I am Ar. Irfan Adam Kazi This is with regards, to Koyna Nagar (A & B) C.H.S. on plot bearing CTS no C.T.S. no 10/10C (Pt.), 10/1B, 160 (pt.), of village Dindoshi taluka Borivali district Mumbai suburban.

By your notice it came to my knowledge the said land parcel comes under slum scheme under 33(10), of D.C.P.R.  2034, of larger part known as Koyna Nagar (A & B) CHS combined land bearing C.T.S. no 10/10C(pt.), 10/31B(pt.), 10/1B, 10/31A(pt.), 10/25(pt.), 10/26(pt.), 10/27(pt.), 10/28(pt.), 10/29(pt.), 10/30(pt.), 10/10A/3(pt.), 10/1C(pt.), of village Dindoshi. the above land is combined as slum area and slum, rehabilitation area

The said land partly is shown as reserved as “Cemetery” (RSA 4.8) D.C.P.R.  2034, the subject reference notification the land admeasures to 2188.31 Sq.mts. Kindly provide me the state government us state urban development department letter dated 15/03/2024 as mentioned in the modification.

Were as C.E.O S.R.A. & Municipal commissioner BMC notification u/no SRA/DDTP/MODIFICATION/KOYNA NAGAR (A B) CHS/ Dindoshi / C.T.S. no 10/10C (Pt.), 10/1B, 160 (pt.), /2024/391 dated 16/07/2024. 

The area of 2188.31Sq.mts (approx.) proposed for modification of E.P. of D.C.P.R.- 2034 dated 13/11/2018. We hereby suggestion and object to said modification from “Cemetery” (RSA 4.8) to rehabilitation to resettlement (R.R. 2.1). 

A)    Suggestion & Objection as per D.C.P.R. 2024

As per D.C.P.R 2034 regulation no 17 table no 5 and at Sr. no 49 the “Cemetery” (RSA 4.8) falls in reservation to be developed as per intended purposes or as per AR. As per the said regulation in case of B.M.C or SRA or planning authority Is developing. if developing the property, the Zb+ 15% of permissible BUA is applicable.  As per section 3(1B) Slum Improvement Act 1971 the SRA is planning and approval authority, SRA Not the / developer project proponent developer. 

The said Koyna Nagar S.R.A. is 33 (10) of the D.C.P.R. 2023 scheme the society and developer are involved Developer / Society are private player and the project proponent is involved.  The regulation 17 in table 3 sr.no 1 as S.R.A. is not applicable .as is not SRA Developing the land) or case OF DCR 17 Table 3 sr no 1 when palling authoring i.e. SRA develops then to Zb = 15 % of 2188.31 i.e. 328.24 buildable F.S.I. is supposed to be kept reserved for intended user proposed OF cemetery & its ancillary user. Please see 

The said Koyna Nagar S.R.A. is a scheme the society and developers are involved which are private players and the project proponent owner to is not is involved, so clause 3 of regulation 3 in 17 of the table is applicable when the owner is a developer so 

When a developer is involved if modification of rehabilitation and resettlement (which is mainly housing for dis –housed homeless in case of calamity) may be misused for selling flats to other than PAP. Which widely trend among developers are selling flats to PAP or persons outside scheme. 

Hon’ble C.E.O. is requested to retain or else 1531.81 sq.mts or at least a minimum area of 1000.00 sq.mts land be reserved for intended proposed land use i.e. “Cemetery” (RSA 4.8) .

As E.P. of D.C.P.R. 2034 are in the jurisdiction of Che. Engg. DP (BMC) the suggestion objection and NOC must be called in party to MCGM. 

Suggestion & Objection in the background purview of Hon’ble Supreme quote judgement 8127 of 2024 arising out of SLP (20844) of 2022.

I would like to quote supreme quote judgement 8127 of 2024 arising out of SLP (20844) of 2022 between Yash developer and Hariharkrupa CHS in finding as at Sr. no 27 & 28 as at page no 30. quoted as underlined below. 

