~ l: I ..._, -

...., rn =

~ ~

"= .. = u

I -iJ "11

0 ... ~~

J! ..., ,'~ ~-11

" ~ :~ ... \) ' .. t:> - 'r .... ~ .... -1> ~ . , ~...- _., Q o ·~ )' _, 0..

.. °"'

' (·

~

lt ] I ~.! lt 1~ !l D

I

TRUE COPY

~~· \ Muia ni & C o ,

1 c .. ]

p ! 11

,, - -

r

.... Iii ...

• ,: I r-

• • 4 .. .. -~

EXHIBIT ... F1 ' l 5 ;:, ~

: I I

I -(

' '

English translation of original docUmi!rit1n Marathi 7__ L

To,

Sir,

GOVERNMENT· OF MAHARASHTRA

Nb,MRD-3315/Pra.Kra.106/NV-7 Urban Development Department

: Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajg.uru Chowk

Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 Date: 161h October 2015

(1) The Commissioner Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051

(2) The Managing Director Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Auithority Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) . Mumbai 400051

Subject: Regarding the report of the committee appointed for reducing the damage to the trees in Aarey Colony and tci prevent harm to the environment, in respect of Car Depot of the Mumbai Metro Line-3 Colaba-Bandra-Sipz

Corridor.

Reference: M.M.R.D.A. letter No.ML-3 Car Depot Committee/~eport/15 dt. 11th August 2015.

I have been directed to inform you in context with the above letter

that, in order to prevent destruction of the trees in Aarey Colony and

prevent harm to the environment, the report of the committee appointed

for the· purpose has been approved by the Government with following

recommendations.

(i) In the overall scenario when GOM is seriously considering

construction of Kanur Marg- Jogeshwari corridor and constructing a

depot with lesser impact on trees, costs an additional amount of 750

Cr., the Committee considers that larger benefits will be achieved by

./;--'°<"{ adopting the following:

/ t·~~ ~ lit \ ;/,L ~· ~ \

!i ~ <'3 S>' ,. \ ·.1 0 . ~-·~~ '""'\' ' ~ ~· t\, .-"'.I

il '2"! .~ ~~ $ 0 \: ,. . .. e ~"{'"' J.._,,. *, \\ ,.:r .:R ~ t;,~<>· !.::; }' 1\ '\'<·' ·~ <#' ' ....

* ""- ./ ,-.. ·- .... • '·~'-:,~ ( : .• ,-<r

"

~ { 6

.:.t. I

•"') '\ \..)

.. ; •:


(a) construct' the main depot of line 3 at Kanjur Marg by

integrating Colaba - Seep~ Corridor (MML-3) with Jogeshwari

Kanjur Marg corridor.

(b) The entire arrangement shall be totally integrated with same

system specification for seamless operations and

implemented by MMRC..

(c) GOM to allot Kanjur Marg land within 3 months so that

MMRC can proceed with further activities.

(d) To maintain the operational; efficiency of underground

corridor of 'MML3, a Small facility consisting .. cmly·.of 16

stabling lines shall be constructed within Arey colony Land.

However MMRC will ensure that, this facility is developed

of earth fill to economise on cost and total impact on

trees should be less than 500.

(ii) The committee further recommends that in case the land at kanjur

Marg is not made available for some reason, then the modify.layout

of a full service double decked depot at Aarey colony as suggested

by DMRC near the present site as details in item 1.17 summary

may be considered . in the case the project cost will increased by

approximately 750 crores due to civil construction in extension of

underground corridor ,in civil construction of double checking and

also due to elevated test track , but the depot can be constructed

without any uncertainty and within the time schedule of the

project. the option entailed substantially smaller impact of only 446

trees , and the Depot area is also reduced to 20.82 Ha·· Number of

trees and the depot may change a bit subject to detailed planning.

(iii) The committee recommends following measures to mitigate the

environmental impact to the Aarey colony :

. II

{ ( :y

. , .. , ,,


· • Ground WMer charging arrangements to be provided in the depot

• Plantation of trees as per statutory requirements of 1:3 trees for

every tree cut .

• Trees above 10 feet height of native variety only to be planed.

• Plantation to be undertaken by professional agencies only.

• Annual audit of plantation by third party and reports posted on the

Company's website.

• MMRC to maintain these trees for 5 years.

02. As mentioned above, appropriate action may be taken. as per the

recommendations made by the committee formed· for construction of Car

Depot at Aarey Colony, Goregaon, Mumbai for Mumbai Metro Line-3

(Coloba-Bandra-Sipz) Project.

Yours,

Sd/-

(S.K. Salimath)

Dy. Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra

Encl: as above.

Copy to-

. File No.MRD-3315/C.R.-23/UD-7.

J.fl:>. '('ani &co.

I.I I ·"', E,XH,IBIT -.~,

( ;.---:-' ~ ••

.-

-

MMRC Mumbai Metro Rall <:orporamin ~lmltetl

(JV of Govt. ·of India and Govt. of Maharashtra)

MMRC/ML-3/Car Depot/Aarey/16 April 1",2016

To, The Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, 4<h floor, MadaJn Ka1na Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032

··:: ... Sub: Mumbai Metro Line-3 (Colaba.:Bandra-SEEPZ) Car depot

: Approval of Government of Maharashtra for Modified Option•! (As enclosed atAnnexure•$) layout of car depot at Aarey colony Goregaon

Ref: Letter from UDD, GOM dt. 16/10/2015

Sir,

The Government of Maharashtra vi de letter dt. 16/10/2015 (Copy enclosed) has accepted

recommendations of the expert cominittee appointed for Metro Line-3 Car depot at Aarey colony.

As per directions of the Government, MMRC had initiated action for compliance .of the

recommendations of the expert committee. After vigorous pursuing and detailed investigations

regarding implementation of Jogeshwari-Kanjurmarg elevated Metro corridor & locating car depot

at Kanjurrnarg, following hurdles are obseryed:

i) The Court case on ownership of disputed land (City Survey No. 657) is still pending in Hon'ble High Court and status quo order not vacated; · ·

ii) Decision from Government of Maharashtra to nominate MMRC as Project Implementing Agency (PIA) for Jogeshwari-Kanjurmarg line is pending; ·

iii) The proposed car depot land (Survey no.275 CTS No.657 All Pt) was an active salt pan land and now turned into marshy land. General Consultants after investigation reported that it will take 18-24 months to achieve required consolidation of compressible soil;.

iv) Work includes shifting of high voltage transmission (overhead) lines & crossing of suburban Railway tracks at Kanjurniarg station· on .central Railway;

v) Additional fund requirement is about Rs. 1700 Crores which would take further time for project approval by state & central cabinets;

vi) DPR for the line is still under preparation from DMRC,

Considering that the proposed depot land at Kanjurmarg could not be handed over to MMRC

even after lapse of 7 months from the report submission and 5 months from approval of the

Government, MMRC Board reviewed the car depot issue in its 38ili meeting held· on 05/03/2016.

MMRC Board also considered that the second recommendations of the expert committ~e that a

double decked depot in Aarey would also have lot of construction I operational difficulties,

additional land requirement, financial implications and perpetual higher maintenance .cost on

account of lighting and ventilation for the underground portion. and due to sharp curves, etc.

Therefore the said option of double decked depot is not a preferred engineering soluti9n.

Office Address: NaMTTRI Bulld"1n9, Plot # R 13, E Block,· BKC, Sandra (E), Mumbai • 400 051

T +91 22 2638 4602 F +91 22 2659 2005 I; [email protected] www.tttthrcl.com

Registered Office: MMRDA Building, BKC, Sandra (E), Mumbai. 400 051

.: .. 1. J

.. ,,_- . -· -·· --·---·--·

\ <

MMRC .Board after considering various options concluded that the Modified Option-I , .•

(As enclosed at Annexure-5) is most suitable for locating car depot at AareY colony Goregaon. Th;

expert committee in its report had also considered Modified option-! iri para t.tS at page no:9.

This layout is planned within existing depot land already in possession of MMRCL. This layout is - . proposed by saving dense trees patches and curtailing some of the depot facilities that would be

•. ~., •. i. - . ., •.. ' .

required at a later stagefo the life cycle of the project. ·

Jn view of orders ofNGT dt. 13/01/2016 wherein it was clarified.that there is@ prohibitory

relief granted by way of ad interim.order and therefore locating car depot at Aiirey c?lony is not

affected by NGT's order dt. 20/07/2015. At the same time MMRC has already submit\<;<! obje(\tion

I suggestion to exclude car d~pot land at Aarey colony. from propos~d ESZ agOiruit·notiflcatiOrt

dt. 22101/2016 of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. ... .... . ,.. '.

It may be noted that one of the most. critical activities-for the successful deli\.ery of Mumbai

Metro Line-3 (Colaba.Bandra-SEEPZ) project is the co~truction of the depot .t~) ~eceiv0, test;

co~ission the trains to be ~ady f~r service whl~h ·may be subj~ct to s~rlo~~· d~l~y; d~e 'to·

pending decision on car depot. / _.--··.

It is therefore requested to give approval of Government of Maharashtra for irnpleIIlentation

of Modified Optlon·l (As enclosed atAnnexure-5) as~ depot layout at Aareycolony Goregaon.

for Mumbai Metro Line-3.

Thanking you.

En~h Brief note for information

Y ourHaithfully,

~J>.-:: ~ {AS~ · Managing Direetor, .. MMRC ... ,,

"

~I 'f~s~~ol ~?:~§ ~ . . o Cl) -- .:J:' ..... . ""'.:J:"~- ~ .. ~::;f~CJ:> ~~

\ '·..> ~ .s: ~ "V,:

CY' -.. : . .,_.-

-<' -I ~ :0 ~ ~ c· ~;..'~ . ~ ~, m 2 £....,

0 ~

() 0 "O -<

I I

(

~

"

(I) Proposed Area Requirement of Car Depot and Ramp at Aarey Colony as per modified option-1

Area of Depot and Ramp = 302105 Sqm. ------------(1)

Area to be left open A+B+C = 50863 Sqm. -------------(2)

Proposed utilization for Car Depot & Ramp (1) - (2) = 251242 Sqm

(II) Area for Metro+Residential I Commercial Development = 30000 Sqm.

- ·

--... ...

