The Court held that the provision of D.C. Regulation 33(7) is quite clear. The phrase "which attracts the provisions of MHAD Act, 1976" is used meaningfully and cannot be ignored. It can only mean that the benefit of reconstruction and extra FSI under the Regulations is available to those buildings of "A" Category which attract the provisions of the MHAD Act meaning thereby which cannot be repaired within the monetary limit specified under section 88(3) of the MHAD Act and none other.

JUDGMENT: (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by three citizens of Mumbai in public interest. The petition seeks to challenge the legality of Regulation No.33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 for the city of Mumbai, as amended in the year 1999, to the extent it provides amongst others that the buildings owned by private landlords in the island area of the city and covered for reconstruction thereunder are permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2.5 or the FSI required for rehabilitation of existing tenants plus incentive FSI (as specified in Appendix III to the Regulations) whichever is more. The Petitioners have raised various grounds and invoked Article 14 of the Constitution of India for this purpose.

2. The three Petitioners are public spirited citizens. The 1st Petitioner is a former Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, who is also a former Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra. The 2nd

Petitioner has been a member of various committees concerning urban development. The 3rd Petitioner is a Civil Engineer by profession and for quite many years was an Executive Committee Member of the Bombay Metropolitan Authority. He was also a member of the Slum Rehabilitation Committee constituted by the State of Maharashtra.

3. Respondent No.1 to this petition is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department. Respondent No.2 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which is the Planning Authority for the city of Mumbai under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 where under these Regulations are framed. Respondent No.3 is a statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. It is an Act with a comprehensive approach towards the problem of housing development including repair and reconstruction of the dilapidated buildings in the city. Respondent No.4 is a former Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai whose report has, amongst others, led to the amendments to the D.C. Regulations in the year 1999.

4. A number of parties have intervened in this matter. Thus, Interveners No.1 and 3 are property owners. Intervener No.2 is the Property Owners’ Association. Intervener No.4 claims to be a tenant in a pre-1940 building. Intervener No.5 is Property Redevelopers’ Association. They are all opposing the reliefs in the petition. Intervener No.6 is an architect by profession who has intervened in the petition to support this petition. All those interveners have appeared either through their counsel or on their own. There have been other interveners in this matter who have filed their chamber summonses (applications) for intervention, but have not caused any appearance at the time of hearing.

5. A judgment has been rendered earlier in this petition by a Division Bench of this Court on 17th October 2005. The Division Bench accepted a number of grievances which have been canvassed in this petition and, amongst others, appointed a few committees to look into some such aspects which, according to it, had relevance for the issues highlighted in the petition. One of the interveners, Jayant Achyut Sathe, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1376 of 2006 which was numbered as Civil Appeal No.2970 of 2006. Some other parties had also filed similar appeals. The Apex Court passed an order on this appeal on 14th July 2006 and observed that it was not clear as to whether the writ petition had been disposed of by the High Court or not. Hence, while keeping the appeal alive, it directed the High Court to deal with the basic issues raised in the petition. The Apex Court further observed

"The High Court has not dealt with the basic issues raised in the petition, i.e. as to whether the amended Regulation 33(7) suffered from any infirmity. We, therefore, think it appropriate to direct the High Court to examine those issues. The parties shall be permitted to place their respective stands before the High Court. It is open to the appellants to canva

Click Here to Read the rest of this document