Residents allotted homes in the Balewadi MHADA housing project in Pune are reportedly unable to reach their flats because the access road to the four-flat building has not been completed, prompting demands for immediate municipal action and criminal proceedings against those responsible.
The dispute concerns four flats constructed under the ‘Pune MHADA Lottery September 2025’ in the 43 Private Drive project. According to a report by Civic Mirror – Pune, the flats are located in a separate building behind a commercial information-technology building within the larger development. Beneficiaries allegedly have no usable road leading directly to the building.
Raviraj Kale, state president of the Aam Aadmi Party’s youth wing, has asked the Pune Municipal Corporation’s building department to register criminal cases against developer Sachin Bhandari and the project’s architect. He has also sought cancellation of the architect’s licence and an inquiry into how the municipal corporation issued a Completion Certificate and how the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority accepted the flats without confirming road access.
Kale alleged that, when the project was approved, the developer referred to the Development Plan and stated that a road alongside an older residential building would be developed by the municipal corporation and later serve as the access road for the MHADA building. The report said that three to four years have passed since approval, while about a year has passed since the Completion Certificate was issued, but the road has not been built.
The access dispute has intensified after the society of another residential building in the complex reportedly treated the route as an internal road and opposed its use by residents of the MHADA building. The society has allegedly constructed a wall and placed locks at the site. The report also described potholes and overgrown vegetation along the route, leaving beneficiaries to approach the developer, the municipal building department and the MHADA office repeatedly for about six months.
Bhandari disputed the allegations and said the society was responsible for obstructing access. He said the MHADA building consisted of four flats constructed on a 7.5-acre plot and that the approved layout provided a common road and access route for the buildings. He referred to the MHADA and deemed-conveyance orders as recognising the A, B, C, D and MHADA buildings as part of one layout. Bhandari said his company had followed the rules and had complained to the municipal corporation against the society.
Moreshwar Balwadkar, chairman of the 43 Private Drive society, rejected the allegation that the society was deliberately blocking the beneficiaries. He said the developer had not informed the society about the MHADA building or its access requirements. According to Balwadkar, the proposed route through the side margin of another building was not acceptable and the municipal corporation should complete the nine-metre road shown in the Development Plan. He said only about 50 feet of work remained and questioned how MHADA accepted a building without a completed entry road.
The AAP youth wing has demanded that the road shown in the approved plan be opened immediately and warned of protests if the authorities do not act. The competing claims leave the municipal corporation and MHADA responsible for clarifying the approved layout, the road’s ownership and development status, the basis for the Completion Certificate, and the conditions under which the flats were accepted and handed over.
