TOI: 12 years on, they wait for fruits of SRA project: August 11, 2008

Mumbai: An SRA project next to the teachers’ colony in Bandra (E), which was to be implemented 12 years ago, has dragged on for so long that residents of the Sai Baba Nagar slum do not know if they will have a roof over their heads. 

The settlement had come up in the sixties and had 135 rooms in 1996, a year after the SRA scheme was conceived. Residents said they were initially gung-ho about the redevelopment and the prospect of moving into new homes, but they “backtracked’’ on finding that the builder had resorted to “fraudulent’’ practices.

  “As soon as we shortlisted our builder, we formed the Riddhi Siddhi Grihanirman Sanstha Society—a pre-requisite before going in for redevelopment. Agreements were signed and preparations were on in full swing,’’ said Dinesh Golatkar, the then chief promoter of the project.

Golatkar alleged that the builder was not being transparent in the implementation of the project. 

“Somehow, the residents were deliberately left out of meetings and kept in the dark regarding the progress of the scheme. The builder even evaded basic questions on when the development would be completed, how much space would we get and so on. We were shocked, especially when we realized that our society was not registered,’’ he added. 

   Later, the residents pointed out, work slowed down and then stopped completely without any valid explanation being given for the same. In 2000, the SRA authorities annulled the permission for redevelopment. “The proposal is time-barred and no work has so far commenced. You cannot go ahead with the scheme,’’ read the notice issued to the developers. 

   “After that, we thought it was the end of the scheme. But soon, there was some activity. We were shocked to learn that the developer had gone ahead with the project even though the scheme had been rejected,’’ said Datta Jadhav, a resident. “The builder was given the letter of intent as well as the commencement certificate. If the scheme was to start again, ideally a society should have been formed afresh and registered. But nothing like that happened and we continued to remain in the dark,’’ said Jadhav, treasurer in the earlier society. 

   Meanwhile, 53 people shifted out and accepted the transit accommodation, while another 82 stayed back demanding transparency. “We did not even get a glimpse of the redevelopment plan. In February this year, our homes were demolished,’’ said Golatkar.

“Moreover, the demolition took place even without putting up a certified Annexure II—the document that lists the names of people eligible for rehabilitation—at the site, as is compulsory. We asked for it under the Right to Information Act and got hold of a bogus copy of Annexure II, which had the names of dead people and those who did not even live there. Now, though we have lost our homes, we don’t know whether we will get the accommodation once the building comes up as there is no list that names the eligible people.’’ 

   Representatives of Earthwork Constructions Pvt Ltd, who had undertaken the redevelopment, denied the allegations. “These few people have raised objections time and again. We have the necessary permission and everyone has been shifted to the transit accommodation. We have also started construction work,’’ said Haribhai Patel, accounts in-charge.

 Asked about the mandatory registration of the society, Patel said they were in the process of doing so. “It takes time. But it will be done soon,’’ he added.