The city of Mumbai is well known for its formation by 7 islands. It gradually developed to be an economic centre along with it an amalgamation of different private lands was taking place forming it to be the ‘national park’. This is how the journey of a booming port city and flora of the woodland came into the picture. The city of dreams, light and prosperity enticed humongous boom in the financial sector making Bombay city a very significant industrial spot since the times of British East India Company. Seeing, a pecuniary advantage and growing employment opportunities people from all over the nation commenced to reside at Mumbai to earn bread and butter. With the developing India a south-western city, namely; Bombay was multiplying by leaps and bounds. With the growing population government felt the need to bring in The Bombay Municipal act, 1950 thus this act tried to extend its limit of the area subject to the authority of the municipal corporation of the city of Bombay and other municipal authorities charged with carrying out the municipal Government of the City of Bombay. It also tried ensuring more suitable and efficient municipal Government of the City of Bombay and its suburbs. This new land would take into account the urban growth towards the north. Again in the year 1957 it extended and BMC became Municipal Corporation for greater Mumbai which also included area where Sanjay Gandhi Park is apparently located. It isn’t surprising to know that SGNP is facing tremendous burden ever since then with enlarging population and undefined boundaries of the land.
ENCROACHMENT
Several legislations empowered forest authorities to acquire lands from private owners, government owned companies, native and non-native inhabitants. And on the other hand the history evidently speaks about increasing tensions between city and park and prolonged apprehension among park authorities and inhabitants. Despite of the fact that these legislations were enforced in order to protect, preserve and safeguard natural resources but due to the parks idiosyncratic position it has given open access to various builders, slum lords, bureaucrats, and their political guarantor. At this juncture it becomes critical and pertinent to understand the term wrongful/ illegal encroachment in forest land. According to The Indian Forest Act, 1927; Forest-officer, if he has reasons to believe that the encroachment of Government Forest Land has been done, may evict the encroachment and may use all the powers conferred to him. Thus, in the case Kuwar Pal Singh and Others vs. State Of U.P. And Others on 3 February, 2010 Ulai Kheda, forest reserved land was illegally occupied by the farmers, therefore the forest department under the provisions of Indian Forest Act initiated legal proceedings for dispossession of illegal encroacher from the forest reserved land. Again in Supreme Court in writ petition No. 202 of 1995 T.N. Goda Vermin Vs. Union of India and others the occupation /encroachment in reserved forest land is illegal and against the Indian Forest Act. Thus, there are several cases that clearly states that such legislation are time and again purported by the courts. Thus an unholy nexus among several parties are repeatedly responsible for organised destruction of the park. Encroachments have been going on since the early 1970s, the rate of encroachment increased and peaked at the end of 1994 and is still being noticed in several other parts of the park.
THE LEGAL BATTLE
The very park of the city was falling apart a report commissioned by
The WWF stated in 1995 that:
“Today the Park is in shambles, with its south western border encroached by over 40,000 slum dwellers, the north western and the northern boundaries scoured and Pock marked by 19 stone quarries, its northern block devastated by plundering Woodcutters and poachers, the Yeour forests encroached by developers, goondas And other illegal builders from Thane and Mumbai, and the central hill slopes Ravaged by the expanding empires of tricksters and ‘dhongeebabas’ trying to build Concrete structures illegally by fleecing gullible visitors”
The SGNP authorities as well filed 66 cases between the years 1990 to 1995. It was under this pretext that Bombay Environmental Action Group filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court against the conservator of forest and several other parties by invoking wildlife conservation act, 1972; Indian Forest Act, 1977; and Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The PIL sought the court to evict all kinds and forms of illegal encroachment along with demolition of illegal structures within a period of 6 months. The court ordered the government to stop all mining and quarrying activities in the park, remove all encroachments, and rescind all public facilities such as water and telephone lines given illegally to encroachers. Thus, the PIL resulted into a strong legal momentum for SGNP by giving clear primacy to conservation over, slum dwellers right and development.
UNDERSTANDING AND REFLECTION OVER THE ISSUE
It is immensely necessary to analyse that the park is in the midst of the city with its verdurous green which is indeed a point of conservation for Mumbai. Also, it becomes very peculiar to understand the nexus between internal ecology of the park and contextual factors of the urban surrounding. This leads us to an inference where over and over again there are two debatable topics that emerge that are development vs. conservation and Brown vs. Green. In the recent Mumbai mirror article dated February 6, 2018 stated that seven or eight projects that are likely to come up in the next few years these infrastructure projects have been proposed to go through, over and under Sanjay Gandhi National Park, and have the potential to destroy city’s lungs in just a few decades. There are plans to build two tunnels under the park and a ropeway through the park – which explicitly stated aim of diverting traffic right through the core area of the park – plus a multi-modal corridor. Thus, it is observed that external pressure seems to play a huge role in the park management decision to implement a “protectionist conservation method” real estate developers or urban development institute like MMRDA that are interested in the land for remunerative purposes are not interested in the conservation of the park. Therefore, the park management are forced to continue using courts as well as walls to define boundaries to safeguard the park. It is indeed a dismaying fact that instead of collectively securing the land and support the management authorities’ people are falling short for urban amenities. Let’s us all not get entangled in the mirage of happiness in the concrete. People benefit from the park in myriad ways. Park is definitely an asset to the city, it supplies water to 12 million people, and it manufactures oxygen, reduces pollution, regulates temperature and has an entertainment value and over 1.2 million visitors every year. Let the growing financial capital of the country and economic system fail to take into account the cost of natural capital. Along with systematic strategy, a value based approach, judicial backing park management should consider public good strategy that delivers value to society it should aim at maximization of satisfaction of the citizens in all the possible ways. And lastly, majority of the people should perceive value of biodiversity, wildlife, nature in the midst of buzzing city. The goal should be to make citizens of Mumbai and India proud of its co-existence between the park and the city.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Statutes:
• The Bombay Municipal act (extension of limit), 1950; Bombay Act No. 7 of 1950
• The wildlife (protection) act, 1972; Act No. 53 OF 1972
• The forest (conservation) act, 1960, Central Act No. 69 of 1980
• Maharashtra private forest (acquisition) act, 1975, Act No. XXIX OF 1975
CASES
• Kuwar Pal Singh and Others v. State Of U.P. and Others WRIT-C No. – 20075 of 2009
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 March, 1947 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 202 OF 1995
• The Bombay Environmental Action Group & ors V. AR. Bharti Deputy Conservator Of Forests & ors- writ petition number 305 of 1995.