views
New Delhi: In a shocking revelation, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) chairman Uday Samant admitted that the four-storeyed building, which collapsed in south Mumbai on Tuesday, was supposed to have been demolished in 2012.
The ground-plus-four-storey 'Kesarbai' building, located in a densely populated narrow lane in Dongri's Tandel Street, collapsed around 11.40 am, leaving around 50 people trapped. At least 13 people have been confirmed dead so far.
Samant, also the MLA of the Ratnagiri-Sangmeshwar constituency, said the building was 100 years old. According to him, the building owned by the Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Authority (MHADA) was to be demolished by a private developer. "Strict action will be taken, no one will be spared...the developer and our officials should have seen the work," he said.
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in a letter dated 7 August 2017 on Kesarbhai building that collapsed in Dongri, today: Building is classified as 'C1', to be evacuated for demolition at the earliest...In event of any mishap this office won't be responsible. #Maharashtra pic.twitter.com/h2XEaV4LxF? ANI (@ANI) July 16, 2019
However, despite the notice for immediate demolition of the building by the BMC in 2019, the building went missing from the MHADA's list of dangerous buildings issued before monsoons in 2019.
Congress legislator Bhai Jagtap also alleged that residents had been complaining to the MHADA to take prompt measures as the building was very old and in a dilapidated state. However, a top MHADA office-bearer denied that the building belonged to the authority.
Vinod Ghosalkar, chief of the repair board of MHADA, said the building did not belong to the housing body as mentioned by a few locals and Jagtap. His statement came even as officials of MHADA reached the site to assess the situation.
The locals joining in the rescue efforts formed a human chain to help remove the debris brick-by-brick and pick up slabs of concrete to locate those buried. Ambulance, however, were unable to reach the site and had to be parked around 50 metres away.
Comments
0 comment