The allocation of urban space in Maharashtra: Rhetoric and reality

Abstract

Formal town planning as we know it today was introduced by the British in India three-quarters of a century ago. During these years, the basic tenets of town planning have undergone very little change. As towns and cities began to grow rapidly, however, problems started to become acute in a number of areas of urban life. New legislation was introduced to support the existing town planning laws in India in order to deal with some of the critical problems; and yet none of these efforts have brought relief in the ever worsening urban situation. Housing, which is one of the most vivid indicators of lift in cities, is characterised by increasing polarisation in living conditions of the rich and the poor. In order to explain this pattern of urban development it is necessary to review the existing legislation which impinges on the question of access to housing; it is also essential to cxaminc its implcmcntation and interpretation. I intend to do this by using cxamplcs from Maharashtra. I will rcvicw legislation pertaining to Indian town planning and housing, and analyst some rcccnt casts of public interest litigation which throw light on the underlying processes which lcad to this inequitable dcvelopmcnt. The central objective of town planning is supposed to be to ensure orderly devclopmcnt by regulating land-use and making adequate provision of public facilities and amenities. The legislation enacted for this purpose makes necessary provisions for physical planning of urban areas, acquiring land for public purposes and for enforcing planned development. Yet towns and cities have experienced a sharp decline in the level of services and a rapid increase in the incidence of unauthorised settlement. Land prices in large cities have rocketed, taking adequate housing out of the reach of an increasing proportion of the urban population. Measures adopted by governments in response to the worsening urban situation have failed to arrest the decline. The rhetoric regarding public good has concealed the underlying reality of market forces, shaping urban development to the detriment of the low-income population. Worse still recent evidence shows that government has actively supported real estate development using powers given to it under the town planning legislation; and, in doing so, the larger public interest has been sacrificed. At the same time, judiciary has largely endorsed government intervention by taking a conservative view of town planning and by-passing crucial questions of social justice and equity.