Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective

REDEVELOPING
MUMBAI’S PORT LAND
A PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE

Published by: YUVA (Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action) Urban Mumbai
YUVA Centre Sector 7, Plot 23, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai – 410210 (INDIA)
March 2015
Content: Marina Joseph, Mayuresh Bhadsavle, and Aravind Unni
Assistance: Nitin Kubal
Photos: Prabir Talukdar unless otherwise noted
Design and Layout: Morgan Buck
Printing: Megha Graphics

REDEVELOPING
MUMBAI’S PORT LAND
Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action
Hamara Shehar Vikas Niyojan Abhiyaan
A PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE

YUVA is a voluntary development organization established in 1984. We have over the years questioned
social structures along the side of the poor with the aim of empowering them to participate in a pro-
cess of meaningful change. YUVA’s engagements are derived from the paradigm of Human Rights. The
foundation of engagement lies in defending, promoting, restoring and creating the civil, political, social,
economic and cultural rights of the poor at the individual and collective level. YUVA Urban works to
build linkages between grass root experiences and the larger context of urbanization at the national
level. YUVA Urban strengthens the capacities of communities to understand and respond effectively to
local development issues. YUVA’s strength lies in grassroot intervention through which policy engage-
ment takes place.
www. yuvaurbanindia.org
www.facebook.com/page/yuva-urban
Hamara Shehar Vikas Niyojan Abhiyaan is a collective of communities, NGOs, CBOs, movements and
academic institutions. The campaign was developed in 2013 in the context of the revision of Mumbai’s
Development Plan. It aims towards developing a people-centric, bottom up approach to urban plan-
ning and governance in Mumbai.
JOIN THE HAMARA SHEHAR VIKAS NIYOJAN ABHIYAAN!
Attend a monthly meeting and be part of the discussion
or volunteer with us.
Facebook Page: Mumbai DP Campaign | gekjk ‘kgj fodkl fu;kstu vfHk;ku
Blog: voicesofthemumbaiport.wordpress.com | hamarasheharmumbai.org
Email: mumbaidpforum@gmail.com

FOREWORD
InacitythathasthedubiousdistinctionofhostingthemostexpensiverealestateinIndia,andwhichhasa
historyofaproportionatelylargenumberoflandscams,thefuroreovertherecentproposalbytheCentral
government’s Ministry of Shipping for redeveloping PortTrust land was only to be expected. Those who
havebeendebatinglanduseinthecityofMumbai,andthereareagreatnumberof socialmovementsand
citizensgroupswhichhavebeendoingso, areagainfacedwithsomeofthedifficultquestionsthatarepart
of the‘development debate’in the urban context in general and in Mumbai in particular.
The report ‘Redeveloping Mumbai’s Port Land - A People’s Perspective’ from YUVA and HSVN contrib-
utessignificantlytothisdebatebydiscussingtheplanfortheredevelopmentofamind-boggling752hect-
ares (1858.23 acres) of land in the island city from the point of view of Mumbai city’s most marginalised
citizens.The question of land use is intrinsically connected to the question of who has the most access to
thecity,whohasthebiggestsliceofthepie,whodecideswhoshouldhavehowmuch,whostaysandwho
goes, and even who stays where in the city. YUVA has played a key role in this debate, and the report they
havepresentedisanoteworthycontributionatatimewhenthelastlargeswathoflandintheislandcityis
being opened up.
Asthereportobserves,Mumbai’sportlandstretchesoverone-eighththeareaoftheislandcity,fromWada-
la in the North to the Sassoon Dock in the South. It has a total area 752 hectares (1858.23 acres), of which
about 445 hectares is reclaimed land. This is in the most expensive part of Mumbai - the island city - in-
cluding the so-far-inaccessible eastern seaboard.
The Mumbai Port Land Development Committee (MPLDC) on the eastern waterfront and port land
development was set up by the Ministry of Shipping in mid 2014, headed by Ms Rani Jadhav, former
chairperson of the Mumbai Port Trust. The committee consisting of architects, planners and industrial-
ists prepared the report in three months. The port trust proposal promises many things - open spaces,
educational institutions, transport, an entrepreneurship incubation centre and other good things. This
‘peoples report’asks the question - what does this mean and how will all this be done? Quoting from the
YUVA & HSNV report“Proposing redevelopment in a phased manner they suggest a usage of port land
for tourist-centric development. Proposed projects include creation of a new mass transit corridor to
augment east-west connectivity, 400 acres of green open spaces, an entertainment zone, a giant ferris
wheel on the lines of the London Eye, a floating hotel, floating restaurants, food courts and special trade
zone, a world-class cruise terminal and an intra-city waterways projects among others.”
While trying to make sense of the thinking of the powers - that - be in the urban planning process in In-
dia, one cannot but be struck by the obsession with trying to look like other cities: Singapore, Shanghai,
and in the case of the Port Trust - trying to import a bit of London which even all Londoners are hardly
comfortable with. In terms of identify, aesthetics as well as social life, such a ‘copycat’ approach can be
deeply harmful to the city - and we have seen this in the violence that accompanies the realization of
this vision: not just the lack of people’s participation but active hostility towards citizens with less mon-
ey. Slum demolition, beautification, housing markets are some of the keywords that govern planning
in the modern Indian city, not history, evolution, participation, planning. There is litt . The YUVA &HSNV
report raises the issue of the planning priorities in a city. It also describes experiences of port regenera-
tion in Montevideo, London and Singapore, which they point out, employ“ varied means towards suc-
cessful port regeneration – people’s participation, integrated city planning and social goals as a means
to achieve desired investment.”

REDVELOPING MUMBAI’S PORT LAND: A PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVEii
The first level of suspicion of motives starts with the Indian Government’s Ministry of Shipping. In 1995,
the World Bank published a report‘India Port Sector Strategy Report’focused on the need to introduce
urgent reforms in Indian Ports, recommending large scale privatization of ports, easing of government
controls,andstructuralchangesintheportsector–moreautonomytomajorports,modernizationofport
infrastructureandmakingwayfor‘portexperts’tomanageportaffairs.Todaycorporatizationorprivatiza-
tionofmajorportsisagrimreality,andevenfundamentalchangeshavebeenmadeinIndianmaritimelaw,
to the extent of relaxation of rules for‘cabotage’, which privileged India’s coastal trade for Indian flagged
vessels. This has now been relaxed, and foreign vessels are allowed to compete in a ‘level playing field’.
When this is the approach towards Indian shipping companies, it is not difficult to imagine what priority
wouldbegiventopoorsquattersonportland.Howmuchsocialcommitmenttocitizenswelfareandneeds,
to the needs of the city as a whole, can be expected from the Ministry of Shipping? Their faith in World
Bankprescriptionsandthemarketishardlyconducivetosuchthinking.ThePortandDockworkersunions
acrossmajorportshaveexpressedtheirstrongoppositiontocorporatizationofports,againstclosingdown
ofoperationsinthestatesector.Theyhavebeendemandingthattheportsbemadeviablethroughmodern-
izationorintroductionoftechnology.Closureandprivatizationrepresentahugelosstothestateexchequer,
and it also means large numbers of workers lose their jobs and livelihood.
The second level of suspicion centres on Mumbai’s planning history. Redevelopment and land use have
beenissuesofcontroversystartingevenintheearliestreclamationsthatcreatedthisportcityfromtheseven
disparate fishing villages which constituted Mumbai until the 18th century. In the course of the growth
ofthecity,fishingvillagesweredisplacedtoaccommodatethecommercial,financialandindustrialneeds.
Mumbai was built by reclamations - and much of the land is in that sense, created, not natural. Land use
hasofcoursechangedovertheyears,asneedsandtheeconomychanged.Changeisconstant,necessary.
But change - is it good or bad - what is the basis on which it can be measured? Does it benefit the people?
Does or benefit all the people or only a few? Who has access to the fruits of development?
Earlier virtuous sounding proposals for development of land, including that of the 600 acres of mill lands
againintheislandcityendeduprepresentingabigrealestatescam,lossofjobs,increaseddensityintheis-
landcity,unplanneddevelopmentwithoutanyopenspace,withoutimplementationofexistingnorms.The
onlysavinggracewasthereservationofasmallpieceoflandforworkershousingandanequallysmallslice
forthecity.Howeverthiswasonlybecauseoftheconstantandcontinuousbattleputupbythemillworkers.
At the time that the Development Control Regulations were relaxed, making‘change of user’possible for
mill lands, the government did it in the name of mill workers of providing the city and the mill workers
with space, with jobs, with housing.What the city got in the end was just a dense concrete mess of luxury
apartments, malls and offices that is now Central Mumbai where the mills once existed.
The most important contribution that the YUVA & HSVN makes is a detailed mapping of the encroach-
ments and informal settlements of the poor on the Port Trust Land. This helps to establish the rights of
these communities, which will in turn help to make sure that these informal settlements are taken into
consideration in the planning of what will happen with the MbPT land. The YUVA & HSVN report makes
a strong case that any comprehensive development plan for the port trust land must take into consid-
eration the following: a) it should step away from the current planning practices given the past issues
that have plagued the city’s planning history, b) it must be based on an inclusive, participatory planning
model that takes all stakeholders into account c) it must prioritize social goals and the concerns of the
people and help to achieve spatial justice in the city. These are important criteria to be the basis for any
kind of development in a city.
Thereportalsoestablishes,therecanbenoredevelopmentofportlandthatdoesnottakeintoconsideration
theneedsandaspirationsofthefollowing:theportworkers,informalworkers,slumsettlements,fishingvil-

Foreword iii
lages and the city itself. The city has rights which are the sum of the collective rights of the citizens. The
reportalsoadvocatesthattheportplanbeintegratedintoMumbai’sDevelopmentPlanthatispreparedby
the Municipal Corporation, instead of creating another planning authority in the city.
Onecanonlyhopethatthevoiceofthecitizensareheardandstepsaretakentopreventwhatcouldeasily
turnintothenextbiglandscaminacityoflandscams.Oratleastanillconceivedattempttorejuvenatethe
citythroughadestructiveplanningexercise.Thisreportsetsoutanargumentthaturgentlyseeksclarifica-
tionfromthegovernmentandthecityplanners.ItremainstobeseenwhetherthecitizensofMumbaiwill
indeedasserttheirrightsandwhether,thistimeround,thepeople’sconcernsandaspirationswillprevail.
Meena R Menon
(MeenaRMenonworkswithCitizensRightsCollective,policyhubofActionAidAssociation.Shehasbeen
associated with urban policy issues in Mumbai and specifically with the textile mill workers’movement.
She is co author of ‘One Hundred Years, One Hundred Voices: The Millworkers of Girangaon--an Oral
History’)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Oursincerethankstothemanypeoplewhohavehelpedontheground,widenedourperspectiveandas-
sisted in assembling this report:
Ajay Shejwal (Papa Kanan), Senthil Kumar, Bali Boomkar, Velumurugan, Damodar, Jaya, Amit Bidlan,
Reshma Shiekh, Vasant Salvi, Sankesh Koli, Shanti Ravi, Kishore Koli and many other residents
P. M. Mohammd Haneef, General Secretary, All India Port and Dock Workers Federation; Kersi Parekh
(acting President), P. K. Raman (Secretary) and Murthy Sir, Transport And Dock Workers Union; Sudhakar
Aparaj and Vidyadhar Rane, Mumbai Port Trust General Workers Union. Surendra Kumar Dhakalia of
the Darukhana Iron, Steel and Scrap Merchants Association; the Timber Merchants Association
Dr Anita Patil and Shrutika Shitole from PUKAR and members of Sahayogi Sanstha Manch
Field Work students Anshu Dungdung, Anupa Viswanath, Jestin Anthony, Mathew Mahananda and Ni-
tin Kashyap
Hussain Indorewala and Shweta Wagh for their suggestions to the report
voicesofthemumbaiport.wordpress.com | hamarasheharmumbai.org
Supported by