.... JVLR

Metro+Residential I Commercial Development

1t

JVLR

I \\;:..···. ': ~ .. ~ ~-~'\\ ~

~~ ·

, _... --

' +

~

I

I

N 0

I.I. I

\ .. · '.

. 9'ffilC!'11:

EXHIBIT -' '

I 1 .: )

~ ~-~ ~ :oITT- <Pi04lcft<'l ~ tcR;x \jffT)T

~· ~ w <P'i4H~H fu. <!AT 6'ttlic1Ra

C!J '{ o 4 ltl I J1 '16 '§>0 Cf . Cf'l fcri:rrrrR'r !>1<'41 fli Cl

C!J;{0 4 l<lli1Cl.

'151xt~ m wfi, ~' 9;ll:\6Qq'(i14 fcrctm:rq 'ict'46QC!'(ill( fcr'llT'T

mw!~ iP'iiC!J: \l\l'lttl-'.lo9\i/Sf.'W.'1\l/q~-9o lfRFf <ITT'1T m, ~ '(I \iJ '.J{<l ~'

~-\loo o~:(.

~ : 9<, lffi'!-;·::(09<,.

9) m~w.~:-'.lo9'.l/5f.w.9~\i/~-9o, ft".o9/o'.l/'.lo9~ ::() ~ ~ W- C!Jt4l~~t'i fu. ~ w.:i;:i'r.~.cITT.ful~ ~-~/:(\i\l/:(o9t,,

ft". 9l9/o:(/:(o9t, .

~ ~ ~~~ m >li/i0'41<P{\a1 ~oi' w.9 ir2T ~ $1t4'il&1{3ffi ~ <i'<11tl<i'1>ic\T<'l'

11t:ir 4'(\iJl'i'< if$;) ~o tcR:x ~ ~ "1611'1' ~ fcrctITT:r ~ 5'(-aia{)a

cp'(Ul(li/ixla1 ~ q q;'f ~ >IC'lllflia cp'(Ul(ICI 3Tlill 3!IB. ~ \iJl•l'llRIRCfrj ~ q

'(l"l(~ 11'(11 ll if.4 IC!x >I i/i <"4 l'C! I <ilm"'"I" CfCPTI'r CRfcr 'il0'ifl I ~ <!>'<111& 1{ f,\<fi ~('{Ol((f.4 I 3ljci 'II~

•m4"1Ai'f> 1actugif> 4;soolf.41 fcr.:('1/o~/~09~ ~ $\IM(Yl(I ~C\Cfl~ld ox<"lllj'(11x crfu;l.~o ~ V\l•'!Cl!R!Rctfl ~ tcR;x '1fl"TI"~'C[)['(" ~ ctcf>~ffq 'C!N(Cf ct tflit'J'll ctl4'(1Cf>RC11 ~ '161.1•1x ~ fcrctITT:r ~ 5 '("<1 ia Ra Cfl'{]Cft m1t fcf.tcft "'PR ~ fcr+l 1i11 m cl>a i/i '< o ll 1a 3Tlill. '1!.'.f:..<44?\'l 'il>lC:llif.413ltll"SJcl'iSitMl fcr.,;~/o:(/:(09t, ~ ;;JIM<"lll ~a<t>1a :offi"~it$;J

~~ ~ ~~w <P'i4lh11 fu. <rMT'JWfOft~ ~ tcR:x~~fcr'li1'11i/i;g \ . i5 x-a i a Ra i'fJ'< ""' 1x1 ~ ~ ~: "'1"l!a1 ~ '1C:'< \iJ Fil '1~\'C! 1 '>l'C'lls:r <IT<IT '<RX \ij 1 ·)ct x\<'l

3ITT".\R."<'lt. ~ 't\T ~ '<i9;o0ICI 3ll<"lllctx i'r, ::(09<, ~ ™1', 3RIT f.'ro\<! ~ 3llc'l'f. ~ f.'luYl11:J'<11x :mt~"'"l".'l!-w.9~ ("if'lJ 3TlfilT 9~ ("if'lJ it$;)~ tcR:x~~~~w cpjq'j{~J'l<'ll i!'RliaRa i'fJ'(Ol(j'(jJcft '1C:'< ~ ~ q 'C!"'i"fcr'l'!l'llC!>;g >lc-l!lf1:'iCI cp'(Ol(('(1 ~:

1'fRl'ClT ~ Olf ("<:a <rf'! ~ 11'(11 lf.4 I fcl'C!lwfR lITTfr. mf:rufi:r:

m m A u\1<'l!1flia i'f7'<"41'(l

'ISi i M 10 ~ 3NR "('[['1 ~: 'i l"ll ij I ~ 3l'ffi.

9) '1C:'< V1fi1'1~1~ iJ'("<liCJ'(UI, ~if$;) 3JR 4R'<1'<1~ ~ ~ +ij1lff 'tllfur ~Cl~ "li<fi~~~ 4lll~'<"I '<itjc;1~l\<'l ~~~·m<'R'l'IRP=rr. ~ '8fur ~ ll iui 1'(1+1'('( ~ 3l'<iM0 I 3T'if 'iP.~\i/:(o9'1 (C!1~ I Cful Cl ~fcro;v:; '1R<r '(j'(qJ I'< ii~ m >I i'fJ'< of\ >TI. ~ f.;'1 <"lil A ufll Ii'! I 3lCfA' ~.

.•. l.-.. . 11 -

1 .. 1. I.

. ' \•

=I) \34'!Jiftl wnUT~ 6lDIHll ~ ~ vtf?t.-acixl&l '31R&T"Ff~ ~*2T qlfill"'l

CflIIX ~ ~ <11'1 li\'1'<\ I f.'ro\<r~ fcr<J?rn ~ 1tUf ;in~ mfto?.

~'l!RR f.'rofu 'il'ff<I'); ~llfl'iltlll www.maharashtra gwjo_ l!T~~~ Cb'{D<Jlci 3Dill3Rfl'<'1ITtIT-(i$aitb ~o9f.o~9G9G009~'JO'O 9 3l'm 311%. ID~ ~"1~1CM x<'!T~ W~<ITT1'1' Cbl:t.O<Jla <ffi 3TIB .

. \:Jt;lx\');lil "ll\ill4\M '<Jiu:n 31\~~lljfll'< "if"'ffCl'R.

Dfgltally signed by il~f'..sh ';h_.-;gr~m Govil

R. • h ON:calN.oaVove111me11t Of Maharashtra, aJeS · }. ouzUtiderSi:cn:!tal)',posta1Code=400032, . 1 .J-' ',.st,.Mah<lrashlra, .

• {1, '2~.4.20..CS494JOb22Sldrtlc92783a2dal7~fcac:b sh a I 1 g r a m G 0 v:r, ... c7lli~BBfl56fca84433871fl l,cn .. Rajl!VI

, ,, Shilfgram'(;ov~

,,• /" Oate:2016.03.16 16;02:50+:15'30' :.~

{~~)

3l<.R: ~' 'i \:\I'{ I '5( W"1'1

:i:Rr,

9 . '\:\T. 'fEll'<!~. ~ ,,,.,,~ . . ,i: .

~. wrPf X11'<4, ~qCf'i' \q'11'1, \:\'5!,.l<'\<J, 'Tf'<, O' : m1'R ~ fl:f1!-9), 'Of'R fcr<J?rn fcMm, l"j '5! IM <1, ~-~=I. 'J. fi'i'llC?Cb, ~i)s;Tt<;J <iil4H~11, ~., ~~ f.l";t\'1, <!Tm-~~,.

~-\i'OO O'J9.

G: ~, ~fcrl>R:r~, 'CRafi, ~-\loo o9G .

t9. 31RlRtR1 'it;l'i'I'< ~er~ fi<llM<ii, ~ 'Hll"l'lx ~~. <ffirr-~ ~' <ftm(Wfl, ~-\i'OO O'J9.

G. ~' \34'Jll'{ ~'<!Tm, ~-\100 O'J9.

~. ~ ¢14$1{1~.31R~, •il~•1iCJ(Wfl, ~-G'J. 9o.f.rcRl'~~-9o.

TRUEC'OPY

rt~co,

". =\

II

. \. '

: I. I

EXHIBIT - 11, ' . ' 1·-•''l .!

English translation of original document in Marathi 1

To surrender the 3 Hectares land in Aarey

Colony to Revenue & Forest Dept. for

transferring to Mumbai Metro Rail

Corporation Ltd. for Metro Line-3.

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

Agriculture, Animal Husbandry,. Dairy Development & Fisheries Department

Government Resolution No: AMC-2014/Pra.Kra.54/PDM-10

READ:

Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk

Mumbai 400032

Date: 16'h March,2016.

1) Government Memorandum No.AMC-2012/Pra.Kra.194/PDM-10 dt.

01.02.2013.

2) Letter No.M.M.R.C.Ltd./Metro Line-3/244/2016 of Mumbai Metro

Rail Corporation Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

30 Hectares land at Village Parjapur in Arey Milk Colony has been

surrendered to Revenue & Forest Department for transferring to Mumbai

Metropolitan Region Development Authority for Mumbai Metro Line-3

Project, vide Memorandum mentioned at Ref.No.1. Urban Development

Department made a request that apart from the said land, no burden of the

project should be put on Central and State Government and apart from

above 30 hectares land, 3 hectares land should be transferred to Mumbai

Metropolitan Region Development Authority for metro car depot workshop

use and commercial use, in context with raising the funds through prnperty

development as decided in the· meeting of the Public Investment Board dt.

25.03.2013. In the meeting held under the chairmanship of Hon'ble Chief

Minister on 03.02.2016, it was decided that A.D.F. Department should give

in-principle approval for transfe;rring 3 hectares land requested by Metro

' I_ - •

.1.,1. L i.'


2

Rail Corporation for Metro Line-3 and the actual possession of the said Ind

should be give·n after expiry of R.M.C. Plant on the said land, i.e. in May,

2016. As per the said decision, the matter of giving in-principle approval for

surrendering the the land of 3 hectares at CTS No.12 (Part) and 13 (Part) at

Aarey, to Revenue & Forest Dept. for transferring to Mumbai Metro Rail

Corporation, was under consideration of the Government.

