MUMBAI: Observing that while prima facie the construction was unauthorized, the question of political vendetta does not arise, the Bombay High Court on Thursday refused to set aside or stay the June 3 rejection of regularization of a portion by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). done. Union Minister’s eight-storey Juhu residence Narayan Rane of BJP.
But the high court granted six weeks of protection from any “coercive action”, including demolition, after the High Court dismissed a petition filed by Kalka Real Estates Pvt Ltd, Rane’s close family concern. The six-week relief is to enable an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The HC had earlier on March 22 restrained the BMC from taking any coercive steps for three weeks following its adverse decision on the regularization proposal. The security was in place till June 24.
The BMC, in its rejection order, had said that the proposal for regularization “is not in accordance with the rules of DCPR 2034 (Development Control and Promotion Regulations), MRTP Act, MMC Act and prevailing policies.”
“There is no FSI (Floor Space Index – Permissible buildable space) available for regulation work,” the BMC said. It had specifically stated, “FSI of the entire plot cannot be loaded on this particular structure as other structures/dwellers on the same plot may be adversely affected, as it would be for using FSI which will be at par with other owners/occupants. may be entitled to the plots.
Kalka had challenged the BMC’s rejection order, saying the BMC’s action was “in pursuance of political rivalry and vendetta” as Maharashtra has a Shiv Sena-led government.
The HC bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sevlikar heard senior advocate Milind Sathe, who submitted that the refusal to allow regularization was based on “frivolous and malicious” objections not applicable under the law and “of a particular political party”. Engineer at the behest”. Especially the Chief Minister.
Senior counsel for BMC Aspi Chinoy submitted that the building uses 2244 square metres, which is three times the sanctioned area. Chinoy, who opposed his plea, contended that it was a huge plot of over 2200 sq m and while 1178 m was leased to the company – building plans on 745 sq m were approved, thus any regularization Other than that, there will be an imbalance of FSI for those living in the adjoining building. He said that if the sanctioned area is not used thrice, then the point of ‘victim’ will be good.
The HC agreed with the BMC that the mere grant of lease does not automatically sub-divide the plot. It did not accede to Sathe’s request to consider FSI for the larger plot.
The BMC had also said, “NOC is not submitted from the fire department for high rise building which is a mandatory document as there is encroachment on the shelter area.”
Rane’s multi-storey residence, Adish had come under civil scrutiny in 2017 on a complaint filed alleging illegal construction.
Santosh Daundkar, who claims to be a social worker, has filed the complaint through his lawyer YP Singh. It was alleged that the layout of the plot was “substantially changed without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner”.
Various illegalities were alleged in a complaint against Adish Bhavan in 2017 that, although MoEF had approved 11.75 m height for the ground plus three floors, the 32 m building was constructed “in open violation of the Environment Protection Act”. was.
What did BMC say on June 3, order to reject
There are discrepancies in the plans submitted by the architect.
* Plot area, section, floor plate area not as per provision of DCPR 2034.
*No additional work as per notice given by Designated Officer K-West Ward
Involved.
* Habitable user is proposed on 1st and 2nd recreation floor and 7th asylum floor and terrace. However, the architect has not explained the area under the stair/lift/elevator lobby area for these floors.
Due to additional work done to make these floors now habitable, FSI free area will not be allowed on these floors as per the provision of DCPR 2034.
*Not submitted prior approval of MCZMA for proposed regularization of unauthorized work.
The Bombay HC, in a separate petition filed earlier by Kalka, had on June 16 directed the panel to first decide its jurisdiction against another notice issued by the District Level Coastal Management Committee on May 24.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik, in its June 16 order, had said: Normally, a writ petition against a show cause notice is not entertained. However, the Court may, at its discretion, consider a writ petition challenging a show cause notice if the issue is raised that the authority issuing the show cause notice does not have the jurisdiction, authority or capacity to examine the facts. And if it is so satisfied, the Court can pass an appropriate order.
Actually, the petitioner has complained of such judicial error through Dr. Sathe.
However, keeping in view the fact that the Corporation has proceeded to take action by ordering demolition of the bungalow, an application for regularization/retention was submitted by the petitioner before the Corporation, which was subsequently was dismissed by an order dated June, 2022. Combined with the fact that the Corporation has been barred from taking any coercive or preparatory action till the 24th June, 2022… We are of the view that the interest of justice will be served adequately if, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the deficiency Based on the jurisdiction, authority and competence of the Committee to issue the impugned notice, instead of examining the matter, the Committee itself is directed to give its decision on such objection as may be given in the personal hearing given by the petitioner on 10th June, 2022. was picked up. The committee decides the objection with respect to jurisdiction against him, the petitioner shall be at liberty to find out its remedy in accordance with the law.
