Voicing concern over the possibility of a landslide due to illegal excavation of hills and clearing of trees near Vikhroli Parksite area, the Bombay high court on Saturday asked the Maharashtra govern
Voicing concern over the possibility of a landslide due to illegal excavation of hills and clearing of trees near Vikhroli Parksite area, the Bombay high court on Saturday asked the Maharashtra government to send a team of officers to check whether work carried out by the developer would cause landslides or not. The court has also asked the state to submit a report on July 14.
The division bench of Justice V.M. Kanade and Justice M.S. Sonak were hearing public interest litigation filed by Janseva Vikas Samiti, a non-government organisation, which alleged that a private builder has illegally excavated a hill and cut trees.
The petitioner said that there were around five thousand huts in the vicinity of the hill. If the developer continues with the alleged illegal work, there were increased chances of landslides occurring during the rainy season.
In 2015, the petitioner had learnt that the developer was trying to break the retaining wall of the hill opposite Kailash complex at Parksite. The petitioner thereafter made due enquiry and learnt that the developer was illegally trying to break the retaining wall as well as clearing the trees from the slope of the hill. The petitioner, thereafter, prepared a presentation and submitted before BMC, additional collector of Mumbai suburbs, state government and ministry of environment and forest.
Additional collector of Mumbai suburbs replied to the petitioner’s letter, saying that the developer had given protection to the slums situated on top of the hill by constructing, retaining the walls.
It has been further stated that the building proposal department had given permission to the said work and therefore as a precaution, a proposal had been sought in respect to avibration test.
The petitioner said the vibration test report should have been received before the work began but permission had been granted before the certificate was received.
The counsel of builder refuted all the allegations and defended the work that was carried out by the builder.
