Indian Air Force accuses Mhada of Santa Cruz land grab

Mhada, the state’s housing board, has been accused of grabbing defence land. The Indian Air Force (IAF) has alleged that Mhada has manipulated property records to take over nearly 49,000 sq m of defence land at the Rifle Range in Golibar, Santa Cruz. Six buildings have come up on this land as part of a slum rehab scheme, and the IAF has sought their demolition.

The land (survey No 13/CTS 387) is located close to an IAF installation. The Cotton Green-based 411 Air Force station has claimed that the land was part of 2.49 lakh sq m of military land, which had been in its possession since May 8, 1964. However, the IAF seems to have woken up late, since many slums had encroached on its claimed land.

PK Sharma, group captain, 411 Air force station, has further accused Mhada of allowing a private developer to illegally set up multi-storied apartments on the land without procuring a no-objection certificate from the IAF.

Apart from the six seven-storey buildings that have been built, a seventh one, proposed to be 14-storeys tall, is under construction. The construction is part of the city’s biggest slum rehabilitation (SRA) scheme. Shivalik Ventures, involving real estate giant Unitech, and south Mumbai-based Rohan Group, have bagged rights to take up the Rs3,500-crore SRA project spread across 5.66 lakh sq m of space.   

Sharma has argued that defence land was included in the project without the consent and knowledge of the Air Force station. Keen to claim back its piece of land, the station has dragged Mhada and Shivalik Ventures to the city civil court at Dindoshi in north-west Mumbai, praying for a permanent stay on construction activity on the land, and demolition of the six buildings that have already sprung up.

Mhada has approved annexure-II (eligibility list) for the slum scheme as the land owning authority. Sharma has argued in the petition that no correspondence was available with either the Air Force or Mhada to show a transfer of the land in the latter’s name.

Interestingly, Sharma has claimed that despite the lack of evidence, the tahsildar’s office had produced mutation entries that showed the housing board as owner of 50% of the 49,000 sq m of land. “The tahsildar office has been unable to produce mutation entries for the remaining land,” he said. Alleging tampering of documents, the Air Force has prayed for verification of the authencity of the mutation entries.

To strengthen the foul play angle further, Sharma has argued that the land area mentioned in the mutation record (kamijast patra) did not match the actual area mentioned in the original property card. While attaching evidence to suggest that the land continued to belong to defence, the IAF has contended that the city survey numbers had been tampered with in the maps used by the revenue department.

Ramakant Jadhav, director and CEO, however, countered the IAF’s claims. “The land was meant to be used for a rifle range. However, since the military could not protect the land from encroachments, the state government took it over from them in 1967. It was later transferred to Mhada. We bagged rights to develop the SRA scheme legally.”

Quoting a notification issued by the ministry of defence on November 14, 2007, which disallowed construction activity within 100 m from the parapet wall of an air force installation, the IAF has prayed for demolition of the “illegal” structures and demarcation of defence land.

Gautam Chatterjee, CEO of Mhada, declined to comment on the IAF’s allegations.