But the high court granted six weeks of protection from any “coercive action”, including demolition, after the High Court dismissed a petition filed by Kalka Real Estates Pvt Ltd, Rane’s close family concern. The six-week relief is to enable an appeal before the Supreme Court.
The HC had earlier on March 22 restrained the BMC from taking any coercive steps for three weeks following its adverse decision on the regularization proposal. The security was in place till June 24.
The BMC, in its rejection order, had said that the proposal for regularization “is not in accordance with the rules of DCPR 2034 (Development Control and Promotion Regulations), MRTP Act, MMC Act and prevailing policies.”
“There is no FSI (Floor Space Index – Permissible buildable space) available for regulation work,” the BMC said. It had specifically stated, “FSI of the entire plot cannot be loaded on this particular structure as other structures/dwellers on the same plot may be adversely affected, as it would be for using FSI which will be at par with other owners/occupants. may be entitled to the plots.
Kalka had challenged the BMC’s rejection order, saying the BMC’s action was “in pursuance of political rivalry and vendetta” as Maharashtra has a Shiv Sena-led government.
The HC bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sevlikar heard senior advocate Milind Sathe, who submitted that the refusal to allow regularization was based on “frivolous and malicious” objections not applicable under the law and “of a particular political party”. Engineer at the behest”. Especially the Chief Minister.
Senior counsel for BMC Aspi Chinoy submitted that the building uses 2244 square metres, which is three times the sanctioned area. Chinoy, who opposed his plea, contended that it was a huge plot of over 2200 sq m and while 1178 m was leased to the company – building plans on 745 sq m were approved, thus any regularization Other than that, there will be an imbalance of FSI for those living in the adjoining building. He said that if the sanctioned area is not used thrice, then the point of ‘victim’ will be good.
The HC agreed with the BMC that the mere grant of lease does not automatically sub-divide the plot. It did not accede to Sathe’s request to consider FSI for the larger plot.
The BMC had also said, “NOC is not submitted from the fire department for high rise building which is a mandatory document as there is encroachment on the shelter area.”
Rane’s multi-storey residence, Adish had come under civil scrutiny in 2017 on a complaint filed alleging illegal construction.
Santosh Daundkar, who claims to be a social worker, has filed the complaint through his lawyer YP Singh. It was alleged that the layout of the plot was “substantially changed without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner”.
Various illegalities were alleged in a complaint against Adish Bhavan in 2017 that, although MoEF had approved 11.75 m height for the ground plus three floors, the 32 m building was constructed “in open violation of the Environment Protection Act”. was.
What did BMC say on June 3, order to reject
There are discrepancies in the plans submitted by the architect.
* Plot area, section, floor plate area not as per provision of DCPR 2034.
*No additional work as per notice given by Designated Officer K-West Ward
Involved.
* Habitable user is proposed on 1st and 2nd recreation floor and 7th asylum floor and terrace. However, the architect has not explained the area under the stair/lift/elevator lobby area for these floors.
Due to additional work done to make these floors now habitable, FSI free area will not be allowed on these floors as per the provision of DCPR 2034.
*Not submitted prior approval of MCZMA for proposed regularization of unauthorized work.
The Bombay HC, in a separate petition filed earlier by Kalka, had on June 16 directed the panel to first decide its jurisdiction against another notice issued by the District Level Coastal Management Committee on May 24.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik, in its June 16 order, had said: Normally, a writ petition against a show cause notice is not entertained. However, the Court may, at its discretion, consider a writ petition challenging a show cause notice if the issue is raised that the authority issuing the show cause notice does not have the jurisdiction, authority or capacity to examine the facts. And if it is so satisfied, the Court can pass an appropriate order.
Actually, the petitioner has complained of such judicial error through Dr. Sathe.
However, keeping in view the fact that the Corporation has proceeded to take action by ordering demolition of the bungalow, an application for regularization/retention was submitted by the petitioner before the Corporation, which was subsequently was dismissed by an order dated June, 2022. Combined with the fact that the Corporation has been barred from taking any coercive or preparatory action till the 24th June, 2022… We are of the view that the interest of justice will be served adequately if, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding the deficiency Based on the jurisdiction, authority and competence of the Committee to issue the impugned notice, instead of examining the matter, the Committee itself is directed to give its decision on such objection as may be given in the personal hearing given by the petitioner on 10th June, 2022. was picked up. The committee decides the objection with respect to jurisdiction against him, the petitioner shall be at liberty to find out its remedy in accordance with the law.