Is Mahim Nature Park included in Dharavi Redevelopment Project? asks Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Dharavi Redevelopment Project Authority whether the Mahim Nature Park in Mumbai is also part of the proposed Dharavi slum redevelopment project. .The Dharavi Redevelopment Project Authority informed the Court that the nature park will not be included in the redevelopment. The Court then asked the authority to state the same on affidavit. .A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja was hearing a public interest litigation filed by an NGO raising apprehension that the "protected forest" of Mahim Nature Park may be included within the redevelopment project of Dharavi slum area.The plea filed through VG Sreeram sought directions to the authorities to 'delete the area covered under the park' from the Dharavi project. Dharavi, one of the largest slums in the world, is proposed to be redeveloped. The Adani Group had emerged as highest bidder for the redevelopment of the 259-hectare land for a sum of ₹5,069 crores..The petition before the High Court stated that the project would unlawfully allow the project proponent to acquire or develop the Mahim Nature Park in contravention to its protected nature status. The petitioner said that it had written to the project authority seeking a clarification on whether the park was included within the Dharavi notified area, when it should have been entirely deleted from the project documents. “That the Mahim Nature Park, being a protected forest, should have never been included within the boundary of Dharavi Redevelopment Project and should be entirely deleted from the project documents,” the plea contended. .The authority responded in negative, but failed to clarify whether the park would continue to be governed by provisions of the tender documents which the project proponent will execute with the project authority.This was also emphasized and shown to the Court by Senior Advocate Dr Milind Sathe appearing for the authority.At this point, the Bench asked the authority to put the same on an affidavit.