Recommended Free Tools
The four-month period announced in April 2015 was meant for Mumbai’s municipal corporation to revise its draft Development Plan for 2034, correct errors and consider citizens’ submissions—not simply discard the plan. The decision was reported as a state cabinet decision announced by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, not a court order. The practical question was whether the revision would address only defective maps or also the contested land-use choices behind public objections.
What did the four-month decision require?
Scroll reported on April 21, 2015, that the state government had decided to direct the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to take citizens’ suggestions and objections into account and revise the draft plan over the next four months. Fadnavis’s posts, reproduced in the report, said the revised plan would then be opened again for public feedback. That describes an announced process, not proof that the revision was completed on schedule. Scroll’s April 2015 report
Calling it an “order to dump” the plan can therefore mislead: the reported decision was to rework the draft, not to abandon development planning altogether. The announced timetable also left two different tasks to resolve: correct errors in the draft and decide how to handle substantive objections to its proposals.
Why were citizens and activists objecting?
The objections described by Scroll covered heritage, open space, coastal land, and road widening. They were not limited to isolated drafting mistakes; together, they raised questions about what land the plan would protect, what it would make available for development, and who would bear the costs of transport projects. These examples are claims reported in 2015, not current verified assessments of the land or proposals.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
Heritage buildings and precincts
Scroll reported that the draft’s maps omitted many heritage structures, including examples in south Mumbai and Bandra, and left out some traditional village precincts. It also reported a proposed allowance for Grade III heritage structures and precincts to be redeveloped up to 10 storeys, compared with a 24-metre limit under the previous plan. The report described further qualifications, so those figures should not be read as a complete account of the applicable rules. Scroll’s account of the heritage objections
Open space, Aarey and coastal ecology
The report said the draft changed Aarey Colony’s designation and described the area as 1,009 acres of forested land. It also said the draft proposed deleting existing land reservations on plots that had already been encroached upon; Scroll estimated that the change could affect an additional 700 hectares of open space. Those are figures and descriptions from the 2015 report, not present-day measurements. Scroll also reported objections concerning coastal land and mangroves. Scroll’s reported open-space and Aarey concerns
Coastal road and distribution of impacts
Scroll described a proposed 34-kilometre coastal road, with a projected cost of Rs 8,000 crore and a reported reclamation footprint of 160 acres. The article relayed criticism that the project could benefit a limited group of car owners while harming fishing livelihoods and coastal ecology. These are the proposal details and criticism reported in 2015; they should not be treated as current project figures or an assessment of what was ultimately built. Scroll’s 2015 coastal-road coverage
Road-widening maps
Among the alleged mapping errors and disputed widening proposals, Scroll cited a road drawn over the steps of Mount Mary Church and another mapped through a housing colony. Correcting errors of this kind is different from reconsidering whether a widening proposal is justified and who would be affected.
Rank #3
Could four months address the objections?
Architect and urban planner Hussain Indorewala, of the Kamla Raheja Vidyanidhi Institute for Architecture, questioned whether the timetable could deliver more than technical corrections. Scroll quoted him: “In four months, at the most they will be able to rectify the errors in the draft but they also need to work with the suggestions and objections filed by the people.”
That distinction is central. Fixing a road drawn through a building or restoring a missing feature to a map can address an error. Deciding whether heritage protections should change, whether an open-space reservation should remain, or how a transport proposal affects coastal communities requires consideration of policy choices and public submissions. The announcement’s promise to consider objections and put the revised plan out for feedback addressed that broader need in principle; the four-month deadline alone did not establish how thoroughly it would be met.
Rank #4
Indorewala also argued against scrapping the plan entirely, telling Scroll: “Reworking the development plan is a sensible decision but scrapping it completely is a bad idea, because the corporation has already spent four years and a lot of money on drafting it.” The dispute, as reported, was therefore not simply whether to keep or discard the draft, but whether revision could preserve the work already done while meaningfully responding to public criticism.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the 2015 announcement does—and does not—establish
Scroll’s April 21, 2015 report provides a record of the announcement, the objections it described and the concerns voiced about the timetable. It is a news report, not the underlying cabinet decision or the plan’s technical maps. It does not establish whether the revised plan was completed within four months or what became of the process afterward. The figures above should be understood in that dated, reported context.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
