Back
Supreme Court of India
H.L. GOKHALE & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others
Versus
Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited & Another
Civil Appeal No. 11150 of 2013 (@ Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 33402 of 2012)
Decided On : 17-12-2013
2012 (12) SCALE 307; (1996) 5 SCC 647 - Relied upon
(b) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 22(m) - Development Control Regulations - DCR 43(1)(A), second Proviso - For redevelopment schemes on plot size 600 sq.m., side space requirement 1.5 m - Contrary to DCR 23 requiring open space of 6 m - Discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Provision likely to lead to a hazardous situation - Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution - Provision bad in law. (Paras 38 and 39)
(2008) 13 SCC 547 - Distinguished
(c) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 22(m) - Development Control Regulations - DCR 31(1) r/w DCR 33(7), 33(8) and 33(9) - DCR 31(1) providing for FSI for high rise buildings but granting exemptions for schemes under DCR 33(7), 33(8) and 33(9) - Often resulting into extreme crowding, and traffic congestion - While granting exemptions from DCR 31(1), there must be a scheme-wise approach and proper supervision of the construction. (Paras 53 and 54)
Facts of the case:
This case relates to town planning and building bye-laws.
Finding of the Court:
DCR 43(1)(A) is bad in law. Directions are to be prospective.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with references:
The development control regulations stipulate that recreational/amenity open spaces must be provided at the ground level, with minimum requirements depending on the plot size. It is not permissible to reduce these minimum recreational areas by relying on provisions that allow recreational space on podiums (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The recreational/open space mandated under regulations is mandatory and intended to be on the land at ground level. Provision for recreational space on the podium is discretionary and cannot override the mandatory ground-level requirement (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The provisions permitting recreational space on podiums are meant to facilitate parking and other uses, but they do not justify reducing the minimum ground-level recreational space. Such reductions are not legally permissible and would adversely affect residents' right to a healthy environment and recreational space (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The right to a clean and healthy environment, including access to green spaces, is recognized as part of the constitutional guarantee of the right to life. Excessive concretization and reduction of ground-level open spaces undermine this right and are contrary to principles of sustainable development (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The regulations concerning fire safety require adequate open spaces for fire maneuverability, including sufficient width for fire engines to access buildings. The existing provisions that allow minimal open spaces, particularly in redevelopment schemes for small plots, are discriminatory and endanger life, thus invalid (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The height of buildings must be proportionate to the width of the adjoining roads, with specific restrictions for buildings over certain heights. Exemptions granted under certain redevelopment provisions are to be examined carefully, and blanket relaxations are not justified without proper assessment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Exemptions for higher FSI in redevelopment schemes are justified on the basis of economic viability and the need to accommodate existing occupants. However, these exemptions can lead to excessive crowding, traffic congestion, and environmental degradation, which require careful scrutiny and locality-specific assessment (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The impact of additional FSI on traffic density and city infrastructure is significant. Proper traffic management measures, mass transit development, and infrastructure contributions are necessary to mitigate adverse effects (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The internal fire safety requirements, including accessible escape routes, refuge floors, and fire maneuvering spaces, must be strictly enforced, especially for high-rise buildings exceeding certain heights. Relaxations that compromise these safety standards are unlawful and endanger occupants' lives (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The establishment of a specialized technical committee for high-rise buildings aims to oversee compliance with safety, structural, environmental, and urban planning standards. The committee's composition, scope, and terms of reference are to be periodically reviewed and enhanced to ensure proactive oversight (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Any development proposals that do not comply with these regulations, especially regarding recreational space, fire safety, building height, and impact on city infrastructure, should be subject to strict enforcement and, where applicable, prospective application of new standards (!) .
The overall approach emphasizes balancing development needs with environmental sustainability, safety, and residents' quality of life, discouraging blanket relaxations and advocating for locality-wise, case-specific assessments (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these key points.
Judgment :-
H.L. Gokhale J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.7.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby Writ Petition No.143/2012 filed by the respondents was allowed, and which quashed the stop work notice dated 22.12.2011 issued by Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City-III, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner restricting to four floors the height of Wing ‘C’ (providing for public parking lot- ‘PPL’ for short) of the buildings being constructed on Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme-III, N.C.Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai.
Dispute between the parties, settlement thereof and Part-I of the order dated 25.7.2013:-
3. This appeal was initially heard by a bench of G.S. Singhvi and H.L. Gokhale, JJ. Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. R.P Bhatt, both learned Senior Counsel appeared for the appellants, and Mr. F.S Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the respondent. The appellants wanted to restrict the PPL up to four floors only, but before the issuance of the restrictive circular dated 22.6.2011, in this behalf, the respondents had already consumed higher FSI (Floor Space Index) on the basis of the Commencement Certificates issued earlier. In view of the discussion in the Court however, a settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the respondents on the controversy concerning the PPL. Before passing the order on the settlement, the bench noted the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case in paragraphs 2 to 5 in Part-I of the order passed on 25.7.2013 (per Singhvi, J. as he then was). These paragraphs read as follows:-
“2. The plans submitted by respondent No. 1 for construction of Wings-‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the building were sanctioned by the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the corporation’) and Intimation of Disapproval was issued on 15.2.2006. After the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India granted clearance for the construction of commercial building, the competent authority issued commencement certificated dated 13.9.2006. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) issued NOC dated 11.12.2009 for the development of a multi-storied public parking lot and vide letter dated 2.6.2010, the State government granted in-principle approval under Clause 33(24) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) for Greater Mumbai, 1991 for construction of a multi-storied public parking lot. Thereafter, the competent authority issued the Letter of Intent dated 27.7.2010.
3. During the construction of the building, the Urban Development Department of the State Government sent letter dated 4.3.2011 to the Municipal Commissioner requiring him to submit a proposal for amendment of Clause 33 (24) of the DCR for limiting the height of parking towers to 4 floors and also for revocation of all sanctioned proposals where the commencement certificates had not been issued. In view of that letter, the Corporation issued circular dated 22.6.2011 prescribing certain conditions under Clause (iv) of DCR 33(24) and clarified that all proposals for public parking lots shall be considered subject to those conditions. The new conditions sought to limit the height of public parking to ground plus 4 upper floors and 2 basements.
4. As a sequel to the above changes, the Corporation issued notice dated 29.11.2011 to respondent No. 1 under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requiring it to show cause as to why the commencement certificate may not be revoked. Respondent No. 1 submitted detailed reply dated 14.12.2011 and pleaded that the amended DCR 33(24) cannot be made applicable to its buildings because substantial construction had already been made at a cost of Rs. 167/- crores. Thereafter, the concerned Executive Engineer issued stop work notice dated 22.12.2011 and directed respondent No. 1 to restrict the w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