Government Resolution:

The Government hereby gives its in-principle approval through this

Resolution, to surrender the land of 3 Hectares at C.T.S.12 {Part) and 13

(Part) at Aarey, to Revenue & Forest Department for transferring to Metro

Rail Corporation, subject to following conditions.

'

1) Transfer of the said land will be subject to the decision to be given

by Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in the matter of Application

No.34/2015 {Vanashakti & Others v/s. Govt.· of India & Others) in

connection with declaration of the area of Aarey as forest and to

declare the area around Sanjay Gandhi National Park as sensitive

area.

2) Urban Development Dept. will have to take decision in connection

with change of reservation on 3 hectares land being made available

as stated above or to permit commercial usage there.

This Government decision has been made available on the

Government of Maharashtra yyww.maharashtra.g_~ website and its

Computer Code Number is 201603161600165401. This order has been

disused with digital signature.

Sd/-Rajesh Shaligram Govil

Addi. Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra

II

:.I. I


Copy to,

1. Principal Secretary to Hon'ble Governor, Maharashtra State.

2. Principal Secretary to Hn'ble Chief Minister, Maharashtra State.

3. Principal Secretary, Revenue & Forest Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai

4. Principal Secretary (U.D.1), Urban Development Dept., Mantralaya,

Mumbai-32.

5. Director, Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., MMRDA Sfdg., Sandra

Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.

6. Commissioner, Dairy Development Dept., Worli, Mumbai 400018

7. Addi. Metropolitan Commissioner & Project Director, Mumbai

Metropolitan Region Authority, Sandra-Kurla Complex, Sandra (E),

Mumbai 400051.

8. Dist. Collector, Suburban Dist., Sandra, Mubai 400051.

9. Chief Executive Officer, Aarey Dairy, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 65.

10. Selection File, A.D.F.-10

TRUE COPY

~M~i&co

1

3

'"

.i·i

EX~-HBIT ~ $--·-·

. I

Press Information Bureau Government of India

Ministry of Environment and Forests 06-December-2016 18:10 !ST

Environment Ministry issues final notification on Eco-Sensitive Zone in Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai

The Government today issued the Final Notification for an Eco-Sensitive Zone area of 59.46 sq kms of which 19.25 sq km is forest land and 40.21 sq km is non-forest land in Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai suburb. Announcing the decision, the Minister of State (Independent Charge) of Environriient, Forest and Climate Change, Shri Anil Madhav Dave, said, "After completing all processes, the final notification has been done. Now from its boundary, 100 metres to upto 4 kms, we have marked it. The extent (of ESZ) varies at different places taking into consideration its geographical area. No construction will take place in this (ESZ) area". The Minister added that the step has been taken with a view to avoid man-animal conflict.

The Eco-Sensitive Zone has a minimum extent of 100 metres and maximum extent of up to 4 km from the Park boundary. The objective of notifying Eco-Sensitive Zones is to create a buffer as further protection around Protected Areas (PAs) such as National Parks and Wildlife sanctuaries.

The Notification also provides that in areas around Housing Societies and with high human habitation, and in view of the fact that the National Park has a large population of leopards, a high wall with fencing may be erected to ensure that man-animal conflict is avoided.

Background

In order to conserve and protect the unique habitat in and around the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, a draft"i(otification S.O (229 (E) was published on 22.01.2016 around the Park as EcoSensitive Zone from ecological and environmental point of view and for regulating develbpment around the National Park .

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had received a large number of responses .from elected representatives, various organisations and agencies such as the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation and others on the Draft

· · Notification.

Taking these into consideration, an area of 1.65 sq km land for the Mumbai Metro Rail Shed of Mumbai Metro Rail Cmporation, temple etc has been excluded in the Final Notification published on 05.12.2016.

Due to its unique location in the middle of a bustling city, any new construction within ESZ shall be in accordance with Bombay Municipal Bye-Laws and Approved Development Plans and applicable laws and regulations under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and vide provisions of the ESZ notification.

About Sanjay Gandhi National Park

I i;,, "'I

.I.I. I

Sanjay Gandhi National Park is spread over three districts - Palgar, Thane and Mumbai Suburb and falls within the Tehsils ofKurla, Borivalli and Thane. The National Park is home to a number of endangered species of flora and fauna and harbours approximately 800 species of flowering plants, 45 species of mammals, 43 species of reptiles, 38 species of snakes, 12 species of amphibians, 300 species of birds, 150 species of butterflies. Notable amongst them are large mammalian species such as leopard, wild boar, four-horned antelope, black-naped hare, wild cat, jackal and porcupine and many bird species such as Lesser grebe, Purple Heron, Smaller Egret, Lesser Whistling Teal, Pariah Kite. Many reptiles, including snakes as Indian Cobra and Viper are also found in the National Park.

*** HK

TRUE COPY

...

"

I I I

>rf(r,

'

EXhHBIT ~ 'J I

':]

~: ~~::~~9'-J/>r.w. 9o&('+ITTT-~)/"'l"fcr-l9 "[TR" fc't CfJ I Xi fcr'+!PT 11Kfl1 CBJliT ~, §ct I c-'1 I x I \i\ '];~ 'Cltcn, +i?tlM4, ~-000 c,~~. R1iCfJ : ~o ~x'l•ix, ~o'I&.

