X: @vivekbhavsar
Mumbai: The Urban Development Department-1, of the Maharashtra government issued a notification on 15 October 2024, amending the provisions of Regulation 33(20)(B) in the DCPR 2034 and published a government resolution concerning Regulation 33(11) of the DCPR 2034, to SRA under Section 154(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966. At first glance, it appears that these two documents are contradictory.
This notification granted the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation the authority to redevelop buildings under Regulation 33(20)(B) of the DCPR 2034 while simultaneously offering significant concessions to developers related to various premiums to be paid during construction. The provision states as follows;
“Additionally, a premium payment will be collected at a rate of either 2.5% of the ASR or 10% of the normal premium, whichever is greater, for staircase ends, lift wells, and similar elements as stipulated in DCPR 31(1). Any relaxations in open spaces granted for corresponding additional sales to FSI, obtained in lieu of AH/R&R, and for basic zonal FSI proportionate to the additional FSI availed in lieu of AH/R&R will also apply. The premium amount will be calculated based on the ASR rate in effect at the time the IOD is issued.”
On the same day, a government resolution was published mandating the implementation of Regulation 33(11) to the SRA under Section 154(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966. Upon reviewing this decision, it is evident that the government has considered public interests. This decision specifies the application of Regulation 33(11) and instructs that the premiums to be collected from developers for approval under Regulation 33(11) should adhere to BMC standards, rather than following Regulation 33(10). This will recover thousands of crores in additional revenue that had been lost due to the developer-friendly decisions taken by the Engineering department of the SRA.
When permission is granted for building development under both Regulation 33(11) and Regulation 33(20)(B), the Planning Authority receives accommodation for the Project Affected Persons (PAPs). However, issuing a developer-friendly notification to reduce premiums on the same day for buildings developed under Regulation 33(20)(B) of the DCPR 2024, along with publishing the government resolution under Section 154(1) of the MRTP Act, while simultaneously prohibiting developers from receiving additional concessions applicable under Regulation 33(10) during development under SRA 33(11), indicates that these two government decisions are indeed contradictory.
Moreover, the implications of these conflicting decisions need careful examination to ensure that the interests of both the government and the public are adequately protected. The inconsistencies in premium structures across different regulations may create confusion among developers and stakeholders, ultimately affecting the overall development landscape in Mumbai.
It is crucial for the Maharashtra government to establish a consistent and transparent policy framework that builds trust among developers while also protecting public resources. The ongoing efforts to revitalise urban areas must be balanced with a commitment to fairness and equity in the distribution of development rights and financial responsibilities.
Furthermore, the potential for increased revenue generation through well-structured premiums and development policies should not be overlooked. By aligning the interests of developers with the broader goals of urban planning and community welfare, the government can leverage development to enhance residents’ quality of life while also strengthening its financial position.
In conclusion, the recent amendments to the DCPR 2034 and the accompanying government resolutions present both challenges and opportunities. By addressing the contradictions and nurturing a collaborative environment, the Maharashtra government can establish a sustainable framework for urban development that meets the needs of developers while serving the greater public interest. The focus should remain on creating vibrant, inclusive communities that thrive economically and socially while ensuring prudent and transparent management of the state’s resources.
The decision to provide concessions on various premiums for developers constructing buildings under Regulation 33(20)(B) strongly suggests that the interests of developers were prioritised. Given Maharashtra’s economic challenges, one might question the necessity of such lenient decisions for developers. In the future, SRA may seek to capitalise on the notification issued by the Urban Development Department – I.
Developers involved in SRA may unite and demand the implementation of the 2.5% of ASR or 10% as per the notification published on 15 October 2024, in accordance with Regulation 33(20)(B) of DCPR 2034, since the provisions for development and providing PAP under both regulations are comparable. However, imposing different premiums for development under both regulations contradicts the principles of natural justice.
The decision to reduce premium charges for regulation 33(20)(B) was made during the tenure of former Chief Minister Mr. Eknath Shinde, However, it is clear that the primary beneficiaries of that decision are the developers. On the same day the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections were announced, the notification for section 33(20)(B) and the government resolution regarding section 33(11) were released by the Urban Development Department.
Will the newly elected Chief Minister of Maharashtra – Devendra Fadnavis, who has a vision for development, take this issue seriously, personally investigate it, and promptly issue orders to amend the developer-friendly notification issued on 15 October 2024 under No.TPB-4323/287/C.R.35/2024/UD-11, regarding premiums under Regulation 33(20)(B) in DCPR 2034? Or succumb to the pressure from developers? The decision made by the then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, which resulted in a loss of thousands of crores to the state’s revenue, will Mr. Devendra Fadnavis reverse it to increase government revenue, or will he support decisions that favour developers?
Will the Chief Minister revise the premium rate of 2.5% of ASR or 10% to align with the premiums applicable under other BMC regulations, thus preventing the loss or potential revenue theft amounting to thousands of crores of rupees for the government? Swift action taken by the newly elected Chief Minister in this critical exercise will have a direct impact on the social and economic fabric of our promising Maharashtra State.
The implications of these decisions are significant for the future of Maharashtra’s financial health and urban development. If Mr. Devendra Fadnavis chooses to prioritise the interests of developers over the state’s revenue, it could set a concerning precedent that undermines fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, if he acts to rectify the previous administration’s decisions, it may restore faith in the government’s commitment to the welfare of the citizens and the integrity of public funds.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the leadership qualities of Mr. Fadnavis and his willingness to stand firm against any undue influence from powerful interests. Transparency in decision-making and a clear rationale for any policy changes will be crucial in maintaining public trust and ensuring sustainable development in the state. The coming months will reveal whether the government will prioritize the long-term benefits for Maharashtra or succumb to short-term pressures from the development sector.
