Sharing mill land pie: Fight's on for the bigger slice

MUMBAI: Once upon a time, when Mumbai was Bombay Presidency, the government leased out large tracts of the island to textile entrepreneurs. The mill owners thrived, gave Manchester a run for its money and made this city cotton king.
Now that the run of the mills is over and cotton has been replaced by computers, can mill owners insist that the land—over 500 prime acres in Mumbai—is still theirs to dispose of as they will? Or should some of it return to the space-starved city? This question of land ownership and control is at the heart of the recent controversy over the mill-land policy.
While the original policy carved up surplus mill land into three parts to be split between the owner, low-income housing and open spaces, civic observers recently discovered a loophole in the law that allows owners to apply the one-third rule only to open land—or areas with no buildings or structures on them. Since such spaces are just a fraction of the total mill area, some architects describe the insertion of such a clause as a betrayal of the city.
"The land was given to the mills at throwaway prices for industries which would benefit the city," said Pankaj Joshi, a conservation architect. "If it is no longer being used for those purposes, the city should get it back."
Architects and planners are concerned because they see the mill lands as a rare and exciting opportunity for planned development. In 1996, the Charles Correa committee,which studied the mill lands, noted that integrated development should seek "to create housing, civic amenities and new employment opportunities".
The Correa committee was appointed by the state government, but officials now seem to back the industry''s point of view—that mill owners should be the main beneficiaries. "On the contrary, the principle of sharing itself must be questioned," said a mill owner, adding, "Why is only the textile mill owner being asked to share land? Why not any of the other industries, like ITC, which are also selling their old factory lands?" Mill owners maintain that in most cases, land has legally passed into their hands.
State government officials also claim that land which has been leased out for a long time, or on perpetual leases as they are known, becomes de facto the lesee''s property. However, lawyers say leased land cannot automatically become free land unless the ownership is actually transferred, but this can be done by the collector for a premium.
"But long-time lesees can sell their leasehold rights to others or redevelop the property themselves," clarified lawyer Mulraj Shah. Both officials and owners argue that the land needs to be sold to raise money to pay workers'' dues and debts. While critics ask why the city should pay for the owners'' ineptitude, labour unions also view this with scepticism.
"If they are so concerned about the workers, why don''t they ensure transparency and quicker payments?" said Gayatri Singh of the Girni Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti. Some architects accept that mill owners have the legal right over the lands, but call for them to share the land pie on "moral grounds".
"They should also think about what is right for the city," said an architect, pointing out that mill owners were targeted because they were sitting on such large tracts of land and in such a prime area, and ad hoc development of the area, without the requisite green areas, public housing and civic infrastructure, could be disastrous for the city.