The Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) has defended the partially built ‘Hunger Heaven Food Plaza’ in Veer Savarkar Nagar Garden, stating that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from local residents is not required for projects on Public Utility (PU) land. This argument was made in an affidavit submitted to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) from residents.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by advocate Tushar Mandlekar for local residents, claims that the construction of the ‘Hunger Heaven Food Plaza’ violates several laws, including the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, and the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioners argue that the project, which began in December 2022, did not have the necessary approvals or community input. In its response, the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) stated that the land was given to them at no cost in 1994, and the project is part of a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement signed in 2019. This agreement allows the contractor to build, operate, and maintain the food plaza and garden for 10 years before returning it to NIT.
“The project does not need a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from residents for development on Public Utility (PU) land. The layout plans were approved, and the construction follows all legal requirements, including public notifications in newspapers,” said Rasika Kawade, NIT’s Garden Superintendent. The affidavit also notes that the garden, along with others managed by NIT, was transferred to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) in July 2020, which is now responsible for its maintenance and operations. In response to allegations of unauthorized construction, contractor Murlidhar Chavan confirmed that all necessary permissions were obtained before starting the work.
He stated that the project is not yet operational and fully complies with the BOT agreement. However, petitioners like local resident Rajesh Swaranakar argued that it undermines the garden’s primary purpose as a public utility.
They argued that the site has traditionally been used for activities like yoga, jogging, and sports, and that introducing commercial activities disrupts these essential functions. NIT criticized the timing of the PIL, stating it was filed three years after the garden was transferred to NMC, which they deemed unreasonable.
“The petition lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs,” the affidavit stated. As the legal battle continues, the case highlights the ongoing tension between urban development projects and the preservation of public spaces for community welfare.