I ndian cities have become increasingly antagonistic to the working class and the informal sector.
Rampant urban restructuring has lead to gentrification of urban spaces - Mumbai’s island city being a
caseinpoint.Mumbaiistodayaglobalcity,scramblingtomeasureuptointernationalstandardsintermsof
financialcapital,investmentandinfrastructure.ApeekintoMumbai’shistorypointstotwokeyindustries-
textilesandtheport-thatdrewthousandsofworkersintothecityandbuiltthefoundationoftheeconomy
on which the city rests today. It is well known that Mumbai grew into a thriving metropolis because of its
conducive bay that was gradually developed into a Port in 1873.
Today, the Mumbai Port Trust owns 752.72 ha. of land all over the city. 709.51 ha of this stretches over
one-eighththeareaoftheislandcity.ItextendsoverprimerealestatefromWadalaintheNorthtotheSas-
soonDockintheSouth.TheMumbaiPortTrustisthelargestrealestateownerinMumbai,withtheprized
eastern waterfront - an integral part of the city’s land mass - also under its ownership.
Economicandtechnologicalchangeshavefundamentallyrestructuredportsallovertheworld,dramatically
alteringtherelationbetweentheportandthecity,thecities’imagesandrepresentations,andthecondition
ofpeoplelivingandworkingaroundports.(Kokot2008).Intheinterconnectedworldinwhichwelive,Indi-
ancitiesareverymuchpartofthisglobalprocessesofchange.Mumbai’sporthasseenwavesofattemptsat
redevelopmentbeginningasfarbackasthe1980s.Themostrecentattemptatrevitalizingwhatmainstream
discourse has termed a‘sick’port with‘swathes of underutilized land’began in June 2014.The Ministry of
Shipping constituted a Committee (Mumbai Port Land Development Committee) to prepare a road map
for the development of the eastern waterfront and port lands. It has been stated that upon receiving the
committeereport,thegovernmentwillfloataninternationalbiddingandawardthe‘developmentproject’
on a BOT (build, operate, transfer) basis, thus opening up the city’s largest publically owned land mass to
possibleprivatedevelopment.GiventhepoliticaleconomyoflandinMumbai,monetisingthe‘high-value
realestate’oftheportseemstobetheprimemotiveoftheenvisageddevelopment–itdoesnottakeinto
consideration the issues of the workers and life & livelihood linkages the port and its ancillary industries
have created over nearly two centuries.
As Schubert (2001) points out, transformation processes in port cities have so far been mainly studied by
urbangeographers,economistsandurbanplanners.Consequently,mostresearchhasconcentratedonlong-
termdevelopment,onthepositionofportsinnationaleconomies,andonphysicalresultsofurbanrestruc-
turing.Inviewofrapidglobalchangeandongoingplanningprocessesininternationalportcities,thestate
ofresearchurgentlyneedstobecomplementedbyin-depthstudiesofthevarietyofplanningcultures,of
goals, norms and values of actors and affected populations, and of their ever changing balance of power
(Schubert 2001:34 in Kokot 2008) Drawing from this point of view, this report is an attempt to highlight
stakeholderviewpointsontheproposedredevelopment,capturepeople’slivedrealityintheinformalset-
tlementslocatedonportland,andputforthsomeofthecity’smostfundamentalchallengesinthecontext
of global, national and local policies that will alter the relationship between cities and the working class
overthenextfewdecades. Thisreportalsoattemptstoproblematizeplanninggoalsinthecity,giventhe
challengesoflandownershipandtheimminentpossibilityofthecreationofyetanotherSpecialPlanning
Authority for Mumbai’s port land.
Beginning with a very brief introduction to global cities, ports and the current situation of the 12 major
ports in India, chapter one traces the history of the Mumbai port and highlights the current status of the
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

REDVELOPING MUMBAI’S PORT LAND: A PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVEvi
port.Chaptertwoprovidesanoverviewofthenationalcontexttoredevelopmentoftheport,ithighlights
key reports that have shaped policy discourse of ports in India, provides a brief understanding into what
corporatizationofportsinIndiameansandtheimplicationsofthesame.Ittracessomeofthemostrecent
policiesthatimpactIndianportcities.Factoringinrecentnewsonopeninguppublicland(railways,ports,
defence) to development, this is no longer an issue restricted to ports or Mumbai alone. It will be a trend
visibleacrossIndiancities.Chapterthreepresentsabriefsummaryofthe(draft)MumbaiPortLandDevelop-
ment Committee Report – its vision, strategies, proposals and futuristic plans for the city.
ItmayappearthatMumbai’sinnercityhaslonglostitsconnectionwiththeport,giventheclosingoftextile
millsandpresenceofderelictgodownsandwharves.However,socialandeconomicconnectionshavebeen
builtandsustainedinandaroundtheportland.Chapterfourfocusesonstakeholderperspectives.Apartfrom
formal port employees represented by unions, the port land sustains a thriving informal industry of steel
recycling,shipbreaking,scraprecyclingandproductionofspareparts.Theportlandisalsohometomore
than24slumcommunitiesand2fishingvillages.Moreover,theportisanintegralpartofMumbaiandthe
citybecomesanintegralstakeholderinanyproposeddevelopment.Thechapterhighlightstheissuefrom
the perspective of formal port workers, informal workers, fishing villages, slums and the city itself.
Instudyingglobalization,afocusonthecitywilltendtobringtotheforethegrowinginequalitiesbetween
highly provisioned and profoundly disadvantaged sectors and spaces of the city, and hence such a focus
introduces yet another formulation of questions of power and inequality (Sassen 2005). Revitalization in
Mumbaiissynonymouswithgentrification.Everyinfrastructureprojecthaspushedtheworkingclassfur-
therawayfromthecityandtherevitalizationofMumbai’sportbearsmanysimilaritiestoprojectsandplans
implementedinthepast.TobringtolighttheexistenceofmultipleinformalcommunitiesontheMumbai
Portland,chapterfiveprovidesbriefcommunityprofilesof26communitiesontheMumbaiPortTrustland
from Wadala to the Colaba Koliwada. This must be read as a preliminary documentation and not an ex-
haustive profiling of these communities.
Untilrecently,harboursformedthecoreofurbandevelopmentinallportcities(Kokot2008),subsequently
allportshaveundergonestagesofdevelopmentandredevelopment.Chaptersixlocatestheredevelopment
of Mumbai’s port in an international context. Locating Mumbai port and city within Hoyles’model of port
redevelopment,thechapterbrieflytouchesuponlessonsandplanningmethodsadoptedbythreeinterna-
tional ports - Cuidad Vieja (Uruguay), London and Singapore.
The opening up of the Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT) land presents itself as a challenge as well as an oppor-
tunityinalandstarvedcity.ThereportconcludeswithaproposedvisionforMumbai’sportredevelopment
drawingfromstakeholderperspectivesandsocioeconomicconditionsofthosewhostandtobemostaf-
fected. At the core of the concerns is the fact that port land is owned by a central government entity.This
isespeciallysowhensocialamenitiesandpublichousingisbeingneglectedasaresponsibilityofthestate
Beingpublicland,itoughttobedevelopedinthelargerpublicinterest.Anydevelopmentthatisnotinthe
interestofthemajoritywouldbeviolativeoftheconstitutionalrestraintonthePortTrust,whichisanorgan
oftheState.Thereportstronglyadvocatesfortheformulationofapeople-centricapproachintheprocess
of‘revitalization’and‘redevelopment’suchthatthedevelopmentprocessesdoesnotfurtherdispossessthe
working poor and entrench class segregation in Mumbai.
This report is a preliminary enquiry. Further investigation in order to deepen the understanding of the
interactionbetweenurbanplanning,portredevelopmentandopeninguppubliclandinthelightofglocal-
ization processes is much needed.

ABBREVIATIONS
BMC: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (also MCGM)
CIDCO: City and Industrial Development Corporation of India (Maharashtra)
DP: Development Plan
FSI: Floor Space Index
MbPT: Mumbai Port Trust
MCGM: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
MMR: Mumbai Metropolitan Region
MMRDA: Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority
MPLDC: Mumbai Port Land Development Committee
MR&TP Act: Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
OCT: Offshore Container Terminal
SPA: Special Planning Authority
SRA: Slum Rehabilitation Authority
TDR: Transfer of Development Rights
TEU: Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit
ULCRA: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976

LIST OF IMAGES
Front cover: An old ship waiting to come under the hammer at a wharf in Kolsa Bunder
Back cover: View from Sewri Fort
Image 1: Aerial view of the island city of Mumbai x
Image 2: 12 Major Ports of India 1
Image 3: An old map of the Port of Bombay 1
Image 4: An old map of India – Bombay the gateway of India 2
Image 5: Bombay on the Malabar Coast,
belonging to the East India Company (18th century) 3
Image 6: Cargo distribution at Mumbai port 4
Image 7: Proposed projects along the Mumbai port land
(from the unpublished 2014 MPLDC report) 17
Image 8: Architect Hafeez Contractor’s plan for Mumbai Port Trust land 18
Image 9: Implementation mechanism of the proposed plan 20
Image 10: Informal workers at Darukhana 23
Image 11: Recycling scrap material at Darukhana 23
Image 12: Sorting scrap material at Darukhana 23
Image 13: Inside a workshop at Darukhana 24
Image 14: Rent receipt: Colaba Koliwada, 1991 25
Image 15: Rent receipt - Gaddi Adda, 1973 25
Image 16: Arial view, Colaba Koliwada 26
Image 17: Koli fishing boats at sea 26
Image 18: Sasoon Docks 26
Image 19: MCGM Existing Land Use (ELU) map, 2012 27
Image 20: MCGM Proposed Land Use (PLU) map, 2015 27
Image 21: Dalit Nagar 32
Image 22: Islam Pura 33
Image 23: Bengalipura 35
Image 24: Jai Bheem Nagar 30
Image 25: Local market at Garib Nagar, Wadala 44
Image 26: Phases of port city development according to Hoyle (1989) 46

CONTENTS
Foreword i
Executive Summary v
Abbreviations vi
List of Images iii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: The National Context for Redevelopment of Port Land 5
Chapter Three: Summary of the MPLDC Report 11
Chapter Four: Stakeholder Perspectives 21
Chapter Five: Community Profiles & Stories from the ground 31
Chapter Six: International Comparisons 45
Chapter Seven: A Proposed Vision 51
References 53

Aerial view of the island city of Mumbai

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Therelationshipbetweenportsandcitiesisanextremelycomplexandevolvingone.Thesemajorportcit-
iesareexemplarynodalpointsinthecomplexsystemofinternationallabourandtrade(Lapple199:462in
Schubert2008)lyingatthecrossroadsofmaintransportroutes(Schubert2001:16inKokot2008).Asglob-
alcitiestheyarepositionedinwaysthatarehighlycompetitivetoeachother(Sassen2001inKokot2008).
In order to improve their position in the global network, municipal governments have been creating in-
frastructuresandpoliciesencouraginginvestmentandtheestablishmentofnewbusinessenterprises.The
professionalization of labour and high end recreation and consumption reorient the cities to the real and
imagined interests of globally mobile investors (Sassen 1994, 2001; Loftman/Nevin 2003 in Kokot 2008).
Theprocessofconnectingglobalcircuitsinbringingaboutasignificantlevelofdevelopment[and]…con-
siderable economic dynamism is in little doubt. But the issue of inequality has not been engaged (Sassen
2005).
With a coastline spanning 7516.6 km, In-
dia’s 12 major ports are a significant part
of this interconnected web of internation-
al trade. These ports are owned by central
government, while the other (nearly) 200
minor ports are privately owned. Major
ports in India own 2.64 lakh acres of land
across the country. Mainstream discourse
statesthatlandutilisationhasnotbeenopti-
mal and has often resulted in lesser returns.
TheMumbaiPortownsasignificantportion
of this land bank, and has been under the
scannerintermsofitdevelopmentpotential
for nearly two decades. Mumbai is ranked
as a global city - its port is the largest ma-
jorportinthecountryandthefourthlargest
portintermsoftonnagehandled.However,
since the 1980s there has been a premedi-
tated decline in port activities – largely ac-
cruingfromglobaltechnologicalchangesin
port operations. A brief history of the Port
will highlight its historic role in shaping the
city, followed by the present status of the
Mumbai Port.
Twelve major ports of India

