The Times of India 01.10.2013
NMMC lists around 750 buildings as 'dangerous'
NAVI MUMBAI: The NMMC has listed around 750 buildings - 200 constructed by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), and 550 non-Cidco buildings-that are 30 years old and more which require structural audit for ascertaining their safety. The list has been forwarded to the heads of the two civic divisions who have passed it on to the eight respective ward officers. The residents of these buildings will have to get the audit done at their own cost. "We have also provided the list of engineers who can do the audit,'' the civic body said.
The audit is required as per the amendment of the BPMC Act in 2010 that makes it mandatory for buildings that are 30 years old and more for their audit to be done, the civic body pointed out.
The state government has also put pressure on the civic bodies by sending a letter asking them to undertake the audit of this category of buildings.
The letter, in the wake of Mumbra collapses and the recent crashing of an old building in Mazgaon, has assumed significance as there are at least 70 buildings on the NMMC list that are categorised as old and dilapidated.
Left in a lurch?
- While the one-time settlement scheme of Cidco more than a decade ago helped 112 families to shift to a transit home in Juinagar, others continue to reside under risky circumstances.
- NMMC did not consider any alternative accommodation for residents who stay in buildings categorised as dangerous because the municipal laws did not provide for transit homes.
- But the civic body does serve yearly notices to the listed dilapidated buildings under section 264 of BPMC Act stating that any loss of life and wealth was solely the responsibility of the residents.
- Advertisements were placed in media during the onset of monsoon and the residents were intimated about the hazard.
- The civic body said that section 268 of BPMC Act provides for police help for eviction of the residents of the dangerous and dilapidated buildings, but it did not invoke the provision on 'humanitarian grounds'.
