At a public ceremony in Matunga, the distribution of keys to newly built apartments for former BDD Chawl residents was conducted, and a call was issued by state leadership that the dwellings be retained as intergenerational assets rather than sold. The apartments, measuring 500 square feet within a 40‑storey tower on premium land, were presented to beneficiaries who had previously occupied 160 square‑foot tenements in Worli. The transition was positioned as part of a broader urban renewal, through which a higher standard of living across Mumbai was expected to be achieved.
The homes were described by the Chief Minister as “like gold,” and it was urged that they be passed to the next generation. The statement was aligned with advice earlier voiced by the Deputy Chief Minister, whose caution against immediate resale was endorsed. Through this framing, the flats were portrayed as wealth‑preserving assets whose value would accrue to families and communities over time.
During the event, it was reported that keys had been handed to 16 of 556 residents slated to receive homes in the current phase. The allotment of freehold ownership was presented as the opening move toward fulfilling a long‑held aspiration: that city residents be able to secure permanent homes within Mumbai’s limits. The BDD chawls were characterized as a living record of the city’s socio‑economic evolution, and it was suggested that the redevelopment sought to honor that legacy while upgrading housing conditions.
Attention was drawn to an ongoing pattern in which newly allotted units in redevelopment projects had been sold by beneficiaries—many from Marathi‑speaking families—followed by moves to the suburbs. Financial pressures, attractive resale valuations, and maintenance obligations were cited as drivers. It was observed by officials that this behavior had been linked by some to a decline in the Marathi‑speaking population within the city’s core. In response, officials were instructed that provisions for women’s co‑ownership be included, so that security of tenure within households would be broadened.
A timeline was announced, under which Phase Two of the BDD redevelopment was slated for completion in October–November and Phase Three by December, after which resettlement for all Worli BDD residents was to be finished. Additional projects, including Abhyudaya Nagar and GTB Nagar, were said to be in the pipeline.
The Dharavi redevelopment was defended as comparable to building a new city. Eligible residents were to be housed within the same locality and be provided full amenities. Dharavi was portrayed less as a slum and more as an economic center, with activity likened to that of an industrial cluster. To preserve livelihoods, the linkage between home and workplace was to be maintained, a local value chain was to be created, and a five‑year tax reprieve was to be provided so that a “vibrant industrial colony” could be fostered. It was further assured that residents deemed ineligible would be relocated elsewhere in Mumbai via rental accommodation, with title planned to be transferred after 12 years, so that the emergence of new slums would be prevented.