A road-access dispute at the 43 Private Drive housing project in Balewadi has left beneficiaries of the September 2025 Pune MHADA lottery without a clear route to their allotted flats, prompting demands for immediate municipal action and an investigation into how the homes were accepted without an operational approach road.
Raviraj Kale, Maharashtra 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 architect if violations are established. He has also sought cancellation of the architect’s licence, an inquiry into the role of municipal and MHADA officials, and the immediate opening of the road shown in the approved layout.
According to the report, the MHADA flats are located in a separate building behind a commercial information-technology building within the 43 Private Drive development. The project comprises four to five residential wings, while the MHADA building contains four flats. Beneficiaries reportedly have no usable direct access to the building. The route is described as being locked and obstructed by potholes and overgrown vegetation.
Kale said the developer had obtained project approval on the understanding that a road alongside an older residential building would be developed by the municipal corporation and subsequently serve as the access road for the MHADA homes. He claimed that three to four years after approval, and about a year after the completion certificate was issued, the road had still not been built.
The report also describes a dispute with the residents’ society at 43 Private Drive. The society has reportedly erected a wall and maintains that the route is an internal road belonging to its residents, with no obligation to provide access to the MHADA building. The MHADA beneficiaries have allegedly been approaching the developer, the PMC building department and the MHADA office for about six months without a resolution.
Bhandari rejected the allegation that the developer had blocked access. He said the seven-and-a-half-acre layout includes a single road and access route for the residential buildings and the MHADA structure. He referred to the MHADA and deemed-conveyance orders as recognising the buildings as part of one layout and said the society’s obstruction was improper. He added that a complaint had been submitted to the municipal corporation against the society.
Moreshwar Balwadkar, chairman of the 43 Private Drive society, disputed that account. He said the society had not been informed about the MHADA building or its access requirements during construction and denied that residents were responsible for the problem. Balwadkar said the municipal corporation should complete the nine-metre road shown in the development plan, claiming that only about 50 feet of work remained. He also questioned how MHADA accepted a building that did not have a functioning access road.
The dispute raises an administrative question beyond the immediate disagreement over the route: whether the municipal completion-certification process and MHADA’s possession process adequately verified access, layout compliance and basic habitability before the flats were accepted. The report does not include a response from the PMC or MHADA confirming their position on the approvals, completion certificate or possession process. Kale has warned of an agitation if the road is not opened and the requested inquiries are not initiated.
