Nearly 25 years after Mumbai began creating resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) housing for families displaced by infrastructure projects, many of the buildings and settlements are facing extensive maintenance, financial and governance problems, according to a study by Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA).
The study, titled
25 Years Later: Infrastructure Conditions of R&R Housing in Mumbai, examined 38 cooperative housing societies (CHSs) comprising 53 buildings across four R&R layouts in Mumbai—RNA Park and J-Plot in Vashi Naka, Diwan in Vashi Naka, and Charishma Colony in Mukund Nagar. It also interviewed office-bearers of three CHS federations and conducted detailed case studies of 20 individual tenements.
YUVA says the findings point to a larger gap in Mumbai’s R&R framework: while considerable attention was given to creating and allotting rehabilitation housing, there is no comprehensive framework governing its maintenance and governance after residents move in.
The report notes that R&R buildings are generally managed at three levels. Individual residents are responsible for their tenements, CHSs manage building-level infrastructure and federations are expected to manage infrastructure shared across an entire layout. However, responsibilities and funding for the last of these levels have not been clearly established.
The buildings examined in the study were constructed between 2004 and 2006 and were, therefore 19 to 21 years old at the time of the survey. The average gap between construction and occupation was two years, although some buildings took substantially longer to be occupied.
The physical condition recorded by YUVA is a major concern. Of the 38 societies surveyed, 36 (94.7%) reported external plaster falling off and the same number reported that external painting was needed. Underground sewer blockages were reported by 33 societies (86.8%), while 32 (84.2%) reported internal plaster falling off.
The study also found that six of the seven societies with lifts reported their lifts were non-functional. Thirty-one societies (81.6%) reported leakage from overhead water tanks, while 28 (73.7%) reported cracks in pillars or beams. Broken pipelines between water tanks and bathrooms were reported by 27 societies (71.1%).
Table: Number and Percentage of Societies Reporting Various Types of Damage (page 27, YUVA Study).
The report’s photographs provide visual evidence of several of these problems, including buildings with extensive external plaster damage, cracked pillars and beams, damaged staircases, leaking terraces and water tanks, deteriorated electrical systems and sewage mixing with underground water-tank water.
Previous repairs have not necessarily solved the problems. Thirty-five of the 38 societies said Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) had undertaken maintenance or repair work in one or more buildings between 2008 and 2025. Terrace leakage repairs had been carried out in 33 societies, while painting had been undertaken in 32. Yet, among societies that had previously undertaken such work, 100% that had repaired external plaster reported needing it again, while 93.8% of those that had undertaken painting required it again. Similarly, 90.5% of societies that had previously repaired underground sewerage reported needing further repairs.
The study also questions whether the CHSs have the financial capacity to take on major repairs.
Most surveyed societies collect monthly maintenance charges of between ₹200 and ₹500, with tenants generally paying more than owner-occupants. More than 44% of the societies charged tenants ₹400 per month, while 34% charged owners ₹300.
At the same time, only 23 of the 38 societies (60.5%) reported receiving their corpus funds. The remaining 15 societies had not received them. The report notes that the corpus is intended to support common infrastructure, electricity and municipal taxes, among other expenses.
An analysis of audited financial statements of three societies found that maintenance charges were insufficient to meet day-to-day operating expenses in two of them in both years examined. Maintenance arrears were also rising. In one case, amounts due from members accounted for 43.8% of the balance sheet in 2021-22 and increased to 44.5% in 2022-23.
Consequently, societies often have to use interest earned on their corpus or savings to meet routine expenses, leaving little capacity for major repairs. YUVA says this makes continued dependence on public agencies for substantial repair work unavoidable.
The study found 204 unallotted residential tenements out of 3,324 across the surveyed societies—6.13% of the total. In the SARJI Federation, 153 of 686 units, or 22.3%, were unallotted.
YUVA points out that vacant flats do not contribute maintenance charges or corpus income to the societies, while the CHSs may, nevertheless, have to bear associated tax liabilities. In some cases, vacant units had deteriorated significantly or were allegedly being misused.
The problem is not confined to the sample. Citing information obtained from right to information (RTI) applications and earlier research, the report says 6,354 vacant project affected persons (PAP) tenements were held by MMRDA in 2022-23, while 7,694 BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) PAP tenements had reportedly remained vacant for decades and had become uninhabitable. YUVA notes that the Maharashtra government's 2024 R&R policy projects a requirement of 2.2 lakh PAP tenements over the next 15 years.
The problems extend beyond common building infrastructure. YUVA conducted detailed case studies of 20 individual tenements, selected to include both well-maintained and poorly maintained homes; the sample was purposive and was not intended to be statistically representative.
Nineteen of the 20 respondents reported leakage from walls during rains, 17 reported ceiling leakage, 15 reported falling ceiling plaster and 15 reported damage to doors, windows or grills. Fourteen reported major cracks in beams and 11 reported major cracks in pillars.
Seventeen households had undertaken repairs themselves. Tiling, painting and plastering were among the most common repairs. However, structural repairs to beams and pillars were beyond the financial capacity of residents.
Of the 19 households for which expenditure data was available, six had spent between ₹1 lakh and ₹2 lakh on repairs, while one had spent more than ₹2 lakh. Three households had undertaken no repairs at all, citing inadequate and unstable incomes.
The report documents cases of residents spending ₹2 lakh or more on repairs, only to see leakage and other problems return. It says that, because of poor construction, repairs often provide temporary relief rather than a lasting solution.
At the layout level, the report identifies another institutional gap. YUVA says that although the R&R colonies fall within BMC limits, the corporation treats the internal infrastructure of these layouts as private and generally takes responsibility only up to the point where its networks connect with the internal infrastructure.
The three federations studied reported irregular or absent garbage collection, drainage cleaning, street lighting and road maintenance. The report also records recurring sewage blockages, flooding and problems with sewage treatment plants. It says none of the three colonies studied had internal roads accessible to fire engines and ambulances.
At the same time, the federations themselves have neither a regular source of funding nor sufficient technical and institutional capacity to take over these responsibilities. All three depend on member contributions and a proposal to require CHSs to contribute a quarter of their income to the federations was considered infeasible because of the weak financial position of some societies.
The problem has become particularly relevant because MMRDA has been seeking to move towards an ‘Exit Action Plan’, including leasing settlement land to CHS federations. None of the three registered federations studied had been able to complete such a lease agreement. In some cases, the report says, land ownership had still not been transferred from private developers even after two decades.
YUVA argues that the existing system effectively leaves the most resource-constrained stakeholders—the relocated families and their societies—to manage a complex network of responsibilities involving MMRDA, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), BMC, private developers and other agencies.
It recommends a comprehensive policy covering the post-allocation phase of R&R housing. Among its key recommendations are that BMC take responsibility for layout-level infrastructure and municipal services; that internal roads in existing R&R layouts be declared public; and that infrastructure development charges paid by developers be used for this purpose.
The study also recommends a state-level fund to support CHSs that cannot finance major repairs, regular structural audits of R&R buildings, clearly defined rights and transit arrangements for residents of buildings declared structurally unsafe, and an extended defect-liability period for private developers involved in PAP housing.
It calls for vacant tenements to be allotted through a time-bound mechanism, with a 12-month target, and for temporary allotments to be formally converted into permanent allotments. It also recommends one-time repairs to older individual tenements when structural audits identify extensive damage.
The broader concern, according to the study, is that the R&R system has an institutional framework for placing families in homes but no equally clear framework for ensuring that those homes remain safe, functional, and financially sustainable over their lifetimes. YUVA concludes that without clear accountability and resource allocation, residents will continue to rely on ad hoc interventions from various public authorities.
