Political consensus eludes ULCRA repeal

MUMBAI: Despite being in the pipeline for around two years, the government has not still been able to build a political consensus on the repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA). The political parties in Maharashtra stand divided over the issue even as the Congress-NCP government is under increasing pressure from the Centre to scrap the act.

With the issue coming up before the winter session of the state legislature beginning November 19, sharp divisions have also resurfaced among political parties and social organisations. Interestingly, political outfits and organisations, which share distrust and hatred for each other on a range of issues, are seen sharing the same platform on the ULCRA repeal.

The Shiv Sena, which has already upped the ante by declaring that it would boycott the entire winter session proceedings in protest against the move to bury the ULCRA, is getting support to its stand from the Left-wing parties, Janata Dal, and social organisations having Leftist leaning like Nagari Nivara Parishad of veteran leader PB Samant.

Though it finds itself with new friends on this front, the Shiv Sena does not have the backing of its saffron sibling, the BJP. The BJP has openly come out in support of the ULCRA repeal and fissures within the saffron alliance were clear even at the monsoon session of the legislature when the resolution to withdraw the ULCRA came up.

“How can we not support the ULCRA repeal? It was the NDA government which scrapped the act at the Centre in 1999. The BJP has long held this opinion that archaic regulatory controls like the ULCRA, which are noble in intentions but not feasible enough to yield the desired results, have to be replaced with modern regulatory framework.

Since 1976, the ULCRA has worked only against middle-class people and small property owners. It has never really achieved its objective of releasing the housing stock for the urban poor and middle class,” said BJP legislator from Nagpur, Devendra Fadnavis. If the act goes, cities like Mumbai, Thane, Pune, and Nagpur stand to benefit from the land that could be released.

Mr Samant and veteran socialist Mrinal Gore have a different take on the issue. Mr Samant has expressed apprehensions that once the act is withdrawn, thousands of acres of land in urban conglomerates would be released to builders and big realty firms, who would certainly exploit it for their benefit.

“We have been asking one simple question to the chief minister for the last two years. What happens to the land that is eligible for acquisition under the ULCRA, but has not been acquired by the state? If that land, which is around 30,000 acres in Mumbai alone, gets unlocked, does the government really believe that the owners of surplus land would use it to make available the affordable housing stock for the middle classes and the urban poor?”

Mr Samant asked. He cited the case of a 6,000-tenement middle class and lower middle class colony at Goregaon developed by the Nagari Nivara Parishad by obtaining land under the ULCRA. “The act can still work if there is political will,” said Ms Gore. The Nagari Nivara Parishad is already mobilising public support against repeal of the act.