REDVELOPING MUMBAI’S PORT LAND: A PEOPLE’S PERSPECTIVE2
HISTORY OF THE PORT & MUMBAI
The great bay or port is certainly the fairest and largest and securest in all these parts of India,
where a hundred sails of tall ships may ride all the year safe with good anchorage.
—Gerald Aungier, mid 1600s from‘The Port of Bombay’
When Bombay was still an archipelago of islands, the advantages of its natural, deep-water bay and its
strategicpotentialtobedevelopedintoaharbourhadbeenrealized.Most19thcenturybooksstatethatthe
Portuguese called the area Bom Bahia, meaning‘the good bay’, which the English pronounced Bombay.1
In 1652, the Surat Council of the East India Company urged its purchase from the Portuguese. Nine years
later under the Marriage Treaty between Charles II of Great Britain and the Infant Catherine of Portugal,
the‘Port and Island of Mumbai’were transferred to the king of Great Britain. However, Charles II did not
want the trouble of ruling these islands and in 1668 persuaded the East India Company to rent them for
just 10 pounds of gold a year.2
After its transfer to the East India Com-
pany in 1668, various measures such as
theconstructionofacustomhouse,ware-
house, dry docks etc. were taken up to
encourage trade. The Bombay Port was
a centre for trade of varied goods from
across the world. In the 1730s ship build-
ers moved into Bombay, creating a new
industry.
1858 saw the end of the East India Com-
panyandBombaypassedunderthedirect
rule of the British Crown. In 1873, the
presentstatutoryautonomousPortTrust
wassetupforadministeringtheaffairsof
the Port. The opening of the Suez Canal
in1869revolutionizedthemaritimetrade
of Bombay. It shifted the whole scenario
of import and export trade from the East
coast to the West coast and the Bombay
Port became the principal gateway to In-
dia. The first wet dock constructed in In-
dia was Sassoon Dock in 1875 followed
by the Prince’s and Victoria Docks con-
structed in 1880 and 1888 respectively.
What had been an archipelago of fishing
villages and agricultural hamlets in the
17th century had grown into a port-town
and port-city of consequence in the 19th
century.Nativeswereextensivelyinvolved
in building the port, warehouses, docks
and infrastructure in the city.
1
This is now discredited as the earliest Portuguese settlers already called the area Bombaim (Source: City of Gold, Gillian Tindall)
2
Source: http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/trading/bombay/history.html Accessed on 7 February 2015
AnoldmapoftheportofBombay

Introduction 3
As far back as theWorldWar II, there was a felt need for another port due to increased port activity. How-
ever, till the 1950s the Bombay Port was the only major port on the western coast. In the 1960s the port
experienced severe congestion of ships as a result of which the need to develop a port across the harbor
developed.However,itwasonlyin1984withthesimultaneouscreationofCIDCOforthedevelopmentof
the satellite town in Navi Mumbai that the Jawahlal Nehru Port (JNPT) in Nhava Sheva began developing.
Currently,theMumbaiPortfunctionsalongsidetwoothermajorportsintheregion-theJawaharlalNehru
Port (in Navi Mumbai) and Kandla (in Gujarat).
CURRENT STATUS OF MUMBAI PORT
Though the port has been built largely through reclamation, today, the Mumbai PortTrust (MbPT) is the
largestrealestateownerinMumbaiowningone-eighththeareaoftheislandcity.Therelativelyunseen28
km eastern waterfront - under the ownership of the Port Trust - forms an integral part of the city’s land-
mass, stretching from Sasoon Dock (Colaba) to Wadala. This covers 709.51 hectares of the total 752.72
hectares of land owned by the Mumbai Port Trust all over the city.
Of the total 709 hectares - 275 hectares of land is on lease (these includeTaj Hotel, Gateway of India, Bal-
lard Estate, refineries Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and
manyotherstate&centralindustriesandcorporateofficespayingapittanceasrent);around7.46hectares
areoccupiedbyinformalsettlements.TheestimatedvalueofPortTrust’sestateisRs.75,000crore,however,
it is stated that the port earns about Rs.200 crore annually from the land (Sanjay and Gadgil 2014).
TheMumbaiPortlandbeingahugelandmassatastrategiclocationinIndia’sfinancialcapitalisfacedwith
achallengethatallmajorportsinIndiawillbefacedwithinduecourse-monetisingportlandvs.factoring
in inequalities and socio-economic concerns of those to be affected.
AnoldmapofIndia–BombaythegatewayofIndia

In the most recent attempt to redevelop ports in India, the Ministry of Shipping constituted the Mumbai
Port Land Development Committee (MPLDC) in June 2014. Redevelopment proposed by the MPLDC is
varied.Proposingredevelopmentinaphasedmannertheysuggestausageofportlandfortourist-centric
development.DetailshavebeengiveninChapterThree.Proposedprojectsincludecreationofanewmass
transitcorridortoaugmenteast-westconnectivity,400acresofgreenopenspaces,anentertainmentzone,
agiantferriswheelonthelinesofLondonEye,afloatinghotel,floatingrestaurants,foodcourtsandspecial
tradezone,aworld-classcruiseterminalandanintra-citywaterwaysprojectsamongothers.Whilethisform
ofurbanrestructuringiscausedbylargerpolitico-economicfactors,theportisanintegralstakeholderisthe
current process that will determine the fate of the city.
CargodistributionatMumbaiport

CHAPTER TWO
THE NATIONAL CONTEXT:
REDEVELOPMENT OF PORT LAND
MajorportsofIndiaingeneralandtheMumbaiPortinparticularhavebeenthecynosureof policycircles
andthinktanksforthelastfewmonths-discussionshavecenteredaroundproposedrestructuringofmajor
portsandredevelopmentof surplusportland.Maritimetradehaswitnessedchangingtrendsandseaports
across the globe have undergone such structural change but the potential of these changes to influence
thesocio-economicfabricofourportcitiesandurbanlandscapesneedsbetterassessment.Theeffortsat-
temptedatbringinginsuchchangesandsubsequentpolicydiscourseistobeunderstoodtostartacritical
assessment of redevelopment of Mumbai’s Port land.
AN OVERVIEW OF POLICY PARADIGMS
India’sshippingandportsectorsawdramaticgrowthinthefirstfourdecadespostindependenceundertheini-
tiativeofplanneddevelopmentandactivegovernmentsupport.Morethantwothirdsoftheportcargohan-
dlingcapacityandmorethanhalfofIndia’snationalshippingtonnagewereestablishedthefirstfourdecades
ofindependence.Howeverwithaninwardlookingeconomicpolicyperspectivethatemphasizedmoreonself
relianceandimport-substitution,theoveralltradeandtechnologydrivengrowthoftheeconomyremained
constricted. Howeverwiththeparadigmshiftineconomicpolicysincetheearly1990s,thegovernmenthas
sought to liberalize the port sector by opening it to private sector investments.
PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVES IN THE INDIAN PORTS SECTOR
World Bank Report (1995)
The World Bank‘India Port Sector Strategy Report,
1995’focused on the need to introduce urgent re-
forms in Indian Ports. Given the mandate of World
Bank, it is not surprising that the report suggested
privatization of ports. While citing political pres-
sures, hierarchical rigidities, lack of autonomy and
excess of bureaucracy as problems in major ports
thereportalsostressedonessentialstructuralchang-
es needed in the port sector – more autonomy to
major ports, modernization of port infrastructure
and making way for‘port experts’to manage port
affairsdoingawaywithbureaucraticcontrol.While
noneoftheserecommendationswereeverconsid-
eredforimplementation;attemptshavebeenmade
towards corporatization or privatization of major
ports, with a reference to this report.
Rakesh Mohan Committee report (1996, 2013
The two reports by Rakesh Mohan, Economist
and former Deputy Governor of Reserve Bank of
India, have had a significant impact on attempts
at privatization of major ports in India. Econom-
ic policy reforms regarding the infrastructure sec-
tor in general and ports sector in particular were
initiated in India following the release of Rakesh
Mohan Committee Report on Infrastructure De-
velopment in 1996, which sought a fresh policy
framework for increasing private sector involve-
mentinthedevelopmentofinfrastructurerelated
services.The report sought to recommend radical
policymeasurestoencourageprivatesectorinvest-
ment in a wide range of infrastructure asset and
other facilities to help close the growing gap be-
tween exponential growth in demand and supply
of infrastructure services in the country. The re-
port was a major catalyst in opening up a range of
infrastructure services like power, telecom, roads,
portsetc.forprivatesectorparticipationandmar-
ket competition.

The 2013 Rakesh Mohan report titled ‘India
Transport Report – Moving India to 2032’strongly
recommended the ‘Land Lord Port Model’ for all
the major ports and also the creation of four to six
megaportsacrossIndiathatwouldmainlycaterto
container traffic. While the first report by Rakesh
Mohanbroughtthecorporatizationofmajorports
intopolicydebate,thelatestreporthasrevivedthe
ideaofcorporatizationwhichwasnotimplement-
ed in the last 15 years.
Government of India Guidelines
on Port Privatization (1996)
In the background of the World Bank Report and
Rakesh Mohan Report (1996), the first ever poli-
cyguidelinesonprivatesectorparticipationinthe
Indian Port sector were announced in 1996. The
objectivesofthenewpolicyguidelinesweretoat-
tractnewtechnologyandinvestmentthroughjoint
ventureswithoverseasanddomesticprivatesector
actors. Private participation was also expected to
introduce better managerial practices leading to
improvement in efficiency of ports and make In-
dia’s trade more competitive in the world market.
The government’s policy guidelines cleared the
groundforaseriesofprivatizationinitiativesinvar-
ious segments of the Indian port sector, including
container terminals, liquid cargo berths and termi-
nals,solidbulkterminalsbesidesotherwarehousing
andlogisticsinfrastructurefacilities.Thecentralpol-
icyonprivatesectorparticipationinmajorportshas
also been a shot in the arm to several minor and
intermediate ports; especially the setting up of the
Mundra and Pipavav ports on the Gujarat coast,
under joint sector initiatives. After this came in‘Vi-
sion 2000’ wherein the then Ministry of Surface
Transport aimed at fully privatizing ports and not
just port terminals.
National Maritime Development
Programme (NMDP 2009)
In order to solve the capacity shortfall of major
ports, in 2009, the Ministry of Shipping formulated
a comprehensive National Maritime Development
Programme (NMDP) which envisaged various port
capacityimprovementsandhinterlandconnectivity
projects across major ports with estimated invest-
ments of about Rs.58000 crores over the next de-
cade. Over 60 percent of the required funds would
beraisedfromtheprivatesectorandthebalance40
percent from public resources. As part of the pro-
gramme,theMinistryhasmandatedthateachma-
jorportshoulddevelopalongtermbusinessplanfor
thenext20years,whichmustalsoprovidethefoun-
dationforanannualplanningprocessinordertobe
abletoadjustitregularlytochangingcircumstances.
New Policy guidelines for Major Ports(2014)
In January 2014, the ‘Newland Policy Guidelines
for Major Ports’ was passed. It does not apply to
the township areas of Kandla, Mumbai ad Kolkata
ports.The Policy guidelines for land management
are part of the ongoing process of port reforms
and liberalization. Under these policy guidelines,
discretionarypowershavebeenreducedandaten-
dercumauctionmethodologyhasbeenprescribed
as the dominant method of land allotment. The
thrust of the policy has been to maximize the re-
alization for the port by linking the value of land
resources with the prevailing market rates. The
guidelineshavealsomadeitmandatorytodrawup
a land use plan covering all land owned and man-
aged by the 12 major ports in India.
WorldBankrecommendationshaveleadsuccessivegovernmentstoinitiatestepsaimedatcorporatizing
India’s major ports.The latest attempt has been made by the incumbent government. Corporatization of
ports is back on the NDA agenda with the Finance Minister making a policy statement on the issue while
presenting the Union Budget 2015 in Parliament. In his budget speech, he said
“Asthesuccessofsocalledminorports-ownedbythestategovernments-hasshown,portscanbeanattractive
investmentpossibilityfortheprivatesector.Portsinthepublicsectorneedtobothattractsuchinvestmentaswell
asleveragethehugelandresourcelyingunusedwiththem.Toenableustodoso,portsinthepublicsectorwill
be encouraged to corporatize and become companies under the Companies Act, 1956”.