• I

~ '{jtj\fc;) Cfl\

~~~ Cfli4'i~~11 ~~e-s,

~-wffi~.~~. ~<000 o'-j'I.

fcrt:n:r : ~ ~-~ arR Cfllt>S'1\ •i'l~•li<:ilef41 tt~qliZ\I ~14llx~ftilli!d

"&crlf : C4 Cl~ I q fcl> 4 'tiil I ft? CfJ I, ~ ~ ~ <isl 4'ih 1'1 ft?~ e;s "lfftlT R"liC/5 o9.o'O.';/o9& Cf :/:/.99.';/o9& X~"lltfl ~ ·

. '1!511;41,

' ' .

.

\34x'i1Rl fc't"l4ifcl>a ~ q?t\"<i~ ~ ~ ~ <fli4'i~*11 fc;)~e-s <rAT 3lR Cfll<?l'1\ ·n~•\iC! it'~CITT'{m~ lHdlfc'tct ¢M<r41 ~cfA' lWfl\qjq"j(i) 'tl)'CllRd

tf<!fu (modified depot layout-'\) \TllTi\T xi~qliZJI 3li5C!l<?llq"!M qRm.; ffi+!tq; '1.9'-J q'('

fc'ti11xfc't'i~ ii>MMI ~<m'f~Cj)['{~ ctiGlCfJ ct'S\Jll-s"ICfJxictl ~"!~&fr . . cn+fi ~ m ~"ilcr xi~<Rl~ erc>'l<r41 r.<~=1qi=1x""'*ft+rr'icfu;J qRm.; -~ ~ ~ ¢c>'l<r41

~:;cIBr CfJ'(Ul\\iZJI ~~ *llX'l1l"li Xi6'1q"i ~.

D:\YGDo~qq~q~\YGD o'do'l'l~\mmrdaletter ~o'l&.docx

/.::·7.A ';;;.""" ;?:~ 0 .(ij ,f> '

:/ JAGRUTI H. SHAH '. .,, KANDIVALI, MUMBAI ;,, ,

MAHARASHTRA I

. 3lTqc;)]''

~x't<il'S) Cfl&T ~' 'i 61'1. I'$:( :mx=R.

J. ~ .. Mulani & Co.

;:I.

EXHIBIT-,:··--~/

! .1

' English translation of original document in Marathi

To,

Sir,

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

No.MRDC3315/Pra.Kra.106 (Part-2)/NV-7 Urban Development Dept. Madam Cama Road, HLitatma Rajguru Chowk Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032. Date: 30th December 2016

The Managing Director Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandera (E)

Mumbai 400051.

Subject: Regarding recommendation made by the Committee appointed in context with Car Depot, Mumbai Metro-3, Aarey Colony, Goregaon.

Reference: Letters of Managing Director, Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. dt. 01.04.2016 and 22.11.2016.

1

The Government has its approval for the Modified Depot Layout-1,

which has been discussed at Para No.1.15 in the Committee's report, out of

total three proposals proposed by Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vide above

referred letter, for construction of Car Shed Aarey Colony, Goregaon, for

the purpose of technical adjustments in the said Car Shed and subject to

fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in Para-3 in the recommendation

made by the Committee with a view to minimize the cutting-down of

threes.

Yours

Sd/(M.G. Arsewad)

Section Officer, Govt. of Maharashtra

~u~&Co.

J,1. I

EXHIBIT - K I'(

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, dated 29th December 2016

Notice

MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966.

No.TPB 4312/92/(Camp)/CR-39/2012/UD-11.-Whereas the Revised Development Plan of "KIE" ward of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "the said Development Plan") has been sanctioned by the Government in the Urban Development Department, under section 3 1(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") vide Notification No.TPB 4392/4716/CR- 181/92/UD-11, dated 12th November 1992, so as to come into force with effect from the 29th December 1992 ;

And whereas, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority is implementing Mumbai Metro Master plan through Special purpose Vehicle Company "Mumbai Metro Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the said Authority") ;

And whereas, the said Authority has requested that the land admeasuring about 33 Hectare., bearing CTS No. 9(pt.), lO(pt.), ll(pt.), 12(pt.), 13(pt.) of village Prajapur and CTS No.2 (Pt.) of Village Vyravali (hereinafter referred to as "the said land") is required for Arey Car Depot for Metro line-III, Colaba-Bandra Corridor and also requested to change the use of the said land in the said Development plan from No Development Zone to Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied facilities and Commercial (C-1) Zone;

And whereas, the Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Government of Maharashtra, vide memorandum dated 5th March 2014, has accorded sanction to transfer the land in their possession bearing CTS No. 9pt.), lO(pt.), ll(pt.), 12(pt.) 13 (pt.) of village Prajapur admeasuring about 29.79 Hectare for Arey Car Depot and also accorded sanction to transfer additional 3.00 Hectare land ·from CTS NO. 12(pt.) and 13 (pt) vide Government Resolution dated 16th March 2016 for the same purpose;

And whereas, in the meantime the State Government has constituted Committee vide Government Resolution No. MRD-3315/CR 23/UD-7, dated 11th March 2015 under the Chairmanship of the Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority regarding the proposed Car Depot on the said land to study the alternatives for locating Car Depot, if possible and to minimize damage to the trees on the site if suitable alternative is not found and also to suggest mitigation measures to minimize environmental damages;

And whereas, the Committee has submitted report with their recommendations to the State Government and ·the said Authority vide letter dated !st April 2016 has intimated to the State Government that the alternative site is not available and the said land can be utilized for Car Depot by saving ·more than 50% of trees and plantation will be undertaken as per statutory requirements of 1:3 trees for every tree cut as per Committee's recommendations and requested to sanction Car Depot· on the said land ;

And whereas, the State Government is opinion that in the public interest it is necessary to delete the said land from the No Development Zone in the said Plan and to reserve it for Metro Car Depot/Work shop, allied facilities and Commercial(C-1)Zone. (hereinafter referred to as "the proposed modification" and more specifically described in the Schedule appended hereto"). .

Now, therefore, after considering the above facts and circumstances and in exercise of powers vested in it under sub-section (1 AA) of Section 37 of the said Act, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Government hereby publishes a Notice for inviting suggestions and objections

, I: L. !. ,I,

't ~ 1IITTA m amrm '1T'l l!"' 4'1<t>•I ~ ~. ~ ,~, 'O~l\fq\lf c, ~ ~~·G

from any person with respect to proposed modification, as required by clause (a) of sub-section (1 AA) of Section 37 of the said Act, within period of one month from the date of publication of this Notice in the Maharashtra Government Gazette.

Any objections/suggestions in respect of the proposed modification may be forwarded before the expiry of one month from the date of publication of this Notice in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, to the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, having his office at ENSA Hutments, E-Block, Azad Maidan, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001. Any objection or suggestion, which may be received by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai within the said period shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said subsection (1 AA) of Section 37 of the said Act.

Schedule

"The land admeasuring about 33 Hectare bearing CTS No. 9(pt.), lO(pt.), ll(pt,), 12(pt.), 13(pt.) of village Prajapur and CTS No.2 (pt.) of Village Vyravali (as more particularly shown on the part plan attached herewith) is proposed to be deleted from ''No Development Zone" and to be reserved for reservation of "Metro Car Depot/Workshop, allied users and Commercial (C-l)Zone." The Appropriate Authority for development of the said reservation shall be Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation limited."

A plan showing the proposed modification shall be kept open for the inspection of the general public at the following places :-

(1) Office of the Metropolitan Commissioner, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ,,,

(2) Office of the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, having his office at ENSA Hutments, E-Block, Azad Maidan, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

(3) Office of the Chief Engineer (Development Plan) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai 400 001.

This Notice shall also be available on the Govt. of Maharashtra website : www.maharashtra.gov. in

By order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra,

S. D. LANDGE,

Joint Secretary to Govermnent.

TRUE COPY

! ~-() Mwlani & Co.

ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING, STATIONERY AND PUBLICATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY SHRI PARSHURAJ\f JAGANNATH GOSAVI, PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, 21-A, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, CHARNI ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004 AND PUBLISHED AT DIRECTORATE OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING, STATIONERY AND PUBLICATION, 21-A. NETAJI SUB HASH ROAD. CH ARNI ROAD. MUMBAI 400 004. EDITOR: SHRI PARSH URAM JAGANNATH GOSA VI.

II

~~. ~)'° -~. , .... \ ~ ,4, ~r \

~~ (::)~ ~' 1' t-0, '~ ,r;s ~· -' .. .," -~' -<~ ~· . ;,.' .~ 0 I ~ · ·~ I

~;., >. 4-y f ' ,~\. "'?l'~'.

~ ~ ~J& c i~ m ~. . 0 ~ 0 g ~ •

P ('P U..R_ u~g about 33 Hecthre, nng CTS No .

·, 12(pt), 13(pt), of · ge Prajapur :) of Village Vyrava · iS f>roposed to be Development Z e" and to be reserve(J

of"Metro Car ~pot/ Workshop, alJfed ommercial (C-1

PREPARED BY-~

C HECK.ED BY- ~ ~ DEPUTY D IRECTOR OF

TOWN PLANNING, GR MUMBAI

PART PLAN OF K/.E-WAim~" l NCTWNED R.EVIS~-·.ED .. DEVELOPMENT P,LAN 0 ~~L CORPORATHJN OFGREATER~UMBAJ\F(>- R 19. 001. ~ - t ,,J/

' 'I SCALE ~ODO r. ' W ~ ~·

'j/ ' SHE~~-w-.io ,._,,./

Existing-0-ees .to-be ml}inten~

This pfallis1o ire-read with the Urban Development \lepartment's Notice U/S-37(1AA) of the M.R.& T.P.

l966 issued vide No. TPB 4312/92/(Camp)/CR-39/

............ ~r,:.'"l\

1oim Secrt:tary Urban Oeve:o~ .:m Department

Mantralaya. ~lumba i - 32

D-11, Dt- 29/12/2016.

--

-vV ~

'' ' EXHIB,IT~ L _,L , .JL

Extract from Final Report, dated March 2006, of the Fact Finding Committee on July 2005 Mumbai Floods, appointed by the Govt. of Maharashtra vide its

decision under GR No. BMC/2324/05 C.No. 97/UD-21dated191h August 2005.

CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAl'S RIVER BASINS

7 .1 ..... It is crucial that the developmental agencies understand the sensitivity of the structure and function of our urban ecosystem. It is well known that the green belts, gardens, hills, sandy beaches, sediments in creeks, estuaries, rivers, lakes, and oceans perform a crucial ecological function in a given eco-system. In addition, the natural processes that occur in such systems benefit humans by mitigating floods, maintaining water quality and quantity, recycling nutrients, and providing habitat for plants and animals.

