On August 1, Andhra Pradesh’s Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MAUD) minister P Narayana, accompanied by Capital Region Development Authority (CRDA) commissioner Bhaskar Katamneni and other officials, undertook a visit to Navi Mumbai.
The primary objective of this visit was to evaluate the potential of Navi Mumbai’s urban planning model as a reference for shaping Amaravati, the envisioned capital of Andhra Pradesh under the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) administration. During a press briefing, Narayana highlighted the success of Navi Mumbai’s City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) in managing urban infrastructure projects.
He pointed to CIDCO’s ongoing development of the metro system and Navi Mumbai airport, in which they hold a 26% stake, as examples of effective land pooling schemes. “CIDCO’s approach, supported by a substantial deposit of around INR 7,000 crore, demonstrates how strategic financial management can enhance city development,” Narayana stated. He also commended CIDCO’s commitment to providing housing for economically disadvantaged sections, with financial contributions from both Maharashtra and the Union government.
However, the adoption of Navi Mumbai’s model for Amaravati raises several concerns. CIDCO has faced criticism, particularly regarding the Navi Mumbai Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA) project. Launched in December 2023, the NAINA project has seen protests from Panvel farmers over its land pooling policy. Under this scheme, CIDCO retains 60% of the land for infrastructure, leaving 40% for the landowners. Critics argue that this arrangement disproportionately favours the corporation while inadequately compensating affected residents.
Further, there are allegations of inadequate housing quality and responsiveness from CIDCO. Critics argue that while the development appears polished, many residents, including construction workers and farmers, have not benefited proportionately from these initiatives. This is not the first instance of Andhra Pradesh drawing inspiration from Mumbai’s urban models. Previously, during their initial term, the TDP government showcased Magarpatta township in Pune as an example of successful land pooling.
Established in 1993, Magarpatta’s model involved pooling land from 120 families, with the land titles retained by the farmers—a concept the TDP hoped to replicate in Amaravati. As Andhra Pradesh’s MAUD ministry continues to explore various urban planning models, the scrutiny of Navi Mumbai’s approach underscores the challenges and opportunities inherent in implementing such ambitious projects.
