Esplanade: Mhada asked to list precautions during demolition
On the directions of the HC, Mhada had issued eviction notices to all occupants of the building as it was in a dilapidated condition.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court Tuesday asked the Mhada to list the precautions it proposed to take while bringing down the 150-year-old heritage structure Esplanade Mansion in south Mumbai.
On Tuesday, Mhada lawyer P.G. Lad informed the division bench of Justice S.C. Dharmadhikari and Justice G.S. Patel that 104 occupants had already vacated the building. However, 64 offices in the building had locks on them and their owners/tenants had not responded to the eviction notices.
Advocate Lad also said that since the last date for eviction had passed, Mhada would now remove the locks and seize all moveable articles inside the said premises and make an inventory, and later hand it over to the rightful owners.
When he informed the court that following this procedure, Mhada would initiate further action towards demolition of the building, the bench sought to know from him what precautions the authorities proposed to take during demolition to ensure no untoward incident occurred.
The bench said that the building was at a busy intersection at Kala Ghoda in south Mumbai with continuous vehicular movement so what were the precautions that Mhada planned to take.
On the directions of the HC, Mhada had issued eviction notices to all occupants of the building as it was in a dilapidated condition.
The bench suggested that barricades needed to be put up around the building, no person needed to be allowed to walk in the promenade surrounding it, and no cars needed to be allowed to be parked there.
The Judges said that the authorities also needed to make some way on the road for pedestrians to walk. “We do not want the building or any part of it to fall on any one,” the bench said.
Advocate Atul Damle, appearing for some of the occupants of the building, told the court that Mhada should give them transit occupation elsewhere in the vicinity. The bench said that the rightful owners could file civil suits in lower courts to resolve these disputes.