The National Context 7
UNDERSTANDING THE CORPORATIZATION OF MAJOR PORTS
Corporatization refers to change in legal structure of a port authority from being an extend-
ed arm of the government - technically a para-statal body- into a separate independent com-
pany, under the Companies Act 1956 thus becoming a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). Within
the framework of the corporatization process all Major Ports should be unbundled and the Trust
operated terminal and stevedoring services corporatized under the Companies Act, 1956. This
unbundling is a complicated issue especially for the older ports.
In principle, corporatization in the port sector means that former statutory Port Authorities
are transformed into government owned companies. This means that the new port undertakings
will have a constitution consisting of a Memorandum and Articles of Association that defines the
nature of the company and the manner in which the affairs of the company will be conducted.
The Memorandum and Articles of Association will be registered with the appropriate authority
and a company will be created. If created under the applicable Company Act, a separate regula-
tory body will have to oversee performance of the newly formed port undertaking to ensure that
conditions of the company’s constitution and the Companies Act are met. Under this model Port
Authorities are established and subject to identical regulatory regimes and legislation as any oth-
er private sector company. This model has always been discussed in India and been envisaged
for corporatization of Indian Ports.
However, there is another principally different type of corporatization for state owned cor-
porations namely ‘corporatization by specific legislation’. This solution is often applied within the
framework of the landlord port model. This means that there is the potential input and scrutiny
by the public sector, be it a parliament, ministry, regional or local government. As such corpora-
tized enterprise still is part of the public domain; the creation of a separate regulatory authority
can be avoided. It also means that ‘tailor -made’ provisions such as those relating to accountabil-
ity and ministerial control, can be built into the legislation. Corporatized port authorities should
not be listed in any stock exchange. Moreover, specific provisions must be included concerning
shareholding and the ownership of assets, in particular port land. The statutory option is the
most common approach for corporatizing Port Authorities and is a suitable option for Major
Ports. It is usually supported through the application of an umbrella legislation, which regulates
some common aspects of corporatized government entities like the Port Trusts.
In the event that the Companies Act is used as the basis of corporatization, all provisions re-
garding the safeguarding of public interests must be included in the Memorandum and Articles of
Association. One should realize that the Companies Act gives a fixed framework for shareholder,
Board and Executive management. Moreover, the company has to adhere to all usual conditions of
a private company, both in terms of reporting and accountability and of taxation. A problem is how
to ensure that the company’s management acts in the interest of the Government as owner. The
main difference between the two options liable for corporatization is the objectives of the corpo-
ratized companies. In case of the first option (corporatization under the Companies Act) the main
objective of the company is to make a profit for its shareholders. This objective may be diluted by
socially oriented requirements but remains of overriding importance. In case of the statutory op-
tion, there is considerably more room t take socio-political objectives into account. This may have
an impact especially on investments and expansion issues. A statutory authority allows for more
government influence and the pursuance of macroeconomic objective. Main question is therefore
how important the concerned public interests are and how to safeguard these.
Another problem of the application of the Companies Act, 1956 is related to the ownership
of the assets. Depreciation rates for port project and not defined under schedule XIV of the
Companies Act 1956 or under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, when capital expenditures
are incurred for basic port infrastructure, related depreciation cost and amortization issues are
unclear. Such issues can better be solved in a specific Incorporation (Ports) Act.
(Public)/Service Port: A management model where a Port Authority functions both as land-
lord and terminal operator. This model is applied in India. Service ports have been prone to
political interference, which often has stood in the way of professional port management. Fre-

quent changes in the government also had a negative impact on the developing of Service Ports,
introducing an element of instability in the system.
Landlord Port: This model is characterized by a strict division of tasks and responsibili-
ties between the public sector in the form of a public Port Authority and the private sector
performing terminal/ commercial operations. In the landlord Port model the port terminals
including infrastructure are leased to private terminal operators and/or port related industries,
such as refineries, tank terminals and chemical plants. The private operators provide and main-
tain their own superstructure, include buildings (offices, sheds, warehouses, Container Freight
Stations, Workshops etc.) and often also terminal infrastructure such as quay walls. They install
their own equipment on the terminal such as quay cranes, transtainers, conveyor belts etc.
depending on their core activities. Stevedores (port and dock labour) are employed by private
terminal operators.
(Source:‘Regulation ofThe Indian Port Sector’, ChristiaanVan Krimpen, May 2011)
PROPOSED POLICY DEVELOPMENTS FOR MAJOR PORTS
On the face of it, corporatization of major ports seems to be an attempt to professionalize the entity to be
betterequippedtohandlerisingcargo.However,onceportsformacorporatestructurebyconversioninto
entities under the Companies Act, they will have financial and operational autonomy and port land, the
biggest asset off major ports will be monetized.
Ifnewspaperreportsaretobebelieved,thestakesinvolvedareveryhigh.Asperareportpublishedinthe
Business Standard dated 3 March 2015 the value of land around Mumbai port is about 60-70 crore per
acre (a conservative rate), this is if the land is in the government circle - private land would be about 100
crore per acre. Going by the government circle rate, the value of the surplus land at Mumbai Port land,
900 acres, is valued at 63,000 crore. In comparison, DLF, the country’s top real estate company, has an
enterprise value of Rs 44,817 crore as on March 31, 2014 - this shows that the port’s surplus land alone is
nearly 30 percent more in the value than the enterprise value of DLF. An article in the Financial Express
dated March 16, 2015 reports that major ports in India are public sector landlords with 2.58 lakh acres
of land and one-fifth of it is believed to be surplus – this includes prime urban land in Mumbai, Chennai,
Kolkataandelsewhere.Theconsensusingovernmentcirclesisthatabolderplanallowingoutrighttransfer
of prime land with low traffic in Mumbai and Chennai ports, in a transparent manner will help decongest
thesecitiesanddramaticallyincreaselandsupplyforhousingandotherurbanamenities.Incaseofmajor
ports,abaronthePortTrustsleasingoutlandformorethan30years,isahurdlethatneedstoberemoved
by amending the Major Port Trust Act. Interestingly, the Financial Express , reports that Union Shipping
andSurfaceTransportMinisterhasrecentlyannounceda5yearplantosetuponesmartcityalongsidethe
12 major ports at a total cost of Rs.50,000 crore. The New Indian Express stated
“According to the ministry’s proposal, these cities will be built in accordance with international standards
and will have wide roads, green energy, advanced townships, house schools, commercial complexes and
ample amount of vegetation. In addition, these Smart Cities and ports will have e-governance links, in-
ternationalstandardfacilities,specialeconomiczones,shipbreakingandshipbuildingcentersbesidesal-
liedthings…TheseportsunderCentralGovernment’scontrolhavebetweenthemanestimated2.64lakh
acres of land. ”
3
Business Standard, March 3, 2015 “Corporatization will bring Mumbai Port in line with top real estate firms”http://www.busi
ness-standard.com/budget/article/corporatisation-will-bring-mumbai-port-in-line-with-top-real-estate-firms-115030200724_1.html
4
The Financial Express, March 16, 2015 “ Policy help needed to put state land to work” http://www.financialexpress.com/article/
economy/policy-help-needed-to-put-state-land-to-work/53982/
5
The Financial Express, February 22, 2015“12 smart cities to come up at ports with 50k crore investment”http://www.financialex-
press.com/article/economy/12-smart-cities-to-come-up-at-ports-with-rs-50k-cr-investment/45978/

The National Context 9
TheMinisterhasrepeatedlystatedthattheportlandswillnotbesoldtobuildersfordevelopmentprojects,
while‘smartcities’proposedonpartsofportlandsareintrinsicallydrivenbyprivatedevelopers.Claimsof
abuilder-freeportdevelopmentaredifficulttoaccept,especiallysincethecityhasaprecedenceofbrutal
betrayal by political establishments regarding the reuse of mill lands and repeal of the ULCRA.
IMPLICATIONS
The Port and Dock worker’s unions across major ports are against corporatization. This is because mar-
ket economy and free flow of capital on a global scale that corporatization would facilitate, has negative
consequences.This would mainly be manifested through potential job loss that cannot be compensated
directlyandmaycreateseriousproblemsinacountrylikeourswhereasocialsecuritysystemisnotyetfully
developed.The port industry creates direct jobs but the indirect jobs and livelihood opportunities that it
generatesareimmenseandthelossofthesejobsandsubsequentdestructionofforward-backwardlinkag-
es is generally not accounted for.The closure of textile mills in Mumbai and subsequent marginalization
of the working class in the city has demonstrated such disastrous impacts. The closure of textile mills in
Mumbaihappenstobeatextbookcaseofplannedusurpationofvaluablelandresourcesundertheguise
of decongesting the city and increasing land supply for housing and urban amenities.
The potential‘real-estatization’of port lands thus indicated through proposed smart cities and steadfast
moves to bring in corporatization of major ports only under the Companies Act, 1956- without even dis-
cussingtherouteof‘incorporationunderspeciallegislation’indicatereal-estatefriendlymotivesratherthan
people-friendly motives.
UN-PUZZLING THE JIGSAW OF‘DEVELOPMENT’IN MUMBAI
It is important to understand the issue of port land redevelopment in Mumbai from a larger city-level
context.The narrative that the‘Mumbai port is underperforming and underutilizing its valuable land re-
sources’,theproposedideaofa‘smartcity’ontheportland,envisioned‘conventionandinnovationcenters
,financialhubs, sevenstarfloatelsandmarinas’andasystematicevictionofworkingclassfromtheisland
cityundertheguiseofturningMumbaiintoaninternationalcity,executed foralmosttwodecadesisnot
onlyinterrelatedbutdeeplyconjoinedinshapingthefutureexpressionofcitizenshipandsocialjusticein
the city (Banerjee Guha, 2010).
Underanoverarchingframeofneoliberalism,Mumbaiisbeingre-imaginedasaglobalfinancialhub.Man-
ufacturingindustriesandformalindustriesdonotfitinthisplan.Asearlyasin1993,whenIndiawasgrap-
pling with a massive economic restructuring, McKinsey& Co., the international consultancy firm-better
knownasauniversalcatalystforprivatecapitalinurbanprojects(ibid.pp210)hadmadeastrongcasefor
developing Mumbai as a global financial centre. McKinsey & Co. has identified mill lands in Dadar-Parel,
Port Trust lands, Bandra-Kurla Complex, BDD Chawls in Worli and increased FSI in already built up areas
as source of land for redevelopment.The vision chalked out in 1993 seems to have become a reality.The
Bandra-KurlaComplexhasbecomethenewbusinessdistrict,milllands-openedforredevelopmentin2006
have gentrified the Dadar-Lalbaug-Parel area, Mumbai’s port lands are just about to be opened for rede-
velopmentandlastbutnottheleast,theproposedDevelopmentPlanofMumbai(2014-34)beingprepared
by the MCGM has proposed FSI as high as 8, which could also be increased using tools like TDR, around
prime areas identified by McKinsey& Co.
6
The New Indian Express, March11, 2015“Kochi May Get It’s Second Smart City“ http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/
Kochi-May-Get-its-Second-Smart-City/2015/03/11/article2707380.ece
7
Hindustan Times, January 01, 2015“ Won’t give excess Mumbai port trust land to builders: Gadkari” http://www.hindustantimes.
com/india-news/won-t-give-excess-mumbai-port-trust-land-to-builders-gadkari/article1-1302357.aspx

