By Girish Chhalwani, Co-Founder, Lords of the Lands · ~8 min read · Last updated: 23 September 2026

Three terms, used interchangeably, describing overlapping ground, governed by two different authorities, with one of them created by a reassignment that happened in 2024. It is not surprising that buyers are confused. It is a problem, because the confusion is load-bearing in a lot of sales conversations.

This post separates them.

What are the three terms, precisely?

NAINA is CIDCO’s notified planning area (since January 2013), KSC New Town is MMRDA’s new town notified in October 2024 on land largely carved out of NAINA, and “Mumbai 3.0” or “Third Mumbai” is a marketing label with no statutory basis or authority.

What actually happened in 2024?

The state carved the Karnala–Sai–Chirner belt out of the original NAINA area and placed it under MMRDA as KSC New Town (target footprint of the order of 320 sq km), leaving CIDCO’s NAINA with a reduced core of about 94 revenue villages.

NAINA was notified in 2013 as a very large area — something in the order of 560 sq km across around 270 villages — with CIDCO as Special Planning Authority. Over the following decade, CIDCO sanctioned an Interim Development Plan and began rolling out Town Planning Schemes, but the area was vast and progress was uneven.

In 2024 the state reorganised it. A large portion of the original NAINA belt — the Karnala–Sai–Chirner area and surrounds — was carved out and placed under MMRDA as a new town, with a target footprint of roughly 320 sq km. NAINA under CIDCO continued with a reduced core of around 94 revenue villages.

So the honest summary is: one region, two authorities, and a boundary that was redrawn recently enough that a great deal of documentation in circulation predates it.

Why does the planning authority matter so much?

Because the planning authority decides who grants development permission and conversion, which development-control regulations apply, whether your land is pooled, what charges are payable, who builds trunk infrastructure and where you appeal — a sanction from the wrong authority is not a sanction.

Because the planning authority decides everything that determines whether land is usable.

• Who grants development permission. And since conversion now follows planning sanction in Maharashtra, who effectively grants conversion.
• Which development control regulations apply, and therefore what floor space, height and use are permissible.
• Whether your land goes into a pooling scheme, and on what terms.
• What development charges and contributions are payable.
• Who provides trunk infrastructure, and on what sequence.
• Where you file, appeal and litigate.

A sanction from the wrong authority is not a sanction. A layout approved by a gram panchayat inside a special planning authority’s jurisdiction is not an approved layout. This is the most common and most expensive documentation failure in the corridor.

How do the two development models differ?

CIDCO’s NAINA is pooling-led — land is pooled and returned as serviced plots at roughly 40% of area — while MMRDA’s KSC New Town is authority-led, planned and serviced on MMRDA’s programme; in both, a plan and scheme set the outcome, not the seller.

CIDCO’s NAINA model is pooling-led. Land in a Town Planning Scheme block is pooled, planned as a whole, and reconstituted back to owners as serviced plots at roughly forty per cent of original area, with about sixty per cent retained for infrastructure and public purposes. The landowner gains services and sanction, and gives up area, control and timing.

MMRDA’s new town model is authority-led. MMRDA has long operated as the region’s development authority for large infrastructure and planned areas, and a new town under its control is planned and serviced on its programme. The mechanisms for land assembly, development rights and charges are set by the notified plan and regulations for that area as they are published.

The practical difference for a small buyer is not which model is better in theory. It is that in both cases, the outcome for a parcel is set by a plan and a scheme, not by the seller’s intentions — and that the plan for the newer jurisdiction is younger, which means less of it is settled.

What does “Mumbai 3.0” mean?

Nothing legally — it is a narrative frame for the harbour-crossing expansion enabled by the airport and Atal Setu, with no authority, no sanctioned plan and no defined boundary; in a brochure, it conceals rather than informs.

Nothing, legally. It is a narrative frame: Mumbai 1.0 as the island city, Mumbai 2.0 as Navi Mumbai built by CIDCO from the 1970s, Mumbai 3.0 as the next expansion across the harbour enabled by the airport and Atal Setu.

As a way of understanding why capital is moving east, it is a reasonable frame. As a description of a parcel’s status, it is empty. No authority issues permissions for “Mumbai 3.0”, no plan is sanctioned for it, and no boundary defines it. When it appears in a brochure in place of a jurisdiction and a scheme number, it is doing the work of concealing rather than informing.