7.4.4 "Ecosystem services" are not adequately quantified in commercial markets and are often given too little weight in policy decisions objective. As a result, economic implications of environmental damage and costs of degradation of natural resources and common property continue to be the "externalities" in our economic analysis. But the quality of the city life very much depends on the ecosystem status - weather of the landmass, water bodies or the air and the vegetation and biotic life around. Stream flows, ponds, river flows, shorelines, parks, forests have a great role to play in this respect. Hence their specific location vis a vis

necessary protective measures for them must be fully defined in the land use plans and DC rules, because they are public goods and it is the collective responsibility.

7.4.5 The "system's approach" and "watershed" based development planning can ensure sustainable development of urban habitat and security against deluges as occurred on 26 July 2005. We all know that the quality oflife in our urban settlements has been declining due to progressive deterioration of lakes, rivers, and coastal zones. In addition, it is well known that these small streams and wetlands have historically protected the communities from flooding (to an extent) by the virtue of their carrying capacities. BRJMSTOWAD report had provided a wel!defined catchment-based approach to the management of storm waters in Mumbai which was absent in the past.

Extensive tree covers are most welcome in the upstream zone in particular for reducing the flood emanating potential of the basin. Grassland and ponds are most welcome in the mid course areas for arresting the gush of water.

""-" /,,,.0,... 'l' A 1.::. /~~,.~

i/ !J'AG~UTI H. SHAH 1( * f :~l\NDIVM.I, MUMBAI "* ,

. ~ \ MAHARASHiRA j: \ C'.· \ Regd. No. 4a.2 '<:(:/ ; ' ,, . ,........,,, ~ /J

.. ""' \ct] :111.

Recommendation 1: First, restore the existing degraded rivers and river-banks to initiate recovery of the urban ecosystem.

2. To identify the specific environmental boundaries and risk-zones of the rivers, lakes, coastal zones; especially the areas that are important for Mumbai's ecosystem.

5. To provide vegetation on hill slopes, check dams and contour bunds for rivers at appropriate locations allowing for the formation of ponds to slow down the pace of water flow during the monsoon.

Recommendation 3: Rejuvenate degraded urban ecosystems including lakes I ponds, rivers, creeks, and costal zones Re-naturalization of river and lake watersheds is considered a better strategy worldwide. There are three major benefits of re-naturalization: 1) Native plants are typically hardy since they are adapted to the soil conditions and weather of the location. Thus, by and large, their demand of water, fertilizers, pesticides and maintenance is modest. 2) Native plants provide food and shelter to native wildlife. Given the amount of land that is being developed, it's essential to replant urban parks and even backyards, with as many native species as possible if we want to maintain viable populations of native wildlife. 3) Trees, green canopies, and vegetation are well lmown for their ability of dampening noise, barriers for atmospheric suspended particulate matter as well as improvement of micro-climate under canopy (by providing cooler environment and minimization of soil moisture evaporation). 4) Renaturalized areas provide an opportunity to learn about the natural heritage of our area. They provide enhanced opportunities for education and recreation for children and adults alike. In addition, naturalized landscapes provide a place of solace from our often too ordered worlds. There are many ways in which re-naturalization can be accomplished. Remedies that are practiced on large scale are: (a) Re-naturalization of riparian zones and (b) Rehabilitation of riverbeds and lake through phytoremediation and ecological

engmeermg. It must be recognized that riparian areas are fragile ecosystems. Although these vegetations generally have relatively low timber value, their important social and environmental functions have been increasingly recognized in management . __

. ~·

7~0TA;.~J JAGRUTI H. SHAH .

, ,,: i KANDIVAL~ NUllBA/.. ., ! ~ MNi>WSl'fTR . .\ . :, '·\ ;,.. ~.~no .. : ·" , ~·~ ./' ...... .'

·- ,':

.. I. I ' '

decisions. Some of the rational activities could be: (i) Focus attention on riparian areas (ecotones) since they are the "hot spots" of geobiohidrological interactions. Preservation of ecotones oflakes and streams ensures habitat integrity and sustainability, (ii) Re-integrate the fragmented riparian corridors to enhance these natural detention areas; and (iii) Recover the riparian corridors, preferably using the indigenous flora, which promotes rational re-naturalization.

Recommendation 5: Rejuvenation and environmental upgradatiou of hills, slopes, and lakes I ponds in Mumbai Region. The nexus between trees, vegetation, green cover, soil erosion, dampening of monsoon flood waters, siltation in lakes I ponds has been emphasized earlier. It must be understood that all uplands (areas above 8 m GTS) play crucial role in control of runoff in all the river I nalla systems and lakes I ponds in Mumbai. It is strongly recommended that rejuvenation and environmental upgradation of hills, slopes, and lakes I ponds in Mumbai Region must be undertaken to achieve minimization of top-soil erosion, enhancement of groundwater recharging, improvement of flows in rivers, and several allied benefits of improvement of the ecosystem. The municipal authorities should encourage ALM groups in maintenance and vigilance as well as consider.public-private partnership (PPP) for bringing in capital and professional management.

Recommendation 9: Protect and improve the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali The Sanjay Gandhi National Park is one of the most important ecosystems in Mumbai. This Park spans over 100 square kilometers (more than 10,000 ha area) in North-Mumbai and boasts of extremely valuable forest cover, biodiversity, and habitat of some of the endangered species. It is popularly referred to as "the green lung ofMumbai". Unfortunately, it is plagued with encroachme~ts and deforestation (see the.twi;i frames of remotely sensed composites showing difference of forest cover of 1986 versus 2002). Immediate action is required for protection and improvement of the National Park and initiate steps for complying with the requirements of our forest laws.

I, .• , l .. ·.II.

~ \ :.I. !.

Recommendation 11: Remove encroachments and strictly adhere to the Development Plan The developmental plan (DP) of Mumbai (prepared in 1982) provides for spaces for gardens, public parks, play grounds, recreation areas, and vegetation. Such spaces improve the quality of life of c01mnunity and also serve several critical functions in

the urban ecosystem. Free space per capita has been dramatically diminishing in the city of Mumbai in the recent past. In addition, the situation is deteriorating from bad to worse because of violations of the DP provisions. First, there is an immediate need to review the ground reality vis~a-vis the DP maps. Second, there is need to update the DP of Mumbai i1mnediately. Coastal areas, salt pan lands, mill lands, and all vacant lands due to relocation of industries need to be reserved for public use in the new DP - especially for gardens, wetlands, detention basins, public parks, play grounds, recreation areas, and vegetation.

TRUE Cr'.JPY

\,, ~. \ Mulani & Co.

EXHIBIT ~ 't1

/

EXHIBIT-- N

litO

Map 2: Emerging growth centres: Aarey land as an opportunity

N

A

futu•e Dl.."'f'clopnwnt

AAREY-~~--"'r--~~....:..-+-r-..=::-f!!---:

1977-----------i---~--i,;., B.lndr.l Kmla

Compk-x

191• Forti

6iJll~1d[dS1'11C---------.=""'*~_,

1970, ________ _,.":m N.lrhniln Point

------'====::::::.------------· ...........

EXECUTIVE SUM M A R Y

\

"'--....

\

-\ j

I ·-r . ._\;,

~ Legen d

' NolurolArcos

W.11Cfbodies

.,,__.,_,_, Railway Track I Stations

CJ Arco Under SPA

LJ Word Boundory

Page I xxi

Draft Development Plan - 2034

Map 15.4: Aarey an opportunity for creation of large public infrastructure in the Suburbs

' ' '

( « {

l

I

l ··-0

' I ' \ ' I co ...... o ·, ' \

.... '""::! ~ I I I

~

' ' ' I

' "' .. _,," ......... .- .., 'l'llNQ..--.< .-0-'-t

------ ... - .... '"', j ~~

Legend

Aarey Colony

e Cultural Centres

• Parks Above 8Ha

o Railway Stations

-- Railway Track

o Metro Rail Stations

-- Metro Rail 1 to 5

- - - - - Metro Rail 6 to 9

o Mono Rail Stations

- - Mono Rail

D Area Under SPA

Natural Areas

Water Bodies

LJ MCGMLimit

----===------·MC>n'ltlttl

Page 1284

\\A_v Draft Development Plan - 2034

Map 15.5: Proposed Land Use framework at Aarey land

.. .. ., ',• .! ,..,,,.,, ··11 Dltlll -" -- 1 CZnlml City Aoitc lS7.93ha 2£.55 llCDto.onl Clusta'S (2] zoo& Bomnklll G1nhn 41..Hh• uz

[[ -.... - 6LS7h• &..13

w spansc.entre 189.57hl U.79

TOfAl.llHJIEA1100Ml.ll<UJUUI. SK..Cl5ho ~

Amenhiu • Advanced/ Specilllimd "57h• &.40 r-no1eo..,....,.

[j] Advmoed/Speclallzod ZS.4hl 2SZ k-Cllmpuoes

Ill Social ond w.11> .. 37.llh• a.a lnrlltutlons

Isl lndoorll~rl'llenu 47A0h• 3.74 -[2] OslluralFedlilies 37.75h• 4.70

lOllU.INSTJl\ITlONAI. 212..2518 J:l..04

MIKUM UR.-..IR-menu, uz.Aho U.17 <Justtn ~ PUbic Amenllles, Ulllhles,

MUnk:IPal I Govt. ollkes Tt31nsporl llll'TS I E-W ...,,_.,I 84..4lh• &!f1

Artvriol-/ 1151' Oopot /Plftirlc

ffil Meln>OorShed(TDD) IL4lh• L13

.... ll:miil I~

MTHL Gateway node, Sewri

Due to the proposed Mumbai-Trans Harbour Link, the northern edge of the port in Sewri, occupies a

strategic location along the Mumbai connection with MMR. Additionally, in future, if in keeping with

global trends, the Mumbai port activities decline, this node would be an important anchor in any

renewal schemes envisaged for the Eastern Waterfront of Mumbai. As such, the DP envisages this

northern area of the port, currently under non-strategic operations, as an important gateway node,

which allows for the creation of new uses for the city along with larger civic, social, and recreational

infrastructure. Hence, within the spatial framework, the DP denotes this area as a strategic future

growth node.

TRUE COPY

~-~ulani & Co.

Page 1286

.I:!. I '

¥L---' \ L-\ 3 ' I II I · ' ii

EXHIBIT-0

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

ON THE

DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 2034

FOR GREATER MUMBAI

,,

Abstract

This document is a sincere effort by the members of the Planning Committee to

address the concerns of the people of Mumbai regarding

Draft Development Plan 2034

Submitted by

The Planning Committee under Section 28{3) of the M.R. &T.P. Act 1966

.!.!. L

4.10. ZONING

Suggestions were received from NGOs and members of the public for changing the zone of Aarey, by reasoning that Aarey serves as lungs for the city and it also serves as buffer zone for the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and therefore must be kept free from any human intervention. In that perspective, a new Zone has been introduced by the Planning Committee, termed as Green Zone (GZ) which will encompass Aarey Colony. Green Zone would be a large area predominantly with green cover where only a few facilities will be permissible. Those few facilities are a zoo, Rehabilitation of the tribals displaced from Sanjay Gandhi National Park and such other uses which are approved by the Government of Maharashtra with the permission ofMoEFCC.

4.14. AAREY COLONY Aarey Colony which is home to a rich biodiversity, has been proposed to also accommodate a Metro Car Shed, Theme Park, Zoo and R&R of displaced adivasis of Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Enviromnentalists, Resident Associations and many others have voiced their serious objections to the proposal to allow the above developments in Aarey. The RDDP had dropped the opening up of Aarey land for institutional use and other developmental uses that were recommended by EDDP in search of new growth centers. The Metro Car shed proposed within Aarey (34.41 Ha) was , retained with an alternate site at Royal Palms (89 .32 Ha), kept reserved for Metro Car Shed. The Resettlement & Rehabilitation (R&R) reservation was meant to rehabilitate the Adivasipadas from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Specific suggestions were received from NGOs and members of the public for changing the zone of Aarey from NDZ to NA, by reasoning that Aarey serves as lungs for the city and it also serves as buffer zone for the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and therefore must be kept free from any human intervention. The recent notification from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), u/no. S.O. 3645(E) dated 5th December 2016 has notified an area to an extent of 100 meters to four kilometers from the boundary of Sanjay Gandhi National Park as the Sanjay Gandhi National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone. The Planning C01mnittee gave patient hearing to all the concerned citizens and deliberated in detail about the proposed earmarking of land in Aarey. During the course of deliberation, Govt. notification/MoEFCC got issued eannarking lands in Aarey for R&R and metro car shed. The Planning Committee, after due deliberations and after considering the notification from Government oflndia, decided to change the zone of Aarey from NDZ to Green Zone where further uses, in addition to the proposed reservations, shall be permitted only after approval from the State Government with concurrence from MoEFCC However, it decided to retain the users of Metro Car Shed, Zoo, existing builtup areas within the Aarey and R&R of Adivasis displaced from Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The Metro Car shed was retained considering that the approval

I.!. I

for the location is already granted by the State Government. Alternate site is deleted and is included in Green Zone. However, citing eco-sensitivity of Mumbai, public outcry and High Court orders, Shri Y eshodhar Phanse and Smt. Trushna Vishwasrao, expressed their reservation regarding providing land in Aarey colony for "Metro Car Shed", while approving the other proposed uses

6. OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION This section covers the major recommendations by the Planning Committee Viz. Waterfront Zone in MbPT, an all inclusive concept of Affordable Housing, addition of a Green Zone for Aarey Colony. The section concludes with the list of deliverables by the Planning Committee.

6.1. MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE The Planning Committee as a part of the heating process also dwelled upon various City level issues which were raised bythe Public Representatives, Institutions, NGOs and Individuals during the process of hearing viz. Aarey Colony, No Development Zone, Natural Area, AffordableHousing, MbPT, Coastal Road, depiction of Religious structures. The number of suggestions and ·objections on these issues were quite substantial. These issues were deliberated at length by the Planning committee and the recommendations that were finalized are discussed in this section.

6.1.5 Aarey Colony Discussion on Aarey colony has already featured in the preceding chapter. However, keeping in view the importance of Aarey and that Aarey colony along with Sanjay Gandhi Natural Park has been classified as Eco-sensitive zone in the recent notification issued by Gol, the Planning Committee felt that Aarey Colony be referred in this section too. The essence of the suggestions and objections on the Aarey was to preserve its natural fonn, continue it as one of the key natural heritage and not to open it up for further development. The Planning Committee gave patient hearing to all the suggestions and took note of the sincere concerns of the people for preserving Aarey. The challenge to maintaining a delicate balance between desirable developments and preserving the form of Aarey and to protect the flora and fauna within the boundary of Aarey, was a very difficult task for the Committee. The recent notification by the Government oflndia declaring Aarey as an ESZ helped in determining the cause for Aarey. The RDDP proposal to set aside certain land for the Car shed, Rehabilitation & Resettlement and the inclusion of area for Zoo was also contested by many people. The major task was to retain the land use of Metro Car Shed within Aarey as it was racteristics of Aarey. Therefore, Planning Committee has recommended inclusion of Aarey land in the newly created Green zone wherein any use will be pennitted only after approval of the State Government in concurrence with the MoEFCC. This, the Planning Committee feels, is a major step towards protecting Sanjay Gandhi National Park(SGNP) which shares its boundary with Aarey and acts as a buffer to SGNP.

TRUE COP'{

~t,\, .

~Mi:;;~ni & Co..

l.l. I EXHIBIT-1

p I I

I

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI

No. CHE/13696 /DP/GEN, dated 7th August 2017

NOTIFICATION

PUBLICATION OF DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2034) OF GREATER MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 28(4) OF MAliA.RAsHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 1966.

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai is the Planning Authority for jurisdiction of Greater Mumbai as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter refer as the said Act. The first Development Plan prepared by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was sanctioned in the year 1964-1967. Thereafter Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai revised the first Development Plan as per provisions of the said Act and said revised Development Plan was sanctioned by State Govt. within period of year 1991- 1994. The last part of said Revised Development Plan was sanctioned on dated 4th March 1994;

Whereas, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vide their Resolution No. 767, dated 20th October 2008 declared their intention to revise the Sanctioned Revised Development Plan of Greater Mumbai within its jurisdiction as laid down under Section 38 read with Section 23(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, notification to that effect was published in the official Government Gazette on 1st July 2009. Thereafter the survey of Existing Land Use of the entire area within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was carried out as laid down under Section 25 of the said Act and the Existing Land Use maps were prepared and uploaded on MCGM portal as well as displayed in each administrative wards ofMCGM for obtaining comments on the same from general public ;

And whereas the State Govt. had thereafter granted time extension from time to time within stipulated time period as provided under Section 26(1) of the said Act for the preparation and publication of Draft Development Plan (2034) for Greater Mumbai. The State .G:overnment vide their order dated 20th October 2014 has lastly extended the time period for preparation and publication of Draft Development Plan (2034) upto 4th April 2015 ;

And whereas, Corporation by their Resolution No.1195, dated 23rd February 2015 had accorded sanction to publish Draft Development Plan (2034) and Draft Development Contziol Regulations (2034) for Greater Mumbai to invite suggestions/objections from the general public, as required under the provision of Section 26(1) of the said Act ;

And whereas, notice was published in Government Gazette u/no CHE/32596/DP/Gen, dated 25th February 2015, and also in Local News Papers, to invite suggestions and objections on the Draft Development Plan (2034) and Draft Development Control Regulations 2034, as required under the provisions of Section 26(1) of the said Act ;

And whereas, the State Government in U. D. Department on 23rd April 2015 issued directives to the MCGM, under section 154 of the said Act, u/no Vidhan Sabha Prastav/2015/ 9747/56/UD-11, dated 23rd April 2015, to examine all the errors on the basis of the existing site conditions and its merits by considering the planning and legal issues and accordingly, make necessary corrections and republish the Draft Development Plan for the purpose of inviting suggestions/Objections as per the provisions of section 26 by obtaining prior approval of the Corporation within the period of 4 month. The State Government vide their order dated 14th September 2015 extended the period upto 22nd February 2016 and by order dated 14th January 2016 finally extended the time period for republication of Draft DP 2034 upto 31st May 2016 ;

And whereas the Draft Development. Plan (2034) for Greater· Mumbai alongwith Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) were ·prepared and, Corporation vide its Resolution No. 307, dated 27th May 2016 accorded sanction to Re-publish the said Draft Development Plan (2034) for Greater Mumbai alongwith Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) for inviting

