The Mumbai civic administration informed the Bombay High Court that it is considering an application seeking regularisation of unauthorised construction in a 34-storey tower at Tulsiwadi in Tardeo. The matter has attracted judicial and civic scrutiny over compliance with safety norms and the broader question of how unauthorised structures are treated in India’s financial capital.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that residents of the 17th to 34th floors, previously directed to vacate, have now left the premises and locked their apartments in line with judicial orders. Civic officials confirmed that the upper floors remain unoccupied, addressing earlier concerns over safety hazards and non-compliance with evacuation deadlines. The controversy surrounding the tower deepened after the High Court, in July, ordered evacuation of the unauthorised upper floors citing gross violations, including lack of a full occupancy certificate and absence of a mandatory fire clearance. The Supreme Court later upheld this directive, reinforcing the seriousness of the violations. A subsequent plea by the housing society to extend the deadline was rejected, with the High Court cautioning that any leniency could set a “wrong precedent”.
Meanwhile, the civic body stated that the fire brigade has issued a provisional no-objection certificate for the building. This development, while offering temporary relief to residents, does not resolve concerns over structural compliance and unauthorised amalgamations such as the merging of the 26th and 27th floors. The court has also sought clarity on irregularities reported even in the lower floors, including claims that utility spaces had been converted into residential units. Officials noted that before any decision on regularisation is taken, a thorough inspection will be undertaken. The outcome of this inspection will determine whether the unauthorised portions can be brought within legal parameters or whether stronger enforcement measures are required. The court has now disposed of interim applications, directing that the larger petition challenging the building’s legality be heard by an assigned bench in due course.
Urban planning experts argue that cases such as this highlight the tension between the rapid demand for vertical housing in Mumbai and the persistent lapses in regulatory oversight. They stress that overlooking compliance compromises safety, weakens civic accountability, and risks undermining trust in urban governance. For a city already grappling with challenges of density, fire safety, and equitable housing, the resolution of such disputes carries implications beyond the fate of a single tower. As Mumbai continues to expand vertically, the civic body’s stance on regularisation will set an important precedent. Whether it prioritises strict enforcement or finds a compromise through post-facto approvals, the decision will reflect on how India’s cities balance growth, sustainability, and citizens’ safety.
Also Read: BMC Floats Tender For Decade-Long Management Of Mumbai’s Aspirational Public Toilets