In 2003, Mumbai-First an NGO representing interests of industrialists, corporate houses and influential
in the city developed a ‘Vision Plan’ for Mumbai. The document was also prepared by McKinsey& Co.
in active collaboration with government bodies like the MMRDA and MCGM. It targeted four high-end
services,namelyfinancialservices,healthcare,IT-enabledservicesandentertainmentforeconomicregen-
eration of the city. Voices of the working class in Mumbai - working as formal sector workers in docks of
Mumbai Port,‘to-be-revived textile mills’and ancillary informal economic activities were neither repre-
sentednorenvisagedinthisvision.TheGovernmentofMaharashtradidacceptthe‘VisionPlan’intotality
in2004andsincethen‘redevelopmentofMumbaiPortlands’hastacticallyappearedindiscussionforums.
Theproposeddevelopmentofportlandsisthelastfranticattempttomakethe‘vision’becomearealityand
eventuallyacrossallthemajorports. Understandingthiscontexthelpsunpuzzlethejigsawof‘developing’
Mumbaiandthemeaningofmaking‘bestuseof2.64lakhacresofPortlandacross12majorportsinIndia’.
In the backdrop of these policy decisions, the decision taken by the incumbent government to‘re-Imag-
ine’theMumbaiportandthemost-recent,fastmovingand‘not-so-transparent’attempttoconstitutethe
Mumbai Port land Development Committee (MPLDC) to prepare a roadmap for the development of port
landsanditswaterfronthastobecontemplated,assessedandquestioned.Thefollowingchapterprovidesa
summary of the MPLDC report, while being critical of proposed developments in the light of the existing
land use and people’s lived realities on the port land.
.

CHAPTER THREE
SUMMARY OF THE MUMBAI
PORT LAND DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE REPORT*
The Report of the Mumbai Port Land Development Committee (MPLDC) on the eastern waterfront and
portlanddevelopmentwascommissionedinJuly2014,initiallywithaneightmembercommitteeheaded
byMsRaniJadhav,ex-chairmanMbPT.Thecommitteeconsistingofarchitects,plannersandindustrialists
preparedthereportinthreemonths.Alongtheway,twomorememberswereaddedtothecommittee.The
reportwasfinalizedinOctober2014andconsequentmonthshaveseenwidespeculationonthecommittee
recommendationsandproposalsforportdevelopment.Themediahasprimarilyfocusedontheshareand
natureofamenitiesMumbaiwillgetintheproposedredevelopment.Hardlyhasthediscourseaddressed
theneedsofhousingandlivelihoodinthecity,andthecommunitiesalreadyhabitingtheportlands. Slum
demolitions on the port land are ongoing while the report awaits public release and debate.
The foreword to the report written by an ex-Municipal Commissioner, states that the MPLDC is entrusted
with the historic act of deliberating on the development of Mumbai’s PortTrust lands – underscoring the
opportunity of using the port lands by‘balancing the needs of burgeoning metropolis of Mumbai’and to
‘even sustain and even strengthen the financial viability of the Mumbai port’on the other end. The fore-
wordplacesaclearthrustontheneedtoaugmentpublictransportandsocialamenitiesintheportlands,
reminding the failure of the state in ensuring the lost opportunity of developing mill lands correctly.The
note also adds a similar‘one-third’formula used for mill redevelopment that was never realised.The one-
thirdclassificationofportlandsdemarcatesone-thirdforopenspacesforrecreationandleisureactivities;
one-thirdforimprovingconnectivity,publictransportandsocialamenities;andthelastone-thirdformixed
developmentforgenerationofjobsandrecourses.Inconclusion,itremainshopefulthatthecommitteewill
look into the legal and institutional aspects of development of the MbPT lands.
The chairperson’s note goes on to emphasize the need for urban renewal programs in the‘decaying’port
trustlandsinMumbai,takingcuesfromthecitiesallovertheworld.Thenotestatesthatpublicsuggestions
wereinvitedinthebeginningtogaugecitizen’saspirationsfromtheportlanddevelopment.Thereport,it
stateshasattemptedtofactorinandcombinealldemandsforholisticproposalsthatarethefoundationof
anactionablestructureofplans;comprisingasetofmacroandmicroprojectsbenefittingMumbaiandthe
MMR. Further, the note says that the MPLDC attempts to come up with a fresh approach to deal with
variouslandleases,therelocationofportrelatedactivity,eliminationofpollutingactivitiesandresettlement
ofeligibleslumdwellers.Thefocusofthisreportitstates,istocreateworldclasssocialandeconomicinfra-
structure to meet the acutely felt needs of the city and hopes and aspirations of its citizens.
The draft report consists of eight chapters - introduction, overview, existing situation analysis, proposed
visionfortheMumbaiportlandsredevelopment,landassemblystrategies,strategiesfordevelopment,im-
plementationmechanism,andstrategiesforprojectimplementation.Givenaheadisasummaryofeachof
these chapters followed by chapters on stakeholder perspectives and community profiles.
* This chapter is based on the draft MPLDC report that has been circulated in the media. It has not been released in public.

INTRODUCTION
“Port cities of today are faced with the global syndrome of the de-industrialization of city centres.This re-
locationofindustrialactivityduetomodernisationofmanufacturingandgoodshandlingmethodshasled
to dereliction and redundancy in vast tracts of inner city harbour areas.”
The introduction very clearly lays out a critique of the port and declining port operations in Mumbai.The
inevitabilityofportdecline,anditsinepthandlingofthechangesincargoandshipping,itsays‘hasresulted
in a shift of shipping and its related activities to new locations thus offering port land to a wide variety of
entertainmentandwaterfrontactivitiesthatcanbeenjoyedbyallclassesofsociety.Thevisionstresseson
holistic and integrated development in a phased and coordinated manner.
Theintroductiongoesontodefinethescopeandextentoftheproposalsandpossibleimpactsitcanhave.
It stresses on taking cues from port cities that have been able to recycle unused port areas, and transform
portlandstobusinessventures,globaltouristattractions,andmemorablelandscapes.Italsostatesthatthe
initiationprocesswasdonewithpublicconsultationsandmajordemandsfrompeopleareattachedinthe
appendix.
MUMBAI PORT TRUST OVERVIEW
This chapter offers a preliminary analysis of port activities in Mumbai. It lays out the nature of cargo han-
dlingoptionsavailablerangingfrombreakbulk,drybulk,liquidbulkandcontainers;alsolistingtheancil-
laryservicesoffreightstations,portstations,maintenanceofcraftequipmentandbuildings.Theanalysis
alsoincludesthereferencestothedocks,bothoperatingandnon-operatingones,withfocusonbeingthe
lowutilizationratesofthedocksascomparedtothemoderncargohandlingunits.Theporthandledatotal
traffic of 59.19 MT in 2013-14, which is around 10% of all the major ports in India. The cargo breakup
shows that the port handles about 77% (60.8% liquid bulk and 16.2% transhipment) of its traffic offshore.
Therebystressingonthefactthattheportcanremainoperationaldespiteopeninglargetractsoflandsfor
redevelopment.
The report analyses activities of the Mumbai port over the last 3 years with a table that indicates the prof-
itability of various activities of the port. The analysis highlights the operational surplus and profitability
ofliquidcargo,againstthelossmakinggeneralcargoandincreasinglyirrelevantoctroicharges.Itfurther
goesontostate“theoperatingsurplusfromhandlingofliquid cargo,vesselrelatedincomeandonstream
operationsshowsasurplusof162.5%,thisoperation,thereforesubsidisesthelossincurredonhandlingof
general cargo at dock and bunder areas.”
Finally, it states that there is a need to streamline port activities, as the loss making and high pension
liabilities of Mumbai port is ensuring a steady increased in the port’s income deficit. The future ex-
pansion plans of Mumbai port, it says, is designed in a way that most projects would be offshore. This
will go a long way in releasing the pressure on land on the waterfront and make it available for other
public purposes.
Within the subsection‘port within the city - a critical appraisal’, the report primarily draws comparisons
with international examples of shifting port activities from city centres. It goes on to argue about tech-
nological shortcomings and draught depths of the Mumbai port, with a constant comparison with the
JNPT port.

Mumbai Port Land Development Committee Report 13
ANALYSIS OF CURRENT SITUATION
Theexistingsituationanalysisfocusesonhowtheexistingportlandisbeingusedbyvariousagencies,and
lays out a broad outline of the major areas/clusters that are on the MbPT lands. It states “Mumbai Port
Trust has 752.72 hectares of land in Mumbai. Most of these lands are situated on the east coast of the city
stretching from Colaba to Wadala”
Categories of Mumbai port land usage
From the point of usage, the land area can be broadly classified into three categories viz port operational
use, land let out for port and non port uses, vacant lands.
Port core activities: “the core activity of ship/cargo handling by the port is carried out at different fa-
cilities from Indira Dock Basin to the Wadala Sewree area. The total land used operational purposes
is approximately 196.50 hectares. The road/ railway network in the port cov ers approximately 150.12
hectare. The offices and residential quarters are spread over an area of 48.79 hectares. Thus a total of
approximately 421.84 hectares of land is occupied by the port for its core operation.”
Land let out for non-port uses: “the port has let out around 275 hectares of its land to various users.
Outofthisaround138hectaresisleasedtoPSUs,governmentbodies,oilandpetroleumindustries,defence
authorities. 136 hectares is given on lease to private parties for home and non-home occupations.”
Vacant land:“the port was able to vacate approximately 63.62 hectares of land from tenants after follow-
ing the due process of law. Out of 712 plots, about 252 vacant plots covering 39.76 hectares of land have
beenhandledovertosisterdepartments.Besidesthis,therearetwovacantplotsinTitwalathataggregate
to 28.39 hectares”.
Encroachments: “according to an incomplete survey conducted by the port estate department in the
year 2002, in all about 7.46 hectares of port trust land was found to be encroached. The total number of
hutments recorded was 14365. ”
Theexistingsituationanalysisgoesontorecognizethesubstantialgrowthoftheinformaleconomyinthe
ports.Certainareasontheeasternwaterfronthavebeentransformedintosmall-scaleinformalindustries
forshipbreaking,marinerepairsetc.thatevensupplymaterialsandskillsatthenationallevel.Identifying
andrecognizingtheworkersasinformalandmigrant,thereportidentifies18.42acresasbeingoccupiedby
an informal economy.
ThereportconcludesbystatingthatlegalrecoursewillbetimeconsumingandthePortTrustmayconsider
theoptionofformulatingafair,reasonableandnon-discriminatoryschemetoofferalternateaccommoda-
tion to the occupants to try and ease such a process.
VISION
Proposed vision for the Mumbai port lands redevelopment
Thereportenvisionsaseamlesslinkagebetweentheportandthecity.Theproposalisbasedonanunder-
standingthatdecliningportactivityandincreasingrealestatedemandarecomplimentaryurbanprocesses.
WhileitacknowledgestheneedforcontinuedandsustainedoperationsoftheMumbaiport,thereportalso
suggestsappropriatenewusesforsurpluslandmadeavailablebymergingportactivitiesandreducingtheir
geographicfootprint.Summarizingitsvision,thereportstatesthat“theobjectivefortheMumbaiportland

