The Bombay High Court has raised concerns over the delay in transferring land for a Muslim burial ground in Bandra. Despite the Maharashtra government’s earmarking of the site for development as a Kabristaan, possession of the land has not yet been handed over to the BMC. The court’s inquiry seeks clarification on the reasons behind the delay. This issue arose during a hearing on a public interest litigation filed in 2016, highlighting the community’s need for adequate cemetery space in the Bandra and Khar areas. The court has scheduled further hearings to address the matter.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has expressed concern over the Maharashtra Government’s failure to transfer land for a Muslim burial ground at Bandra, calling the delay “incomprehensible.” Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor sought clarification on the reasons behind the delay during a recent hearing.
The court’s questioned the Urban Development Department about the notification on September 29, 2022, earmarking the site for a Kabristaan. Despite this, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) has yet to hand over possession of the land to the BMC, according to the court.
The case originated from a public interest litigation filed in 2016 by Mohammed Furqan Qureshi, who sought BMC’s allocation of land for a Sunni burial ground in Bandra and Khar areas due to the community’s population of 1.72 lakh and insufficient cemetery space.
While the BMC pledged 3000 square meters each for Hindu, Muslim, and Christian communities, MMRDA initially opposed the reservation in the draft development plan, citing plans for a commercial hub similar to the Bandra-Kurla Complex. The court intervened, ordering a status quo on the land.
During the recent hearing, BMC counsel Anil Sakhare informed the court that the government had allocated land, pending final formalities. However, the petitioner’s counsel alleged that MSRDC had issued a tender notice for the site’s redevelopment, raising doubts about the land’s status.
Reviewing the tender notice, the bench expressed uncertainty regarding the subject site. The bench cautioned the petitioner about the consequences of false claims and requested relevant documents through an affidavit for further evaluation. The court scheduled the next hearing for February 21.
