Mumbai's 800 slumdwellers face demolition of dwellings starting May 22 to "save" mangroves, declared "reserved"

By A Representative
Fear has gripped Bheemchhaya slumbwellers – mainly Dalits and poor – that they would become homeless after May 22, when the demolition of their 800-odd dwellings would begin, allegedly for “complying” with a 13 year old High Court order, seeking to “protect” the Mumbai's mangroves, which were mysteriously declared "reserved".
Helpless and terrified, they are trying to contact government authorities, but, says a note by the Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan (GBGBA), a Mumbai-based civil rights group, there is “nobody to listen to them.”
“Bheemchhaya residents have contacted the divisional commissioner for appeal”, says GBGBA, adding, “But the office of the divisional commissioner has refused to accept the appeal, since his office only deals with matter pertaining to land belonging got revenue department and not forest department.”
Even the court appears unable to listen to them, says the civil rights group. “The residents of Bheemchhaya have approached the High Court, but since the court is on vacation and the vacation bench is sitting on selected days, it is very rare that the matter will be heard on time”, says GBGBA.
“The Forest Minister is out of the country, and his secretaries are also on leave, so there are no chances. There is no one available in the government to hear the grievances of the slum dwellers. When everyone is on leave, why can’t slum be spared from demolition?”, it wonders.
Following a Bombay High Court order dated October 6, 2005, in the matter of Bombay Environment Action Group in the Writ Petition (lodging) No 3246 of 2004, a large number of mangrove areas in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai were notified as “protected forests” by the Maharashtra Forest Department.
Since certain activities can be allowed in a “protected forests”, like collection of forest produce etc., the Maharashtra government decided to go a little further – notified these areas as “reserved forests”, setting aside its earlier decision to call them just “protected forests”.
Situated in Kannamwar Nagar-2 in (Vikhroli East) in Mumbai, Bheemchhaya is in close proximity to the mangroves area, which is notified as reserved forest. However, claims the civil rights group, “The court in the order said that no construction will be allowed to take place in the mangrove areas after the passing of the order.”
It adds, “Bheemchhaya is in existence prior to order of the High Court was passed and it is also a protected slum as per the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement Clearance & Redevelopment) 1971. A slum is treated as protected if it is in existence prior to the year 2000, and the slum dwellers possess certain documents specified by the government to prove their residence since the year 2000.”
Pointing out that slum dwellers in Bheemchhaya have all the valid documents proving their residence prior to the year 2000, GBGBA says, despite this, the Mangrove Cell of the Forest Department served notices to the residence of the Bheemchhaya in the year 2015 to prove their claims on the land where their homes are located.
“All the residence submitted their residential proofs specified under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated May 16, 2015. This Government Resolution (GR) has specified procedure for the rehabilitation and protection of slum dwellers on government land if they possess specified documents prior to the year 2000. However, the Assistant Conservator of Mangrove Cell, rejected these claims and passed an order of demolition of their homes in Bheemchhaya”, it adds.
Worse, says GBGBA, “The Assistant Conservator passed these orders under section 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Section 246 of MLRC provides for appeal if someone is aggrieved by the order passed under section 53 and 54. Yet, in the case of Bheemchhaya, the Assistant Conservator has not specified the appellate authority.”

Comments

Countrywide protest by gig workers puts spotlight on algorithmic exploitation

By A Representative A nationwide protest led largely by women gig and platform workers was held across several states on February 3, with the Gig & Platform Service Workers Union (GIPSWU) claiming the mobilisation as a success and a strong assertion of workers’ rights against what it described as widespread exploitation by digital platform companies. Demonstrations took place in Delhi, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Maharashtra and other states, covering major cities including New Delhi, Jaipur, Bengaluru and Mumbai, along with multiple districts across the country.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

Paper guarantees, real hardship: How budget 2026–27 abandons rural India

By Vikas Meshram In the history of Indian democracy, the Union government’s annual budget has always carried great significance. However, the 2026–27 budget raises several alarming concerns for rural India. In particular, the vague provisions of the VBG–Ram Ji scheme and major changes to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGA) have put the future of rural workers at risk. A deeper reading of the budget reveals that these changes are not merely administrative but are closely tied to political and economic priorities that will have far-reaching consequences for millions of rural households.

Penpa Tsering’s leadership and record under scrutiny amidst Tibetan exile elections

By Tseten Lhundup* Within the Tibetan exile community, Penpa Tsering is often described as having risen through grassroots engagement. Born in 1967, he comes from an ordinary Tibetan family, pursued higher education at Delhi University in India, and went on to serve as Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile from 2008 to 2016. In 2021, he was elected Sikyong of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA), becoming the second democratically elected political leader of the administration after Lobsang Sangay.

'Gandhi Talks': Cinema that dares to be quiet, where music, image and silence speak

By Vikas Meshram In today’s digital age, where reels and short videos dominate attention spans, watching a silent film for over two hours feels almost like an act of resistance. Directed by Kishor Pandurang Belekar, “Gandhi Talks” is a bold cinematic experiment that turns silence into language and wordlessness into a powerful storytelling device. The film is not mere entertainment; it is an experience that pushes the viewer inward, compelling reflection on life, values, and society.

Frugal funds, fading promises: Budget 2026 exposes shrinking space for minority welfare

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* The Ministry of Minority Affairs was established in 2006 during the tenure of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, following the findings of the Sachar Committee, which documented that Muslims were among the most educationally and economically disadvantaged communities in India. The ministry was conceived as a corrective institutional response to deep structural inequalities faced by religious minorities, particularly Muslims, through focused policy interventions.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Search This Blog