redevelopmentistoachieveconsolidationoftheportactivitiesandintroductionofnewpublicopenspaces,
economicactivities,tourism,recreationalandsocialspaces,thusreimaginingMumbai’sinnercityareasand
its eastern waterfront.”Objectives of the Mumbai port land development are as follows:
1. MbPtprojectssuchaswatertransportterminal,cruiseterminal,marina,helipad,fish/seafood
courts, convention centre, and special trade zone should be incorporated in the plan
2. Mass transit corridors to be provided for in the redevelopment
3. Water front corridor to developed
4. 28 kms of the waterfront is to be opened up
5. At least 30% of MbPT land be converted to create parks, gardens, playgrounds, plazas, recre-
ation grounds, sports facility, maidans etc
6. Creation of a 300 acre entertainment zone
7. Intermodal transport options to be developed
8. Heritage and natural areas to be protected and conserved
9. Slumstoberehabilitatedthroughslumrehabilitationprogramsinvolverehabilitatingeligible
slum dwellers
10. Affordable and rental housing stock
11. Livelihood options through entrepreneurship promotion zones
12. Rehabilitations of industries and work places in MbPT
13. Spaces for international financial institutions in Mumbai etc.
The new vision for the port lands development is based on re-imagining Mumbai’s eastern waterfront as
being“open, connected, green.”
Open–fornewandexcitingpublicuses,includingrecreation,culture,tourism,socialandcommu-
nity amenities, which will help revive Mumbai city and help rebrand its eastern shoreline.
Connected – with seamless local, regional and national accessibility, offered through multiple
choices of pedestrian, cycle, metro rail, buses and BRTS, water transit and road connectivity.
Green–withresplendentopenspacesseasidepromenades,alongwithenvironmentallysustain-
able land uses and coastal developments and a smart and eco-sensitive built environment
COMPONENTS OF THE PROPOSED VISION
The key components of the proposed vision for the port land of Mumbai are as follows:
Proposed spatial organization strategy:
Followinganumberofglobalexamples,theproposalstressesonthemaximizationofpublicaccesstothe
waterfrontandaugmentationsofwatertransit.Italsoemphasizesthecreationoflargeandsignificantpub-
licandrecreationalopenspaces;strengtheningconnectivitybetweenthecityandportland;developmentof
ahighqualityentertainmentandrecreationalvenue;generationofneweconomicinitiativesandemploy-

ment;andlanduseforprovidingcityamenities.Thisredevelopmentinitiative,itstates,isanopportunityto
re-envision the city’s branding and identity.
Toaccomplishthesegoals,thereportsuggestsconsolidationofportactivitiestowardsachievingeconomy,
efficiency and effectiveness. This area would be free up underused land for new public oriented develop-
ments,includingaseriesofgreeneast-westlinkagestothewaterfrontaswellasacontiguousandpublically
accessiblewaterfrontpromenadealongallareasmadeavailablefordevelopment.Thereportalsoadvocates
ensuringthatatleast30%ofallareasavailablefordevelopmentaredevelopedasopenspacesintheformof
gardens,sportsvenues,recreationalvenuesetc.Tostrengthenconnectivity,thereportproposescreatingaset
of high-density mixed use transit nodes along all five harbour line stations which will link transportation
networks in the city and at the regional level.
Proposed broad land use strategy:
The committee envisions, 20% of available land would be required for transportation related uses, 5% for
installation of public utilities, 30% for public open spaces and the remaining 45% for built purposes with
publicfacilities.Theprogramforuseincludes-recreationalwaterfrontandgreenopenspaces,tourismand
relatedmixuses,economyandemployment,affordableandrentalhousing,cityscaleamenities,multi-mod-
al transport nodes.
Proposed transportation and infrastructure strategy:
Thereportdescribesageneraldisconnectbetweentheportlandandthecity,aswellasthecityregion.The
opening up of port land, for non-port city functions offers a great opportunity to reverse this disconnect.
Severaltransportationprojectsrelatedtorail,roads,andwatertransport,arealreadyimagined.Portplan-
ning needs to harmonize these proposals with the transport needs of the port itself.
VISION - COMPREHENSIVE AREA WISE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
AREA PROPOSED PROJECTS
Wadala Sewri area ii. Station area development
ii. Inclusive housing
iii. Special trade zone
iv. Small scale industries
v. Office spaces
vi. Mud flat bird sanctuary and environmental conser-
vation programs
vii. Water transport terminal
viii. Conservation of Sewree Fort
ix. Tourist market
x. Public open space (PG/RG/G)
Jakeria Bunder i. Comprehensive slum redevelopment with special
focus on social housing
Cotton Green area,
Coal and Grain Depot
i. Station area improvement
ii. Public open spaces
iii. Inclusive housing
iv. Entrepreneurship promotion zone
v. Development institutions and office spaces
vi. Small scale industry

AREA PROPOSED PROJECTS
Haij Bunder i. Water transport terminal
iii. Aqua world/ sea world
iv. Maritime museum
v. Entertainment world Mumbai
vi. Public terminal
vii. Sea food restaurant
viii. Retail market
Ghorupdeo Area i. Station area development (reay road station)
ii. Inclusive housing
Darrukhana Tank Bunder,
Coal Bunder, Lakri Bunder
i. Water transport terminal
ii. Marina
iii. Water sports
iv. Recreational areas
v. Public promenade
vi. Sea food restaurant
Mallet Bunder
and Ferry Wharf
i. Water transport terminal
iii. Fishing activities and processing industries
iv. Public promenade
v. Retail market
vi. RO jetties
vii. Seafood restaurants
viii. Helipad
ix. Marina
Manson Road Estate i. Public open space
ii. Station area development
iii. Convention center
iv. Entrepreneurship promotion zone
v. Office spaces
vi. Small scale industry
vii. Inclusive housing
viii. Heritage conservation
Ballard Estate i. Urban design interventions in heritage precincts
ii. Conservation program for Ballard pier
iii. RO jetty
iv. Water transport terminal
v. International cruise terminal
Apollo Estate i. Water transport terminal
ii. Urban design interventions in heritage precinct
iii. Public promenade
iv. Seafood restaurant
v. Helipad
Jamshetji Bunder i. Slum area redevelopment and social housing
ii. Marina
iii. Water transport terminal
iv. Restaurants
Sassoon Docks i. Heritage conservation of Sassoon dock gate
iii. Water transport terminal
iv. Fish based industry and activity
v. Floating hotels

Map from the unpublished 2014
MPLDC report. Shows proposed
projects along the Mumbai port land.

LAND ASSEMBLY STRATEGIES
The land assembly scenario, the report states, takes into account the current deindustrialization process,
thetechnologicalshortcomingsoftheMumbaiportandcompetitionfromtechnologicallyadvancedports
inthesurroundingregion.TheserequiretheMumbaiporttorearticulateitstradetoprofitmakingsectors
andgoodswhichareconsumedwithinthecityofMumbai.Suchrationalizationwouldnotonlystreamline
theporttowardsasustainableprofitmakingpathbutalsoallowittoleverageitslandestatestrategicallyto
address the needs and concerns of the ports and needs of Mumbai city
The report further adds that the scenario will lead to assembling more land than the available vacant
surplus. It will also rearticulate port activity by renting it to goods that are clean and consumed in the city
positivelyprofitmakingwherebymakingacaseforrationalizinglandforportactivity.Thefollowingpoints
were highlighted as means of land assembly:
• Minor/ major rationalization of active port operations. eg: the operational docks
• Major rationalization of sub-optimally used land due to incomplete port expansion. Eg: OCT, CFS
and back up areas
• Rationalization,partrelocationandrepossessionoflandleasestoPSUs,governmentdepartments,
defence etc.
• Repossession,relocationandacquisitionoflandusedfornonconformingportuse/andhazardous
activities of the old operational areas of five bunders
• Repossession,relocationandacquisitionoflandwithdefunctportuseandnon-confirmingware-
housing and other purposes (godowns and estates)
Hafeez Contractor’s plan for
Mumbai Port Trust lands

• Relocation and refurbishment of land of fishing harbours and wharfs
• Refurbishment and urban design intervention on land developed as part of CBD
• Reorganizing and planning for staff housing and hospital in MbPT lands
• Land used by slum dwellers and other encroachments (Five Bunders, Indira Nagar, Rajiv Gandhi
Nagar, Lakdi Bunder, Elphinstone Estate)
Thelandassemblystrategiesalsoidentifyaphasingplantoassemblelandandidentifiesabout60%ofthe
port lands that can be opened up to planning in the near future.
STRATEGIES FOR DEVELOPMENT
The committee argues that urban policies and their effective strategies can only be achieved through a
triumvirateoffacilitativeandenablinginfrastructureinvestments,incentivesandregulationsthatcatalyze
avarietyofcapitalinvestmentsintolongtermgoals.Thisisonlypossibleifstatutory,financialandadmin-
istrativeinstitutionsareorchestratedtowardsacommonoutcome,creatingandenablingenvironmentof
physical,legalandsocialinterventions.Thereportalsostressesthatpublicsectormusttaketheinitialsteps
inrationalizingdevelopmentcontrolandregulations,investinginkeysocialandeconomicinfrastructure
thatisbeyondtheprivatesectorrealmandcreatingincentivesattractingprivatefinance,managementskills,
innovative technologies and creative ideas to“make it happen”.The strategy also very clearly lays out two
levelswheredevelopmentwilloperate-atthestructurallevelandatthelocallevel.Thefollowingareprior-
ity actions for port land development:
• Formation of Mumbai Port Land Development Authority (MPLDA)
• Clearly define port and non-port activity land areas and identify future port uses
• Aclearpolicyofrehabilitatingtheslumdwellersontheeasternwaterfrontandhousingpolicythat
enables job creation in the housing sector
• Define land development through Development Plans and Development Control Regulations
• Labour rehabilitations in the formal sector and inclusion of informal sector in the plans
• Labour capacity building for rehabilitation
• Joint mechanism between the MbPT and MPLDA, until the MPLDA is fully empowered to deal
with all land and land related matter thus vested in it.
IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM
In this section the report states the major legal hurdles in the formulation of the MPLDA as an all em-
poweringSpecialPlanningArea(SPA)authority.Itwouldrequiremanyamendmentsintheexistinglegis-
lative codes. The concerns of existing leases, the existing strict Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) laws, non
availability of data on informal settlements, lack of a housing policy, MR&TP Act and provisions for SPA,
amendments required in the Major Port Trust Act 1963, and linkages with the Development Plan of the
rest of the city are some concerns refered to. Yet, the report states that the MPLDA will be formed under
the following institutional model:

INSTITUTIONAL PREPARATION
U
Central legislation amendment MbPT Act
U
Constitution of the MPLDA
U
Notification of the Area
U
Instituting MPLDA as SPA
U
PROJECT PREPARATION
Y

Y
U
Implementation of projects
U
Operation and maintenance
Development and approval of
comprehensive plan
1. Land Use Plan along with legislative
guidelines for regulating developments
2. Development control regulations
3. Environment and heritage regulations
4. Project implementation phasing
5. Institutional and financial mechanisms
6. Defining enabling environments
Assembly
of Lands
Mobilization
of Resources
U
STRATEGIES FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The report recommends a phased leasing for development of the port land through a consultation of
MbPT and Ministry of Shipping, keeping in mind the financial responsibilities of MbPT. The development
of port land, the report says, will be capital intensive and will require a financially self-sustaining model to
not be a burden on the state. To create a world class integrated economic and physical master plan, the
report imagines funding from three sources:
1. Seed funding (equity from government of India and matching contributions from DFIs such as
World Bank and JICA)
2. Right mix of real estate classes that maximize economic returns and cash flow to MPLDA
3. Optimal use of land development charges generated (FSI, property tax, impact fees)
The committee report says the MPLDA does not plan to sell land. Land will be given on lease models and
useofleaserentaldiscountingwillbedonetocapitalizeasrequired.VariousPPPmodelswillbeimplement-
ed depending on the project to enhance viability and maximize private sector participation.