II

suggestions/objections from the general public as required under the provision of Section 26(1) of the said Act and State Government's order u/no. Vidhan Sabha Prastav/2015/9747/56/UD-11, dated 23rd April 2015 u/s 154 of said Act and cancelled the Draft Development Plan (2034) for Greater Mumbai alongwith the Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) sanctioned vide earlier Corporation resolution No. 1195, dated 23rd February 2015 and Published in Government Gazette and in local News Papers vide Notification u/no. CHE/32596/DP/Gen, dated 25th February 2015;

And whereas, under Section 26(1) of the said Act, that the said Draft Development Plan of the Greater Mumbai (2034) and Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) was Re-published in Government Gazette on 27th May 2016 and also in local newspapers on 28th May 2016 for inviting suggestions/objections from the general public ;

And whereas, Planning Committee constituted under section 28(2) of the said Act on 15th October 2016 started their work of hearing on suggestion/objection submitted by general public under section 26(1) at said Act ;

And whereas, as stipulated in the said Act, after considering the suggestion and/or objection to the said Draft Development Plan (2034) received within stipulated period, the Planning Committee, has submitted their report alongwith their recommendations to the said Planning Authority under section 28(3) of the said Act on 6th March 2017 ;

And whereas, Corporation vide its Resolution No. 393, dated 31st July 2017 empowered the Municipal Commissioner to obtain the sanction of State Government to the Draft Development Plan 2034 and Draft Development Control Regulations 2034 republished on 27th May 2016 along with the list of modifications or changes carried out by Planning Committee subject to the modifications suggested by the Corporation from Sr. N o.1 to 266. In case of any conflict between the modifications recommended by Planning Committee and Planning Authority, the modifications recommended by Planning Authority will be final ;

And whereas, as per the sanction of Corporation vide its Resolution No. 393, dated 31st July 2017 the lis.t of modifications or changes made by the Planning Committee (As per Annexure-A) to the Draft Development Plan (2034) and Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) republished on 27th May 2016 as per section 26(1) of the said Act, alongwith the list modifications from Sr. No. 1 to 266 (as per Annexure-'B') suggested by the Municipal Corporation in its meeting dated 31st July 2017, and the Draft Development Plan (2034) for Greater Mumbai alongwith the Draft Development Control Regulation (2034) is submitted to the State Government for sanction as per the Section 30(1) of the said Act.

The above list of modifications as mentioned in Annexure A and B is only for the information of public as per the provisions of section 28(4) of the said Act.

Mumbai, dated 7th August 2017. PR0/796/ADV/17-18.

AJOYMEHTA, Municipal Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

"

. ~\ (.i;b't 'ON riba~ \ ~- ';

, ~·iJJ.115 /bol"l•,'v, \ \ ' \1vawnri ·1 Nl\ION\t)j) ,, i

. ~/\/HS H tJ.ntib;/T /j ,_ /.'

'~ .If. // ~ ~q __ ,,...,. ~~- /;' "\~ c1t"r 'rf..,. "Y ~1 ~-/'.~,.. ·~;~,~· .. ~9~ .. ~.-~ .,_,,.,, ... _,~

lpo· L JOl 1:itiJJX"~.\£.[Ot~ O!!Jl~:'.\\£ NOU.: .. XIS IH.t.f"NVJ!1;\:(]

-Jc.··· ~~ P.l ~!\cl ti ol>Y, .lih.l<h ~.& QJllii \:~'12) I bN <H~ ft 1'ml. ;;a.&¥

=;zyill~-G-ittt-r§t}ffi\f>""j{. --·- -

?>l<h'>-$ ~~ '3'3c ~ b ~~ ~ ~ ~.ll 1-''l'l9(!hl>ltHil11

'J>.ltthf.?Pi'P ~!t (8) ::>I; hlW. m '3'3bb ·~ lf..P.l\1'111->

l?_ ~ '$.i),l\llt ~R,_ filut.~ ·~ 1Jill_ IJ'-[l<??I> ~ i>??i>f.<Q

~ \tl<P!!Jl-l- f..lnll?tJ .\lShlhil.~ (R£ol;) W1>11tt?tJ lnK-!?tJ ~ .hlhlJ5.

.(ajl1I) (8£oc) 1s;.p;.1i.112 ~ .b9illi 1111i.1rel;if\ l! lilil.6 ~ ~ Pl!?o'>-<1>

2.il-l:Wi ~ '3bol;"l.,"6)(:"~ 'tllrph~ 1fil c£?£/£-W>t,lj12J /61b/b'ob"!l!"Ji

/'P!bP?h / ot.l:tl<?fil J (·fl,:~) ~t>}t-ilp .".i_k"~flli "!J! .lili ~ 61boc"61"?b"~

blbpl1'1,j>!J?U?h l+Ull<> h;M J:elli 2'11'1)\lt ""'i:: ~ hltk '<Pf<?!f:>Jt T'Q".. ~ ... ~- . ~ . u

·1[..p.~f-h/'3b'3'3£i~/~.11·!11~~61boe:·t·b -~ J?-tW>'i?i~ -: it?µ.

-:£'o£ ~.l>.Th.2.1.B 61bo(: ffe bi:~ IP.'l'!fl'hl>ltHil!t

-:~ P~Q? »-pnbl~ .lJ:t ~ ·~ ™ ~ ,_.J?.Th.2.

~ ~ Jt?Vt;-'l>lt ~ 61boc ~ bi: ~ 1m<t>!i'JlhN•Hil1t

·<ot3b/L?lrH1::. ·!l!~.te. 61boc·rb·~-: ~

"61boc ~ kQ:~ ·~· t?E>!t?ll:?:llbf.!t\..l\lh

"lliH:t/ '),-g~Ji{"~".l:t :~ "?£~~~

ltbt-'(lb?.!t!t!Slh ~t!ft...!lf?

,8, eJnxeuuvr ; ,.e., ?il~ftlh

66'a6 b ~ b6 ~ ''a6 l.ol2lli" / 6\600 '6\ ~ '* W!t. Io"'" >ile JiliJ<il 1'Jiill;, 2ulifil>..

-8 'v1 )

:::...-... \-:J,

~,;-

I'

,1,1: I

" ~ 1/TITT'f ~ ornrtTRUT 'ITI'T ;Wr, 3iPm" IS, '10~1S/>mavr ~'<,''11'1; ~~'l~

(( ..

Jrl{Ilf!cClI <1111<Rtii1 <t>llllclll.

D:\MARATHI SEC'TJON3\Extrac-2017\Extract2017 .odt ~-

----··· ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING, STATIONERY AND PUBLICATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY SHRI PARS:E-IURAl\1 JAGANNATH GOSAVI, PRINTED AT GOVERNl\1ENT CENTRAL PRESS, 21-A, NETAJl SUBH.'\SH ROAD, CHARNI ROAD, 1'IID.1BAI 400 004 AND PUBLISHED AT DIRECTOR.<\ TE OF GOVERNl\IENT PRINTING. STATIONERY A.1\'D PUBLICATION, 21-A.NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, CHARNJ ROAD. l\1lTJ\1D.-\I 400 004,

EDITOR: SHRJ PA.F:SHURAM -JAGAi'\'XATll r;o"S.-\\"I.

'

·-- • .!_-J. -,

J ... .J . --- -~., . / =ti -,.. . . ,.

,./ .~. £: ffjjf \1($.\~:'~ ' $-$}~~ IO . r::-~t::: .::...."f -

~ :,;: .,,,,.u >"/ . I 'G ::;:J ii:: f_, />. I

/ \ 5':'. ;:I: - {

'Z~-{p "> .. _ -:;;-. :-·:;:;,;:;:;:-: ..

~ i~ ~.

~ ("') 0

-I ll c m ;()

0 ii -wrmta't

' ;fttjtfm- it. <lt.-tra.

31Rlffl'T~ ~ <nR"T

3~.w. >r.'f.'lT. ~ ' . fitomr am:raN '!•~V mfu;r "'· ~ii". ~ 3ITT'UUJ" iiGt'iiiiilifd ~

~3lml"T ' ,

ml< "l'lT'T \IT~~ 31¥ mm;. J"itj$<f'•d~41 31R)441i211 ~~ ~4jq{01\Ulf

(RT3.1> oll;T/$ITra..rr 1ls<rorr- Nr.i .llfu1!'f~ "'*· ~~~ ~icrnITT:Cr~<)S{>l•ldUll 6fur =~~™mm'f >1•$.,uifl f<l<mr !ff;[~~ (RT3.1) oll;T/$IT ra..rr 1)s<T'f.'J:,l!<. <Rl<r~~~~ "'*' F<l1'f

?o, ~i. Y~, ~~. ~ ~~~SF. MPS~o ,., "· '" !3~~3lffet:i<r• Wlruf<f<\_G~ ~~otofur . <<< *'-& ws~~.~c,

<Rr<r.lr - ~~!$IT l;or..rr 1)5')- ~~~«<ff~~m. tre:Gl"~'<li(t04itll8i ~~q:;"fu1 '! 3lffet. 3lfWOT<'Rl<r~«<I< !ITT!~ (GZ)>rcit~~- 3!$r «<1<!l>Wf{;ll;oq44,, ... ,. ~ ~~;\i;T"'*·

~M~<rttf<Wrwir 1Ff4'\lfoITT' ;;iffe. i

:

R:tr: H<i'l""H ~ 3ilfUr '"l\l1'1'H:q1fi.101i~ filllfil\'EI ~ q.,{cijq('l '5K qn:tRfct{'l>fi ~ w '"l!ll'PR41R11h~ ~ q.,{cijq('l !alfui:r am.

Note: In case of any conflict betwee~ the modifications recommended by the Planning Committee & Planning Authofity, the modifications recommended by the Planning Authority will be final. · ! '

! :

~

J ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~' <E ,., 0 ~

<E -.~

f,~/--"-:·( ... ,

.-4" ·I .

~

"' i ~

"" -"' ""

~

~ -"'

___..

~ '

1.1. 1·

EXHIBRT-

English Translation of original document in Marathi

Annexure-B

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Adjournment Subject No.38, No.MA.CHI/4562/MC Mahanagar Palika Office, Mumbai Date: 1" August, 2017

Ref: Memo No. NCT/9639 dt. 1.8.2017.

f 5 )

The following resolution was passed in the meeting of Municipal

Corporation held on 31.7.2017. The Resolution No. 393 dt. 31.7.2017 of

Municipal Corporation.

Ref: Letter No. PRA/ANINI/36616/Reconstruction dt.9.3.2017 from the

Commissioner.

"Approval may be granted to the resolution subject to the changes at

the following serial No. 1 to 266 proposed by the Municipal Corporation in

the meeting as per the provisions of Section 28(4) of updated revised

Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 to the changes made by

the Planning Committee or the list of changes in the Draft Development

Plan (2034) of Mumbai City & Suburbs and Draft Development Control

Rules (2034) published on 27.5.2016 in pursuance to the letter No.

PRAN/YO.Greater · Mumbai(T.SU)/Section30/Extension/PRAKRA/17 I

TPV-3 I 3832 dt. 18.7.2017 regarding final extension of time from

Director, Town Planning, Pune, Maharashtra State.

The said Resolution is subject to the passing of the same by the Municipal

Corporation in this house.

"2. Approval may be granted to publish the Modifications or

changes made by the Planning Committee in the Draft Development Plan

(2034) of Municipal City & Suburbs and Draft Development Control Rules

"~-i\ii~ ~ ~~~\\ "-·~~W\ +: \

,.\~~ ~;ll \,.. \ ~~·\Ill· /~ ' \ ,...,.........._ -~/

"

I.I. I_


2034 published on 27.5.2016 and list of the aforesaid Modifications and

changes proposed by the Municipal Corporation in the meeting, in the

Gazette and two local newspapers as proposed as per the provisions of

Section 28(4) of updated revised Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning

Act, 1966.

"3. As mentioned in the aforesaid para ( 1 ), the powers to make

correspondence with the State Government may be given to the

Commissioner for obtaining approval of State Government as required

under Section 30(1) of updated revised Maharashtra Regional & Town

Planning Act, 1966, for the draft of the Development Scheme alongwith

the Modifications or changes made by the Planning Committee and list of

aforesaid Modifications and changes proposed by the Municipal

Corporation in the meeting to the Draft Development Plan (2034) of

Mumbai City & Suburbs and Draft Development Control Rules (2034) of

Mumbai City & Suburbs published on 27.5.2016".

"4. A copy of this Resolution may be sent to Improvement

Committee for information".

Sci/-

. for The Secretary, Municipal Corporation

Administrative Officer (Committee)

Office of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation

I, L I


Sr. Municipal D.P.Sheet CTS Ward/Village/ Details of sunnestions I sub-sunnestions in Develooment Plan 2034 No Corporation No. No./Final TPS scheme Present Reservation Sub-suggestion Relevant reason for

Ward Plot No. in Development Plan for change of change in reservation 2034 reservation

266 K/East WS.24,25 10,11,12 Prajapur (RT3-1) Metro/Mono The plots of The said plot of land ,13, 2 Vairavali Rail car shed & No Metro/Mono Rail is open and is very and 9 Development Zone. car shed near important from the

Accordingly, the Jogeshwari- point of view of Planning Committee Vikhroli Link health of the

