BMC, MMRDA Clash Over Control of Key Mumbai Airport Access Road

The Bombay High Court (HC) has passed a ruling on the issue of ownership and responsibility for the Sahar elevated road, which provides access to Terminal 2 of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mumbai International Airport (CSMIA). The issue is that neither the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) nor the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) claimed ownership or control over this crucial road.

Eversmile Construction, a builder, had submitted a petition requesting compensation in lieu of reserving its property for the road's development plan at Sahar. When BMC and MMRDA backed off from any responsibility, the High Court concluded that Mumbai International Airport Ltd. (MIAL) couldn't possess the road.

HC granted the petitioner the right to take it back, demolish it, or dismantle the Sahar elevated road. It declared the situation to be "utterly unique," even in the context of Mumbai's often unique incidents. It comprised Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata. They observed, "It seems that there is even today in this city of Mumbai a piece of land that lies outside the control and command areas of every known public planning authority."

Both BMC and MMRDA, the municipal planning authorities, appeared in court to claim their lack of authority over the Sahar elevated road. According to the High Court's verdict, MMRDA's stance remains incomprehensible.

Abhay Patki, representing the state, and Pooja Yadav, representing BMC, emphasised that the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) could only be granted if MMRDA, the special planning authority, instructed them to do so. The court also heard from Pravin Samdani, a senior lawyer for the builder.

MMRDA claimed itself as a special planning authority for the airport area but excluded the access road. The High Court expressed shock at MMRDA's actions. It described the situation as unsolvable.

To seek clarity, the High Court requested a "responsible affidavit" from MMRDA by September 11. It also directed MIAL to provide a detailed response explaining how it gained custody of the road, the circumstances surrounding it, who constructed it, and the authorization process.

The High Court emphasised that private property cannot be legally seized for public use without compensation, citing Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. The case has been scheduled for further proceedings on September 13.