Is 1994 Pune ring road plan still feasible: Bombay HC asks state – Hindustan Times

The Bombay high court (HC) has sought to know from the Maharashtra government as to whether the plan for a ring road in and around Pune, conceived in the regional town development plan in 1994, was still a techno-economically feasible project in 2021.

The court sought state’s response in plea by a developer seeking reliefs and directions to the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) to withdraw the order restraining Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) from issuing Occupancy and Completion Certificates to the developer who constructed a structure on the land meant for the ring road and even sold the units therein.

The HC further sought to know from the state the time it would take to demarcate and acquire land for the project and the estimated cost.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the petition filed by Gera Developments Private Limited and interim applications filed by various persons on Tuesday, was informed by senior advocate Virag Tulzapurkar for Gera Developments that the petitioner was aggrieved by PMRDA order restraining MIDC from issuing the OC and CC for a multi-storey commercial building constructed by the petitioners on a leasehold plot of land belonging to MIDC.

The proposed 128-km ring road around Pune was first conceived in 1994 by PMRDA and was to service 29 villages by connecting highways around the city and regulate pollution levels in the city by diverting heavy vehicular traffic from entering the city to reduce existing traffic congestion. The 120-metre-wide road is proposed to be constructed at a cost of ₹26,831 crore and will have 14 multilevel interchanges and eight major bridges to facilitate smooth traffic. The circular road is set to have 18 viaducts, 17 tunnels and four roadways over bridges.

In a previous hearing, Tulzapurkar had informed the bench that the issuance of certificates was withheld on the grounds that, in pursuance of a development plan conceived in 1997, a ring road measuring 120m in width was proposed to be constructed which would cut across the plot of land on which the building was constructed.

Tulzapurkar had submitted that his client had started construction of the building after receiving requisite permissions from MIDC in 2016 and the building was completed and commercial units in the building had also been sold, but possession was not granted to the buyers for want of the certificates. He said if the certificates were not granted, his client would become embroiled in proceedings which would be initiated by the buyers before MahaRERA, and hence sought directions to PMRDA to withdraw its restraining order to MIDC.

On its part, Shyamali Gadre, counsel for MIDC, said it was bound by PMRDA orders and could not do much till the development authority issued an order to issue the certificates. Gadre, however, added that MIDC had written to the urban development department in November 2020, requesting them to grant approval to the building, failing which the government would suffer huge revenue losses.

On the query of the court as to why PMRDA was sleeping while construction of the building started and woke up only when the issuance of the OC and CC came up, advocate Nitin Deshpande for PMRDA submitted that the authority was willing to sit with MIDC and petitioners and find a solution by reducing the width of the ring road from 120 metres by 45-60 metres and also by changing the alignment of the proposed ring road. Deshpande added that a proposal to that effect has been forwarded to the urban development department and a response was awaited.

However, additional government pleader Manish Pabale refuted PMRDA’s claim and said that no such proposal was pending before the department. He submitted that the ring road was vital for the growth of Pune and would also reduce congestion, and hence there could be no compromise.

After hearing all sides, the bench asked the state whether the plan conceived in 1994 was feasible today and if yes, the state should file an affidavit elaborating on the rough estimate of the total project cost and approximate time for construction, excluding the time to be taken for acquiring lands to be affected by the project. The state has also been asked to state the likely time to be taken for demarcation and acquisition of lands by August 18. The court has posted hearing of the petition to August 23.