vide their Road (RT3.1) residents of Mumbai. recommendation No. bearing CTS No. and Environment. MPS 90 has kept the 10,11,12,13 at Similarly all the

reservation of Prajapur and 2 residents of Mumbai Metro/Mono Rail car and 9 at Vairavali and also various shed intact and has may be included social organizations converted the said in Green Zone wish that the entire

area into commercial (GZ). plot of land should belt. remain as Green

Zone. Similarly many a citizens are also

agitating to reta'1n the said plot as Green Zone in the present

conditions. If the said plot is included in Green Zone, it will not be possible to

undertake any construction there.

Note: In case of any conflict between the modifications recommended by the Planning Committee & Planning Authority, the modifications recommended by the Planning Authority will be final.

~ iJ c ~ c: ~'<~ m -·¥' n ~ - 0 0 "O ? -<

WS28

WS23

WS18

GREATER MUMBAI DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 2034

I

~ : - ···-t·• . f' --

{ ,; i i

(' I

i

L-·'· i

,. .. ....... !

,.' i. ! -·-·-

L-,.no . ~ ---· ~ ~-=--· ii ;=-:. -~ =~ .. --- .-:;; ..

i ·- - -- • ::: == ::' ii :. --·--.... ---··· --·-·-·- -

ii"E .-•. --- - -- El : .. - -·-·-- • =: ~..;_

····--.. ... _.,_ - ..... _,_

.... ·- -- ..,_ ._ - · --- · - - __ .. ____ ,._ ... ___ ,,. ____ ,._ . . ...... _,._ - . -· · - ·-----... -, ..... -... ---~I7:..~£:;:=.t~~~ .. ~-.;.:;.;.:,:_::;:.:.:~:::~::.--?~~~~-~!7.~§~

WS19

·-· ---· ___ ..,_ -... ___ ......

• f""-

·-=- -- -· =: ~-:: -- ! ---- :::J • . __ _

:::i-·--ii =: ==-•1: -_, ---- ....

~ -.... ···- .., ----ii"- ~ ·-·--..... ~ -·-··--. - ....,_ --·· .. -. -- -· ·---·-

WESTERN SUBURBS - WARD : KE & PS - WS 24

• =~-

- --·-·" ----- -~------·· .. ----·-···----CJ -·

-... -.. ~ -~-

~

. .............

.. ........... - i

~ . -...... ......-__ .. --

ws 30

WS20

_ .. ,

~ ~ ~~~

-----.- .... ,1--..-·· ··- .. ..-... _ ~~~ .. ......-~'"'

.~~~£~~-E~ l~·c,. ,*•·-.. - -·--·· ··-i:;..:. ._._.,. ..... _ _ ...-:· • ... .. :.r.1 .............. _ ........... __ ...... . .,,, ... i-.--..... ~- ·--.. ~· F.:7:::....--;:;;.;.:.:.;::~::.~·--.-· 1 ,_ , ..... ,_. ..... -...... ---.. -· .. -_ ..... _ ,,,_ • • ,.. .. wtic. .. __ , , ... ;•• i • ·---·· ,._ .... ., .... - ... ....... . ·- -·-· .. .. --°"'""'""'~"' - .. ¢·• ...... .. ........,_ ,,. .... ...... _ .... ~ ...... _..,,. -·-.. ________ _ _ ..__ ... __ _ ~-~-~.::;:..-;:::;;:..~--·-·--··--''" _,.i•c--,_ ... , ... _""'"' ' " "'""'' ... _ .. _ ... .,. .... _, ... __ .. __ ... _ ... .:.... .. ~-- ....... _. ....... . -...... --............. _, .... ,,.,, .. .. . ...--. .. -~ .. .. ._ .... , __ .. .,..._ ...... _,_ ... ,. ..... ._ .. _ ........ .. _ ....... .

177 >< :r: -OJ ---f

1

~ ~

~

\./~ _s:-

1.1. I

r. /'\ •'\

SIB 'ill~\41''lklr:

£XH1a1r .-R . I l

11- .I' •

fei<lilti 4l"1HRdt Wi ~ ti•wh1 fa<liAA~~ ';:f. <!Huliiii<ild.

11ijm '?< w~P.!1'6 f.:t4lW'I er "'FR' 0Af ~. ~~G~ ;ft ~ '{..._'15 ~ f.:nm.

4ijl{I "$\ -mwr 1"ftR fotC6m ~.

~.1'5T41' ~. ~i'll<""ll ~1"1'1'!' .; 43lt(l5'4, ~ )$00 0 ll~.

~F!uT<:r ~: fecftl{ti-~~~19/~-19'15/~19/.'tfu-~:i ~ :~ll ~. l?0~\9.

, Zl i:rr.l:J:&..r·#. <ii~ {lf,1,~. \J i:rr.~"'IT.rir 0rcr> 11i,) 1F-'fTir ·Hf<icr. ~) WTR ~or r'1ftr-Z) 'iTK fo<f>P:f Pl">TI'1, ~- '1;0lt. >: J 'flf<!r..r. Cf"l \'Erlwr, r.hrrA<i, •j;..r-{.

"

,Ii.IL L _I ------L- - _J __ _

'-\) *1iilMCfl, "PK~, 4t>l\I~ ~. -g;rit. /-("~j'i[ fcA"fil Cfl{U<q$i "iffi <ITT, ~ ~ "fITT" 1:'CR"f {jtj\l'J'ii<"f<Jlil\I

www.\lJp.m;illarnshtra.go_y.ju !lf "1cillill~2'C!{ ~ ~ Cfl{04k1 ~. ~ lIT&IT mfr~ fi~fticti'il ~ i116!Jl(i.

I'$~ f.:i4)"1'1<r>I\, 41$1{!~ :a:iliiiPICfl fi;m;m 14!!14:Sro, ~. 1.9) zji11,1Cfl &rrm.n1R:rcr ffTR~, ~fi:rCflrafErnrir, 4>1k'14, ~· C) W {iiilMCfl<l2IT~"f!R:rcr f[TR~, qmfi;m;mfErnrir, G'11<"14, ~. 9,) W <iiilMCfl, "fITT" ~. oiJ:J\>iiil"ilCJOO q;ey / "J><'4i"11'1 /'3}i) /cITTCflul /~~I 0i'1{l11ii!I<\

I :a:i11<1ciffi fcrlW! Z o) fcrl1J1iP:r ~. -g;rit I cITTCflul I ~ ~ I d'i{111Gl l<\ I <BJ:J{lckll fErnrir. ZZ) ~. 'flCf J:Jf)H'Rqlfl."1¥1. Z~) ~.TCflffi,~~. Z'}) 'flCf 4t>H' R ~fi;m;m ~. Z't) ~er :a:ihilli1C!i fi;m;m 4t> 14sro, ~~. Zt..,) mIT4'!i fiiilM<:fl, '¥R'0RT /'¥R' <ii'ilC!il\, ~'lITTm Cfll4l\>iil, "fITT""{i:FITfErnrir.

~<.,) ~' 'f!Cf '1'1\41lMCfll/'¥R~. Zl.9) Wif ~ f!'fcr-~9,), '<JTR'fi;m;mfcrlWI, '4>111."l'Y, ~·

/- i'<lRr fcFi<ft tji{U4 i\i iffi CfIT, ~ RW fcriwni4T Ciii!"d I ~2'CJOIT~l~ <!'RI tjfj. ~C) ~ ~. i:nWfilcr~fErnrir, 4:>Jil."14, ~.

1- i'<lRrfcA"fil <P<""Ylct -iffi<ITT, ~m Wlil'ililll tjii\liJt~c.ci< ~~. Z9>) 31Cr{ "f!R:rcr, -;:ffer-~ Z /-;:ffer-~;i /-;:ffer-'}o. \o) Wif ~. -;:ffer-~ 1-;:ffer-z\. ~Z) f.:Jct:S'iIBJ f!'fcr-Z'}),

TRUE co?V

~f\-S ~l\11ulani & Co.

.I.I. I __ IL, __ ;. ' 1 .I··-·, _.I.I

Translation from Marathi

Regarding non inclnsion of the Forest Zone in the developing area in Development Scheme Directions under section 154 of Maharashtra Regional Planning & Town Planning Act, 1966

Maharashtra Government Urban Development Department

Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Raj Guru Chowk, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

GR No: TPS-17/Anou No.-74/17/UD-13 Dated: 23rd August, 2017

Development Schemes are being prepared for the districts for

regional scheme as well as for Area of Operations of the Planning

Authorities. It is not permissible to use the Forest Zone for non-forest

purposes without the permission of the Central Government as per the

provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since the forest zone has

been included in developing area in Regional Scheme I Development Plan,

the legal status of the forest does not change. Taking into consideration

these facts it is necessary to show the use of the forest zone as merely a

forest land while preparing regional scheme as well as development

scheme. All the Regional Planning Boards, Planning Authorities as well as

Special Planning Authorities are being directed as per Section 154 of

Maharashtra Regional Planning & Town Planning Act, 1966, as follows:-

DIRECTION

It is obligatory to show the use of the forest zone as merely a forest

land while preparing regional scheme through Regional Planning Boards as

well as while preparing Development scheme through Planning Authority I

Special Planning Authority. No reservation may be shown on this land i:-

without No Objection Certificate from the Forest Department. This aspect

may therefore be strictly followed by all the concerned while preparing

regional scheme as well as development scheme.

By Order and in the name of Governor of Maharashtra

Sd/-

.;.It.I~. ·~

(R.M.Pawar) Under Secretary, Maharashtra Government

Copy for information:

1) Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister 2) Private Secretary ofHon'ble Minister of State (UD) 3) Principal Secretary (UD-1) Urban Development Dept,

Mantralay, Mumbai . 4) Secretary Forest Department, Mantralay, Mumbai 5) Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune

!- he is requested that the said directions may also be displayed on the website www.dtp.maharashtra.gov.in of Town Planning Directorate. Similarly copies of the same may be sent to all the concerned.

6) Chief Planner, MIDC, Mumbai 7) Director & Jt. Secretary (Town Planning), Urban Development Dept,

Mantralay, Mumbai. 8) Jt. Director & Jt. Secretary (Town Planning), Urban Development Dept,

Mantralay, Mumbai. 9) Jt. Director, Town Planning & Enforcement Section I Valuation I

Pune/Konkan/ Nashik/Nagpur/ Aurangabad/Amravati Division. lO)Divisional Commissioner Pline/ Konkan/ Nashik /Nagpur /Aurangabad

I Amravati Division. 11) Commissioners of all the Municipal Corporations. 12) District Collectors of all the districts. 13)All the Metropolitan Regional Development Authorities. 14) CIDCO, Navi Mumbai 15) Assistant Director, Town Planning I Town Planner, all branch offices,

Town Planning Department 16) Chief Officers of all the Municipalities I Municipal councils 17) Desk Officer (UD-29), Urban Development Dept, Mantralya, Mumbai.

- he is requested that the said directions may be displayed on the website of the department

18) Desk Officer, Infonnation & Technology Dept, Mantralya, Mmnbai. - he is requested that the said directions may be displayed on the

website of the Government. 19) Under Secretary, UD-ll/UD-13/UD-30 20) Desk Officer, UD-9/UD-12 21) Selection File (UD-13)

TRUE COPY

~ t ~v'lulani & Co.

-·



WRIT PETITION NO.


Vs


OF 2017

... Petitioners

... Respondents

ADVOCATE'S CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that considering the points raised in

the present Writ Petition and in view of the Rule 636(1) (a) of the

High Court (Original Side) Rules, this Petition is required to be

heard by the Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court.

MUMBAI

--Jr s DATED: - __ Day ofOctober,2017

Vs


... Petitioners

... Respondents

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT TO THE PETITION

~;Ms. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee, aged 43 years, the

Petitioner No. 1 abovenamed, having my address at: A-40 !, Raj

Rudram, Golkuldham, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400063 do hereby

solemnly affirm as under:-

! say that the Petitioners have filed the above Petition against the

Respondents inter alia to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the

nature of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other

·~.; ' . appropriate writ order or direction against the Respondents, as more

· ·~ )} particularly stated in the Petition. I repeat, reiterate and confirm the

/ contents of Petition and pray that the same be treated as a part of this

Affidavit.

be passed against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner.

Solemn.!¥ affirmed at Mumbai this _5_ day of October 2017

\\~~~ s. Amrita Prithwishwar Bhattacharjee

~~~~\L ~/* ~ (s . ~00 -Z:!;i! 0 . ayeedY.Mulam) . ~%~ ~,,M;ULANI&Co. :j 1"'{':2.~ 1\dyocate for the Petitioners . ~ ~ ~ ~ :JO

Petitioner No. l

i •o 9 ~~~ \\ ~ ~ 3. ~;: ~,/ \\~~ i->Y ~ If

Before me

JAGR~ ADVOCATE & NOT~RY

1/534. Rai Arcli1:1e, MahaVI~ Nagai: '\~\f2LA_Y

n

Kandi>afi~;. Mumb.a1-6J~1 qs::1:i42s•ti9'J9324044201

C<: 'll

\

HIGH COURT 0. 0. C.J.


Ms. Amrita P. Bhattacharjee

&Anr. ... Petitioners

V/s.


... Respondents

MEMO OF WRIT PETITION

);!

Dated this .i_ day of October 2017

MULANI&CO. Advocates for Petitioner

44-B,4'11 Floor, Prospect Chambers Annexe, Pitha Street, Off. P.M. Road

Fort, Mumbai - 400 001 Tele No. 022- 22657036/

22817036 [email protected] Adv Code. I-16134