Which one is a parcel actually in?

Establish it from the 7/12’s village name and survey number, not the project name — check whether that village is in CIDCO’s current NAINA list, the notified KSC New Town area, or neither, then get the answer in writing from the authority.

Do not accept an answer; establish it. The sequence:

1. Take the village name and survey number from the 7/12 extract — not the project name.
2. Check whether that village appears in CIDCO’s current NAINA village list, or in the notified KSC New Town area, or in neither.
3. If NAINA: identify the Town Planning Scheme number covering it and that scheme’s stage, and check whether the parcel is in an excluded portion of the Interim Development Plan.
4. If KSC New Town: establish what plan and regulations have been notified for that area and what applies to the parcel today.
5. If neither: identify the actual planning authority — a municipal council, or the Collector under the Regional Plan — and check the land use under the applicable plan.
6. Get the answer in writing from the authority, not from the seller.

Step six is the one that closes the question. A zone certificate or plan extract from the authority costs very little and settles an issue that brochures are designed to leave open.

What are the risks in each?

In NAINA, land inside the boundary with no active scheme or in an excluded portion; in KSC New Town, a young jurisdiction whose plan and rules are years from settling; in “Mumbai 3.0”, the term itself; and across all three, a corridor narrative that is already priced in.

In NAINA: land inside the boundary with no active scheme, sitting in constraint without benefit; excluded portions in limbo; and buying mid-scheme when the reconstituted plot is not yet defined.

In KSC New Town: a young jurisdiction. The plan, the regulations and the land assembly mechanism for a newly notified area take years to settle, and land bought on an expectation of how they will settle is land bought on a forecast.

In “Mumbai 3.0”: the risk is the term itself. It is used precisely where a jurisdiction and a scheme number would be less flattering.

In all three: the corridor narrative has been priced. The airport is operating, the sea link is open, the rail corridor is near commissioning. What is left to be delivered is the slow part — employment, social infrastructure, the phased build-out — and that is the part land prices in this belt are already anticipating.

How Lords of the Lands sits relative to all this

Our estates are in the Karjat, Khopoli and Raigad coast pockets, outside the pooling jurisdictions — a deliberate choice, because in a pooling area what a buyer ends up owning is decided by a scheme that may not yet exist, while in a sanctioned private layout it is decided by documents that exist today. Every plot sits in a sanctioned layout with the approval, the title flow, the access width and the planning authority identified on file, available before any payment. If you are comparing us with land sold under any of these three labels, ask both sides the same question: name the authority, name the scheme or sanction, and show it to me.

Frequently asked questions

Related reading

Infrastructure & Mumbai 3.0

• Mumbai 3.0 infrastructure in 2026 – the projects reshaping Raigad
• Navi Mumbai airport status – where NMIA stands now
• Atal Setu and Raigad land – how the sea link shortened the map
• The Virar–Alibaug corridor – the multi-modal ring

Corridor land guides

• Panvel plots in 2026
• Pen land in the Mumbai 3.0 belt
• Uran–Dronagiri land
• Karjat land prices in 2026
• Khopoli land in 2026

Checks & buying strategy

• What NA land actually means
• NA permission changes in Maharashtra
• How to read a 7/12 extract
• The real risks in emerging corridors
• Land banking near Mumbai

• What KSC New Town actually is
• What NAINA is
• The MMR growth corridors
• What the new airport changed
• The Panvel–Karjat rail corridor
• Alibaug vs Karjat and Khopoli
• Karjat, Khopoli or Shrivardhan
• Deemed NA through building plan approval
• Why infrastructure timelines slip
• What Lords of the Lands builds

Citations and sources

Sources: Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Special Planning Authority, new towns and notified areas); NAINA notification, January 2013, CIDCO as Special Planning Authority; Interim Development Plan sanctioned 27 April 2017, amended March 2024; KSC New Town notified under MMRDA, October 2024. This article is general information current as of September 2026 and is not legal advice. Jurisdictional boundaries in this region were redrawn recently — verify the position for any specific parcel with CIDCO or MMRDA and your advocate before transacting. Official sources: CIDCO / NAINA · MSRDC.