CHAPTER FOUR
STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES
PORT AND DOCK WORKERS
The Port and Dock Workers Unions are one of the
principle stakeholders in the proposed corporati-
zation and redevelopment of Mumbai Port. They
havefiercelyopposedthesemovesandhavemany
validargumentswhichhavegoneunheardand un-
answered.
P. M. Mohammd Haneef, General Secretary, All In-
dia Port and Dock Workers Federation (HMS) in a
detailedinteractionstated“ThePortWorkersUnions
are neither against development nor against mod-
ernization or introduction of latest technology but
thereasonsprojectedforprivatizationofmajorports
are outrageous and are based on hollow grounds.
Privatizationisbeingadvocatedtoimprovetheeffi-
ciency of ports and to bring in prudent investment.
Thetechnologicalefficiencycanbeeasilyimproved
byreplacingoldequipmentwithnewandadvanced
technology and can be achieved if the government
desiresso.Managementefficiencycanbeenhanced
byintroducingprofessionalorcommercialmanage-
mentinsteadof(existing)managementbygeneralist
bureaucrats.IntheexistingstructureunderthePort
Trust, the Governing Board represents interests of
variousstakeholdersinportbusinessfromCustoms,
Railways to Labor Representatives. When the ports
areconvertedintocompanies,motivatedtoearnonly
profits,therepresentationofsuchvariousvitalinter-
ests at the Ports will cease to exist. Factors like these
andintentionsofthegovernmenttobypassthemare
worrisome”
Kersi Parekh (acting President) and P. K. Raman
(Secretary), Transport And Dock Workers Union,
The possibility of redevelopment of the port lands in Mumbai has brought forward various contestations
and claims over the use of the land. In a space starved city like Mumbai that has already lost a historic op-
portunitytousherinsocio-spatialjusticebyre-planningmilllands,portlandredevelopmentisperhapsan
opportunitytotakeacorrectivecourseofaction.Bottomupparticipatoryplanningisthewayforwardforthe
same.Whileafewvoicesfromthecityhavebeenheardandrepresentedsofarthroughmainstreammedia
and influential citizen groups, many more voices have been left unheard and unrepresented.This chapter
narrates the views of stakeholders - formal port workers, informal workers, the fishing industry, fishing vil-
MumbaiputforththespecificcaseofMumbaiPort
andexplainedtheimplicationsofthechangingpoli-
cydiscourseatthenationallevel.Accordingtothem
“TodaymanymythssurroundtheMumbaiPortand
helpservepropagandatofulfillparticularinterests.
The most known of them being that the Mumbai
Port is underperforming and is lost to competition
from JNPT. There is no denial that JNPT is one of
thefinestmajorportsinIndiabutthemoderntech-
nologythatitoperateswithhasneverbeenprovided
toMumbaiPort,despiterepeatedappealsformod-
ernization. The foremost example of this neglect
is provision of gantry cranes or container cranes -
known for their capacity to lead to bi-arm,‘ship to
shore’movement of enormous objects.The gantry
cranes at JNPT help make 30 bi-arm moves, effec-
tively moving 60 objects, in an hour while mobile
cranes used in Mumbai Port barely make 8 moves
per hour, lifting 16 objects. Denial of such modern
equipmenttoanactiveportisarecipeforbusiness
loss.Dredgingoperations-maintenancedredging
on regular basis and capital dredging for major ex-
pansions are necessary for any port. Ports have to
rely mainly on government owned Dredging Cor-
poration of India (DCI) for the same but the fleet of
dredgingvesselsmaintainedbyDCIisill-equipped
andthishashamperedtheeffectivefunctioningof
the Mumbai Port. Examples like this are countless.
The docks built during the colonial era had a shal-
lowdraftof9meterandrendereduselessintheage
ofcontainerizationwhenvesselsbecamebiggerand
deeper. As a result, the Princess andVictoria Docks
were filled to make way for a container yard which

dling liquid cargo that generates up to 65% of the
revenue,whilebulk-cargoneedsmoremanuallabor
and engages a huge number of workers. The gov-
ernment wants to get rid of these workers, get rid
ofresponsibilitiestowardstheirwelfareandinfact
divert most of the traffic coming to the Mumbai
Port to the upcoming private port at Rewas. The
Port and Dock Workers Unions are ready to fight
tooth and nail against this injustice.”
The views of representatives of Port and Dock
workers unions appear to be harsh yet more than
true if one goes by recent newspaper reports. On
1 January 2015, Hindustan Times published an in-
terviewwiththeMinisterofShipping.Accordingto
the report, the Minister stated:
MbPT, which holds excess land, will
be discontinuing bulk cargo operations like
handling coal and ores as they affect traffic
and cause pollution in the city…the liquid
operationsoftheport,whichgeneratesover
65%oftherevenue,willcontinue.Hefurther
said that an alternate port has already been
identifiedthatwillundertakethesamework,
butdeclinedtospecifythealternative,stating
thattheMaharashtragovernmenthastoap-
prove of the same. Pointing out not having
fullyutilisedthepotentialofvariousports,he
said there is a need to develop smaller ports
whichmayserveasfeederforthebiggerones
like MbPT and the neighbouring JNPT. With
the same objective, the Ministry has identi-
fied a potential port near Dahanu where an
18-metre draft is possible, as also Vijaydurg
and Revas-Karanja.8
These statements made by the Union Minister
clearly support claims by representatives of port
workers unions.
was in sync with a pragmatic decision to diversify
and build an Offshore Container Terminal (OCT)
deeperinthesea.OnceoperationaltheOCTwould
catertodeepercontainervesselsandwouldleadto
abriskupsurgeintheportbusiness.Toachievethis,
better rail and road connectivity needs to be pro-
vided and the MbPT has planned for the same.Yet
expansionprojectsareunabletotakeoffinthewant
ofapprovalsfromthecentralgovernment. Alsothe
portlandundervariousgodowns,depotsandware-
housescouldbeusedtostuff-de-stuff,processand
storecontainers.Iftheseexpansionplansaretaken
into account, the claim that MbPT has surplus land
becomes hollow and unsubstantiated. This land
is highly valued and an important resource for the
port. It should not become a real estate asset. Pur-
posefuldelaysingrantingnecessarypermissionsfor
expansionofbusinessactivitiesanddenyingmod-
erntechnologyintheportareindicativeofgovern-
ment antipathy towards this port.
If modernized and expanded, Mumbai port has
thecapacitytogeneratelivelihoodsforthousands.
Forhandling1lakhcontainers,approximately5000
people–includingshippersonnel,flotillaworkers,
transport workers, security men, and workers at
containerprocessingyardsareengagedwithinport
premises.Theancillaryactivitiesrelatedtotheport
provide work to a large number of informal work-
ers. If the proposed OCT is operationalised, up to
12.5 lakh containers would be handled daily and
would engage up to 60,000 workers on daily basis.
The spillover effect of this would reach many more
andleadtoabustlinginformaleconomyaroundthe
port.
Given this, why does the government want to by-
pass these possibilities and render thousands job-
less? The port and dockworkers have first claim on
thisportandtheportlandsbecausetheyhavegiven
their blood and sweat to this port for generations.
This is being done because the government aims
to use the port lands for non-port activities, main-
lydevelopmentofrealestate,toservesomevested
interests. The government has clear intentions to
discontinuethehandlingofbulk-cargoatMumbai
Port and allow handling of liquid cargo only. This
move will lead to massive job cuts. Out of the cur-
rent 11,500 workers only 300 are engaged in han-
8
Hindustan Times, January 01,2015“ Won’t give excess Mumbai port land to Builders” http://www.hindustantimes.com/in
dia-news/won-t-give-excess-mumbai-port-trust-land-to-builders-gadkari/article1-1302357.aspx

Stakeholder Perspectives 23
SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES
AND INFORMAL LABOUR
The contribution of the port in generating ancil-
larylivelihoodsistremendousandneighborhoods
like Darukhana, Reay Road and Wadala around
the are a testimony to the same.While those living
herearenot‘formal’portemployees–theirlinkag-
eswithportactivityisbottom-upentrepreneurship
at its best
Darukhana has been known as the infamous
‘ship-breakingpremises’inthebackyardsofMum-
baiPort.Beforethisbriskbusinessofshipbreaking
that generated employment for thousands, came
to a grinding halt over environmental concerns,
Darukhana used to be a buoyant place for many.
The break-away ships and recycling of scrap ma-
terial was the back bone of perhaps largest steel
processing industry in the city. Post the ban on
ship breaking, the scale of activities has receeded,
yettherangeofactivitiesareoverwhelming.Many
small sailing boats, ships and vessels are repaired,
overhauledorevenrenovatedaroundedgesofReti
Bunder. The leftover junk material after repairing
finds its way to the neighboring Kolsa Bunder.The
innumerousdark,crampedworkshopsaroundKol-
sa Bundar process-reprocess and reproduce steel
bars,chains,disksetcthatisusedacrosssmallscale
industries in different parts of the city.
The industrious spirits remain not restricted only
to workshops but make ways into incommodious,
dingy tenements, small roads and allies outside.
Thewomenfolkareengagedincleaning-polishing
and packing the small units or extending helping
handsinvarioushomebasedunits.Theknownfact
is Dharavi - the mega settlement - provides most
popular namkeen(snack)productslikesev,bhujia,
chips across the city but the hardly known fact is
jali sanchas (moulds) used for making sev-bhujia
and chakli are produced in tenements of Kolsa
Bunder. Eventheleftoverironsteelpiecesandde-
brisearnhandsomerevenuesinscrapmarketsthus
makingscrapcollectionandsegregationalucrative
business.
Bakeriesinthetownrelyonfirewoodbutonehard-
ly knows that it is stored, cut and processed with-
Informal workers at Darukhana
Recycling scrap material at Darukhana
Sorting scrap material at Darukhana

in workshops at Lakda Bunder. The thriving con-
structionactivitiesinMumbaidemandcontinuous
supply of quality timber wood that has its source
primarily in Lakda Bunder. Logistics like storage
andtransportationoffinishedproductsgenerates
steady employment.
The informal activities have centered around work-
shops that stand on leased land.The MPLDC report
hassuggestedMbPTtakebackthelandandrelocate
iron, steel and timber industries in Navi Mumbai.
Darukhana Iron Steel and Scrap Merchants Asso-
ciation and the Timber and Firewood Merchants
Associationhasstrongobjectionstothisastheyfear
to incur huge losses in case of relocation out of this
locality. ForexamplethetimbermarketatDarukha-
nahasstrongbusinesslinkageswiththetimbermar-
ket at Mahim, the steel and scrap market has ties
with markets at Kurla, Bhendi Bazar and Null Ba-
zaar. The probable relocation is feared to unsettle
thelocationaladvantage,disturbtheselinkagesand
hamper business as well as livelihoods of hundreds
of workers that are beyond the fold of formal eco-
nomicsectorandtendtoremainoutsidethefoldof
‘compensation’.Thequestionthesemerchantsaskis,
would the same logic be applied to The Taj Hotel,
Radio Club or Yacht Club that are also located on
leased land of the Mumbai Port Trust.
Inside a workshop at Darukhana

