Nagpur: The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) has defended the partially constructed ‘Hunger Heaven Food Plaza’ within Veer Savarkar Nagar Garden on the Inner Ring Road, asserting that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from local residents is not mandatory for projects on Public Utility (PU) land.
This position was outlined in an affidavit submitted by NIT to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, countering a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by residents.
The PIL, filed by advocate Tushar Mandlekar on behalf of local petitioners, alleges that the construction violates the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. Petitioners claim the project, initiated in December 2022, lacked proper approvals and community consultation.
In its affidavit, NIT clarified that the land was transferred to its ownership free of cost in 1994, and the project is part of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement signed in 2019. Under this agreement, the contractor is authorised to construct, operate, and maintain the food plaza and garden for a 10-year period before handing it back to NIT.
“The project does not require an NOC from residents for development on PU land. The layout plans were sanctioned, and the construction adheres to legal requirements, including public notifications in newspapers,” stated Rasika Kawade, NIT’s Garden Superintendent.
The affidavit also highlights that the garden, along with others under NIT’s jurisdiction, was transferred to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) in July 2020. Responsibility for its maintenance and operations now lies with NMC, as communicated through official correspondence.
Responding to claims of unauthorised construction, the contractor, Murlidhar Chavan, reaffirmed that all necessary permissions were obtained before commencing work. He emphasised that the project is currently non-operational and fully aligns with the terms of the BOT agreement.
On the other hand, petitioners, including local resident Rajesh Swaranakar, argued that the project compromises the garden’s primary purpose as a public utility. They contended that the site was traditionally used for recreational activities like yoga, jogging, and sports, and the introduction of commercial activities disrupts these essential functions.
Criticising the timing of the PIL, NIT argued that it was filed three years after the garden’s transfer to NMC, calling the delay unreasonable. “The petition lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs,” the affidavit asserted.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case underscores the tension between urban development projects and the preservation of public spaces for community welfare.