Mumbai: Residents of 70 structures in the vicinity of the city airport who have received demolition notices from aviation regulator Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) as they are an obstacle to the flight path, are a worried lot. The DGCA has demanded that everything be demolished, ranging from overhead water tanks, mobile phone antennas, poles, hoardings and grills to parts of the structures themselves within the next one month.
These structures comprise private residences, offices, a temple atop Gilbert Hill, several mosques (some partly), a hospital, two malls, a public toilet and a pedestrian overbridge are located across Santacruz, Vile Parle, Andheri, Kurla and Ghatkopar.
Many of the affected, especially in Vile Parle (East), are senior citizens, some living alone in modest two-storied buildings for the last 50 years, have been left puzzled by the DGCA notices issued on June 8, giving them a 60-day window to get rid of the obstructing portions.
This list of obstacles includes not just relatively new buildings but quite a few two-storey structures built over 50 years ago, notices issued by the DGCA reveal. Most of the old buildings have copies of height clearance certificates issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) since 1978. The newer and taller buildings will have more height to be reduced. Another 45 buildings, which possess valid NoCs for height, will also be served notices as it has now emerged these were fraudulently issued by certain AAI officials.
While some owners of structures in violation of height norms have verbally told the DGCA that they would adhere to the time frame given, a collective of puzzled citizens from about 10 buildings, each around 50 years old and located between Vile Parle (East) and Milan Subway will now be collectively moving the Bombay High Court, to seek a stay on the August 8 deadline set by DGCA, and a plea that they be heard first.
The DGCA notices were issued after the Bombay Hight Court directed the aviation regulator on April 12 to issue a final order to partially demolish or reduce the height of more than 300 illegal buildings around the Mumbai international airport, based on a PIL filed by advocate Yeshwant Shenoy. Presently, 70-odd notices have been issued while more are being sent out by the office of J.S. Rawat, Joint Director General, Civil Aviation. The notices are being issued under Rule 6 of the Aircraft (Demolitions of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees etc) Rules, 1994.
Not feasible: residents
Ajay Nadkarni, who works for a bank and is a member of the civic group Citizens from Mumbai Airport Runway Funnel Zone, told The Hindu , “Due to stringent height restrictions, we have been unable to explore the currently permissible FSI of 2.76. And given that the buildings are over 50 years old, they need redevelopment, but this is not feasible with low FSI. To add to this, some buildings have started receiving notices now.”
Among those whose buildings fall in the airport funnel zone is 97-year-old Shankar Netravali from Vile Parle. Having retired in 1990 from Warner Brothers, Mr. Netravali is now confined at home, which he shares with his wife Durgabai, 85, and son. “Our building is in bad shape. It has a lot of cracks. I cannot step out when I want to because there is no lift,” said the nonagenarian, who hasn’t left the building in the last two years because he has trouble walking.
Another resident working to bring societies together on a common platform, said, “Most buildings are 50 years old. Unfortunately, they don’t have any old records and have mentioned approval numbers (NOCs) in reply to the notices. If they (AAI, MIAL and DGCA) treat them like this because they don’t have the necessary documents, it is unfortunate. They also have the documents and can easily cross-check the same from their records.”
Another resident asked, “The Mangalore crash cited in the PIL has led to all this tension for us. What has that accident got to do with those living here for the last 50 years? There is something fishy, because a majority of structures have the requisite height permissions. How about also taking the officials who had issued these certificates to task? The petitioner does not seem to be interested in this aspect of the case at all.”