25
INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS OR SLUMS
Informal labour engaged in various activities
around the port has settled on port land. Being
themostaffordableformofhousing,slumsettle-
ments have grown close to these places of work.
It is estimated that there are as many as 30,000
slumhouseholdshousingapproximately150,000
peopleontheportland.Anincompleteslumsur-
vey conducted by the Mumbai PortTrust in 2002
counted only 14000 households.
Mostlargesettlementsorbastisareconcentratedat
Darukhana near Reay Road, Sewree and Wada-
la.SmallersettlementsarelocatedatElphinstone
Estate across P.D’Mello Road around Masjid
Bunder. These settlements have Dalit and Mus-
lim migrants from the hinterland of Maharash-
tra, Tamilnadu, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Those
originally from Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh
have been staying in and around Darukhana for
many decades. Most Tamilians are the second
generation staying at the edges of New Tank
Bunder Road, Boathard Road and Koyla Bunder
near Reay Road station. Neighboring areas like
Lakda Bunder, Power Bunder, Reti Bunder and
Fosbery Road have a sizeable population from
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra. The set-
tlements at Wadala are mostly on the Port Trust
railway land and around the Salt Pans ofWadala.
Afewsettlementsstatethattheyusedtopayrent
to the MbPT till the 1980s after which their rent
was never accepted.
The slums located on Mumbai Port land are
doublymarginalized-locatedoncentralgovern-
ment land they are not recognized by the munic-
ipal government. There is no official provision of
drinkingwater,electricity,sanitation,healthpost
or a school on the port land. The situation is ut-
terly shameful and in violation of human dignity.
The Union Ministry of Shipping and Mumbai
Port Trust are too reluctant to take any note of
thesesettlers,theeconomicactivitiestheyarein-
volved in or their right to a dignified life. With-
outconductingafreshsurveyofthebastisaround
Darukhana, leave aside economic survey of live-
lihoods involved, Mumbai Port Trust has termed
them ‘encroachers’ and is determined to push
them off the port land. Being on central govern-
mentland,thesesettlementsarebeyondthepre-
view of housing and resettlement policies of the
state government. To make the matters worse,
there is no housing and resettlement policy at
the central government level. Even though the
MPLDC report recommended formulation of
an appropriate resettlement policy, the Mumbai
Port Trust maintains that policy formulation is
the responsibility of the Union Ministry and till
any such policy comes into force, the Port Trust
can go ahead‘clearing off illegal settlements and
encroachments’. When a housing policy is yet to
come into force, maintaining a rigid stand, the
Port Trust has carried out three demolitions so
far. This has invoked fears, rumors and distress
across slums on port land. Ironically, while these
neighborhoods are not considered in plans and
livesandaspirationsareoverlooked,newerplans
of coming up with a smart city on port lands are
being reported by the media.
RentreceiptofColabaKoliwada
Rent receipt of Gaddi Adda, 1973

KOLIWADAS (FISHING VILLAGES)
Jamsetji Bunder is home to a settlement of more
than 300 families.Within this settlement is the Co-
laba Koliwada comprising of around 43 Koli hous-
es,fishdryingareasandajettyforfishingboatswith
directaccesstothesea.Thesefamilieshaveproven
existence prior to the British era. Oral narratives
fromcommunityeldersspeakofacopperplategiv-
en by British officials with an inscription proving
their ownership of the land. These 43 house plots
and areas for fish drying were officially allotted to
the Kolis by the Mumbai PortTrust. Over the years
therehavebeenmanyhouseholdsthathavedevel-
opedinandaroundtheoriginalKoliwada.Upuntil
1992,rentbills(mentioningpropertytax,watertax,
sewerage tax) from the Assistant Dock Manager
(Bunders) MbPT were regular. In 1992 the rent bills
stopped suddenly. There after they have received
billsatvariedintervalsfromtheEstateDepartment
of MbPT. In 2007 and 2014 they received rent bills
running into lakhs!
The issues of the Kolis are that of housing as well
as livelihood that is intricately linked to the sea –
theyrequirenaturalseacurrentssothatfishcanbe
caught within the limit assigned to them.The pro-
posedmarinaandfloatinghotelinColabathreaten
theirverybasisoflivelihood. Moreover,theirprov-
en land ownership makes their case very different
for any proposed redevelopment.
There is a Koliwada at Sewri that represents a very
differentcase-theynolongerhavedirectaccessto
the sea and have developed a housing colony for
themselves. There are also 8-10 Koli households
at Reti Bunder who have been staying there for
around 40 years. Though their settlement is not
a Koliwada, they catch fish regularly and also buy
fishatwholesaleratesfromFerryWharfwhichthey
later sell. Few of the men are involved in boat and
navigation equipment repairing.
Arial view, Colaba Koliwada
Koli fishing boats at sea
Sasoon Docks

Stakeholder Perspectives 27
MUMBAI CITY AS A STAKEHOLDER
The current scenario and fundamental needs
The Port and Mumbai city cannot be seen in isola-
tion. The port is an integral part of the island city
andanyproposedspatialdevelopmentmustbein
syncwiththecityand,takeintoconsiderationfun-
damentalneedswithintheexitingsocio-economic
fabric of the majority.
With a population of 18,414,2889
(18.41 million),
Mumbai is India’s most populous city and the fifth
most populated city in the world. Mumbai (subur-
ban)andMumbaidistrictarethemostdenselypop-
ulated areas, with a density of about 20,980 and
19,652 population per sq. km. respectively. While
Mumbai has the highest per capita net district in-
come of Rs. 1,67,736 [higher than the state per cap-
ita income of Rs. 1,03,991 (2012-2013)], the city fac-
esextremechallengesintermsofbasicinfrastructure
and services available to the majority. The MCGM
Preparatory Studies (2014) revealed that the medi-
an monthly household income in the city was Rs
20,000, with a mere 9 percent earning more than
60,000 per month. Moreover, almost 50 percent of
thecity’spopulationlivesinslumsorinformalsettle-
mentswithanalarmingHumanDevelopmentIndex
in many suburban administrative wards.
Giventhisscenario,statedrivenaffordablehousing,
publicamenitiesandbasicservicesarerequiredto
balance the growing inequality in the city. Paucity
of land in the city is always stated as a reason for
thenonprovisionofhousingandamenities.Devel-
opmentchallengesinthecitymustbeprioritizedif
at all a large landmass is being opened up for pub-
lic use. There is an urgent need to create mixed
use and mixed income social housing in the city,
that is close to the city centre - and parts of MbPT
land provides this opportunity.The utter shortage
of housing, basic services and public amenities in
our city is appalling and this should be considered
withintheambitofdevelopmentofthePort.While
Mumbaidoesneedmoreopenspace,thenecessity
of what should be developed on the Port land is
a matter of public concern. Creating a city that is
inclusive of the needs of the majority must neces-
sarily be its primary concern.
9
India Stats : Million plus cities in India as per Census 2011, Mumbai, October 31, 2011 <http://pibmumbai.gov.in/scripts/detail.
asp?releaseId=E2011IS3>
MCGMExistingLandUse(ELU)map,2012MCGMProposedLandUse(PLU)map,2015

THE MUMBAI PORT AND MUMBAI DEVELOPMENT PLAN (2034)
Important to note is that the Mumbai Development Plan is simultaneously under revision by the Municipal
Corporation.ThisPlandefineslanduseinthecityforthenext20years,thusanylargescaledevelopmenton
theportmustbeaccountedforwhileplanningforthecity.TheproposedCoastalRoad(onthewestcoast)and
itsconnectorSewri-NhavaSheva(ontheeastcoast)arealsostronglylinkedtoportredevelopment.Aspatial
plan for the Mumbai Port made in isolation will have far reaching impacts on the rest of the city in the com-
ing decades. Since the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) is a planning authority that is
electedandaccountabletothepublic,andaccordingtothe74thamendment,itshouldbemakingplansforthe
entire city, the planning for redevelopment of port land should logically be done by the MCGM.
However,theMPLDCrecommendshandingoverplanningfunctionsofthePortlandstoa“SpecialPlanning
Authority”(SPA) and recommends setting up a body called the Mumbai Port Land Development Authority
(MPLDA). . Under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MR&TP) Act, an SPA replaces an elected
localauthoritysuchastheMCGMasthenewdevelopmentcontrolauthority,givingitpowerstoacquireland
inanotifiedareaforthepurposeofdevelopment,formulatepoliciesregardinglanduseandzoning,powersto
taxandlevycharges,andotherpowers.Asaresult,itwrestslocalcontroloverplanningdecisionsandhands
them over to bureaucrats – free from the“inevitable delays of the democratic process.”The MPLDC’s stated
reason,incidentally,isto“minimizetheneedtoobtainvarioussanctionsandpermissionsfrommultipleau-
thorities.”However, SPAs are not new to Mumbai; according to the MCGM, 4322.8 ha or 9.4% of the total
land area of Greater Mumbai is under SPAs, and if the Port lands are set up under an SPA, 11% of Greater
Mumbai area will be placed outside the planning jurisdiction of the MCGM. (Indorewala 2015)
A Special Planning Authority exists as a statutory body and since it lacks the representation of people, it
hardly remains accountable. The overall experience of SPAs that already exist in Mumbai shows that the
planning exercises by such SPAs take into account interests of a specified part of the city rather than the
wholecityandtendtothwarttheattemptsofintegratedplanningofacityasawhole.Alargeisolateddevel-
opmentbyanindependentplanningbodylikeSPAhasalwaysputastrainoninfrastructurethatisplanned
for by the MCGM. This should not be reiterated while planning for the port lands.
Interestingly, there is another provision in the MR&TP Act that can be suitably applied to the Port lands.
Section33oftheActgivesalocalPlanningAuthoritypowerstopreparedetailedmicro-levelplansforareas
requiring“Comprehensive development.”The Planning Authority has to follow the same procedures that
arefollowedforthepreparationoftheDevelopmentPlanforthecity,andnoseparatePlanningAuthority
need be formed under this section. The MCGM has already indicated its willingness to create “areas of
Comprehensive development”in its forthcoming 20 year Development Plan – for slums, inner city areas,
mill lands, transit nodes and heritage precincts – and the Port lands can easily be made one of these.The
advantage is that the MCGM makes the plan as part of the Development Plan, which works better for
overallplanning,andremainsthePlanningAuthority,whichmakestheprocess–atleastintheory–more
accountable (Indorewala 2015)
If one is to locate proposed port land redevelopment within the Mumbai Development Plan revision – ir-
regularities are plenty.While land ownership of the port rests with the central government, the MCGM had
mappedcertainlandusesontheportintheExistingLandUse(ELU)survey2012.Landusewascategorized
largelyas‘transport’and‘industry’withafewamenitiesandslumcommunitiesalsomapped.Itwasanincom-
plete survey to say the least.The Proposed Land Use (PLU) 2015 shows 90% of the port land earmarked as
‘industrial’withafewproposedamenityreservations.Whatisimportanttonoteisthatnoneoftheslums,oth-
er than those inWadala have been earmarked as‘Slum Clusters for Local Area Plans’. Ironically,‘Commercial
Residential’zoneshavebeenmarkedontheportlandatrandom.Moreover,zonalFSIof3.5and5havebeen
allocatedindifferentpartsoftheport–thiseventhoughtheentireportisunderCoastalRegulatoryZoneII

Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective

Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective

Similar to Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective (20)

Redeveloping Mumbai's Port Land - A People's Perspective