Bhiwandi’s much-publicised building legalisation scheme, introduced to streamline unauthorised construction in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, has so far yielded limited success. The policy, initiated by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) under the Bhiwandi Surrounding Notified Area (BSNA) in March 2022, was intended as a strategic intervention to bring widespread violations under the formal urban framework and generate critical funds for the region’s infrastructure expansion. However, more than two years into its implementation, official data reveals that approvals have been sparse, raising concerns over compliance, documentation, and administrative execution.
Designed to tackle the long-standing issue of illegal constructions in one of Maharashtra’s most urbanising zones, the legalisation policy allows property owners to regularise unauthorised buildings by paying penalties scaled to the severity of the violation. The charges, ranging between 20 per cent and 100 per cent of the base premium rate, are pegged to the government’s ready reckoner applicable at the time of approval. The policy bifurcates applications into two routes—regularisation and compounding—based on the nature and timeline of the unauthorised work. Yet, of the 331 applications submitted under the regularisation window, only 33 have been approved as of June 2025, while 113 have been outrightly rejected and 185 remain pending due to documentation gaps or inconsistencies with the BSNA development plan. Under the compounding category, which applies to more severe violations, not a single application among 194 has cleared scrutiny. Officials attributed the poor clearance rate to zoning mismatches, technical deficiencies, and non-adherence to planning regulations.
Urban development authorities argue that the framework was never designed to be lenient. Instead, it was aimed at setting a precedent for lawful urban growth and discouraging future encroachments by attaching a significant financial cost to violations. The scheme, in effect, serves as a corrective mechanism where property owners must financially compensate the public system for the additional stress their buildings place on civic services and urban infrastructure. A senior MMRDA official involved in the policy’s execution clarified that the scheme is not an amnesty programme. “The objective is not to forgive, but to formalise. Those who’ve deviated from approved norms must contribute to the infrastructure they’ve burdened. At the same time, we are bound to ensure all regularised structures align with our larger vision for planned urbanisation,” the official said.
Despite the intent, the practical outcome has been underwhelming. Experts note that the scheme’s complexity, especially the rigorous documentation required, has acted as a deterrent for many applicants. Others, whose structures fall in zones prohibited for such developments under the sanctioned development plan, have had their hopes dashed. In some cases, owners have begun construction without even a basic Commencement Certificate, while others have undertaken additions post stop-work notices—violations that attract the steepest penalties of up to 100 per cent. Under the regularisation matrix, violations are slotted into four categories. Mild deviations—such as construction beyond the Commencement Certificate but within sanctioned plans—are fined at 20 per cent of the base premium. Infractions after receiving a stop-work notice are levied at 40 per cent. Works carried out within permissible plot potential but without approvals are penalised at 70 per cent. The most severe penalties—100 per cent—apply when violations involve elements such as Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), unauthorised Floor Space Index (FSI), or amalgamation of plots.
Even relatively minor modifications, such as change of land use or interior redesigns that exceed approved parameters, are not exempt from penalties. The cumulative financial burden has led many to either delay applications or explore legal recourse rather than pursue regularisation. For MMRDA, the sluggish approval rate translates into a missed opportunity for mobilising funds needed to execute key urban projects. Revenue from regularisation was expected to be channelled into civic infrastructure upgrades—particularly roads, sewerage networks, public transit, and sustainable housing. The delay in approvals thus hampers broader development goals in a region already strained by rapid population growth, industrial activity, and informal settlements.
In the eyes of town planners and policy analysts, the Bhiwandi scenario underscores the wider dilemma Indian cities face when attempting to retrofit legality into informal growth. Legacy constructions, poor planning awareness, limited access to legal assistance, and piecemeal enforcement have created a parallel urban system that operates outside formal regulatory boundaries. Attempts to fold such a system into legality must therefore strike a careful balance between revenue generation, legal rigor, and equitable inclusion. Residents in the BSNA area have responded with mixed sentiments. While some see the initiative as a path to secure legal tenure and property market value, others are disillusioned by the lack of transparency and long processing timelines. Community representatives have urged MMRDA to conduct public outreach sessions to educate owners on documentation requirements and compliance expectations.
Infrastructure-focused civil society organisations have also called for the incorporation of sustainability benchmarks into the regularisation process. They argue that formalisation should not merely validate existing structures but encourage retrofitting for energy efficiency, rainwater harvesting, and climate resilience. As Mumbai’s peripheries continue to urbanise, the stakes for planning-led development grow higher. Without mechanisms to bring unauthorised developments into the fold and channel the resulting revenue into community-enhancing infrastructure, regions like Bhiwandi risk becoming spatially fragmented and environmentally vulnerable.
The MMRDA’s regularisation drive remains a step in the right direction, but its impact will depend on its ability to inspire confidence, simplify procedures, and hold all stakeholders accountable. If recalibrated with transparency, fairness, and a forward-looking sustainability agenda, the policy could serve as a blueprint for urban transformation beyond Bhiwandi.
Also Read : Visakhapatnam sees four coach addition to Secunderabad Vande Bharat train increasing total to twenty from July 5
MMRDA Clears Few Illegal Bhiwandi Constructions Under Regularisation Scheme