27 In any event, execution of the project under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be viewed as a real estate development project. There is a public purpose involved, and that is inextricably connected to the right to life of some of our brother and sister citizens who are living in pathetic conditions. While we reject the justifications given by the appellant for delaying the project, we are fully conscious of the dereliction of the statutory duty of the SRA in ensuring that the project is completed within time. We have already expressed our opinion that the CEO and the SRA are accountable for their actions. While we reject the justification for delay, we record our dissatisfaction about the indifference, amounting to negligence on the part of CEO and the SRA.

• 28 So far as the submissions relating to the financial resources are concerned, we have seen the number of agreements that the appellants have entered into. We need not examine this aspect independently as the findings are concurrent and thorough. The following findings of the High Court are sufficient for disposing of this issue:

Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Not to Be Seen as Real Estate Development Project, It's Linked to Right to Life: Supreme Court, “there is a public purpose involved, and that is inextricably connected to the right to life of some of our brothers and sister citizens who are living in pathetic conditions” -: Supreme Court.

A)    The Bombay High Court in its judgment dated 10/06/2024 comprising of judge’s bench of Amit Borkar and Devendra Kumar Upadhayam on Monday directed the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to personally look into the issue of inadequate burial grounds in Mumbai and take necessary steps to identify and acquire new burial plots” 

The suggestion & objection in highlighting of scarcity of cemetery land in P/N and P/south ward.

In our objection to the said, I will also highlight the scarcity of cemetery land in P/N and P/south ward combined. The P/north East Muslim / Cristian and other Buddhists and other believe in the burial method of cremation and the last rite do land or cemeteries in the whole of P/N in particular Malad East. 

The P/North East does have cremation grounds for Hindu or faith who believe in cremation as the Funeral's last right. The Hindu and other faith who believe cremation also have to do to Malad West of Undrai road on plot bearing C.T.S. no 692 of Malad South.

The cemetery is in a non-buildable reservation with which requires large land ln component. i.e. 328.24 buildable F.S.I. regulation 17 in table 3 sr.no 1 will be less and the buildable structure component required is very less. 

The population of the P/North east Muslim community have to go Muslim cemetery Jamatul Muslimeen on a plot bearing C.T.S. no 744 of village Malad south.  which is a private cemetery (which is B.M.C reserved amenity from the cemetery but owned by Jamatul Muslimeen and is Wakf property). The state of, a Muslim cemetery is such that they are filling in third layer of land with mud. On average 8 to 10 funeral homes daily and daily eight hundred to thousand people visit daily.

The P/ South has a cemetery on the plot bearing CTS no 589(pt) of Pahadi Goregaon East. The soil of said land is rocky and has bolder, the user of burial faith is not (Islamic, Christian and Buddhist, face difficulty is the excavation of the grave and burial. The services of basic like water, cleaning of Garbage, the pathway for waking in between the graves is not provided. The temporary urinal is built and the toilet and other facilities lack or facility or Maintenance provided by as concerned department of health/maintenance of BMC. 

Prayer before Hon’ble CEO & Municipal commissioner to accept mentioned as below mentioned 

1)     To consider the proportion of development if land is developed as 17 in table 3 sr.no i.e. SRA or sr.no 3 i.e. private proponents i.e. society or developer. regulation as in D.C.R. 17 as submitted in 

2)     Kindly direct request Che. Engg (D.P.) (B.M.C) NOC from project proponent for subject modification as seen in 

3)     Hon’ble CEO is requested to retain at least else maximum of 1531.81 Sq.mts land or a minimum area of 1000.00 sq.mts be reserved for intended proposed land use i.e. “Cemetery” (RSA 4.8) regulation 17 in table 3 sr.no 1 is not applicable as is not SRA Developing the land) or 3 (owner) as submitted in 

6)     I request the Hon’ble CEO to call for Justification and Undertaking from the Developer and Koyna Nagar society regarding non-misuse of the PAP tenement and proposed modification as expressed sale and misuse of rehab and PAP Tenement in seen 

7)     I request the Hon’ble CEO to call for Justification and Undertaking from Asst. Commissioner P/South and maintenance department regarding how much of EP area and its respective percentage of E.P. is maintained deleted and proposed modification by BMC. How much area of Cemetry is reserved in P/South