IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DIPANKAR DATTA, M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
Faiyyaz Mullaji - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Urban Development Department and Ors. - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 35 of 2021
Decided On : 29-09-2022
The Court held that the permissions granted by the authorities to construct a star-graded hotel in a no development zone (NDZ) were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Development Control Regulations (DCRs) of the Corporation. The Court found that the NDZ restrictions were imposed to prevent development activities in the area, and the construction of a star-graded hotel with a floor space index (FSI) exceeding 0.2 was a clear violation of these restrictions. The Court also held that the State Government's approval for the construction of the hotel was based on an erroneous interpretation of the DCRs and was therefore invalid. The Court directed the Corporation to demolish the illegal construction within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an active member of various NGOs, filed a PIL petition challenging the permissions granted by the authorities for the construction of a star-graded hotel in a no development zone (NDZ). The petitioner argued that the permissions were granted in violation of the Development Control Regulations (DCRs) of the Corporation and that the construction of the hotel would have a negative impact on the environment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the permissions granted by the authorities were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the DCRs of the Corporation. The Court held that the NDZ restrictions were imposed to prevent development activities in the area, and the construction of a star-graded hotel with a floor space index (FSI) exceeding 0.2 was a clear violation of these restrictions. The Court also held that the State Government's approval for the construction of the hotel was based on an erroneous interpretation of the DCRs and was therefore invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the permissions granted by the authorities for the construction of a star-graded hotel in a no development zone (NDZ) were legal and in accordance with the Development Control Regulations (DCRs) of the Corporation? 2. Whether the construction of the hotel would have a negative impact on the environment?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the permissions granted by the authorities were illegal and contrary to the provisions of the DCRs of the Corporation. The Court found that the NDZ restrictions were imposed to prevent development activities in the area, and the construction of a star-graded hotel with a floor space index (FSI) exceeding 0.2 was a clear violation of these restrictions. The Court also held that the State Government's approval for the construction of the hotel was based on an erroneous interpretation of the DCRs and was therefore invalid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the PIL petition and directed the Corporation to demolish the illegal construction within two months.
JUDGMENT :
M.S. Karnik, J.
1. The present PIL petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following substantive reliefs:-
(b) That this Hon’ble Court may please to call for record of respondent no.2 and 3 authority and after verifying the legality and proprietary of the allegations made by the Petitioner, this Hon’ble Court may please to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside development permission/commencement certificate granted by the Respondent no.2 and 3 in favour of Company dated 19th November 2015 at Exhibit A-1, dated 18th February 2017 at Exhibit E and dated 30th October 2018 at Exhibit N to construct star grade hotel on the said plot falling in no development zone, same being illegal, contrary to mandate of law and against interest of public at large;
(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent no.2 and 3 to demolish the construction made by the Company on the said plot, described herein above and restore the same to its original position;”
2. The petitioner is challenging the permissions granted by respondent no.1-The Secretary, Urban Development Department (hereafter “UDD”, for short) of the State of Maharashtra, respondent no.2-Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (hereafter “Corporation”, for short) and respondent no.3-The Assistant Director, Town Planning Department (hereafter “ADTP”, for short) in favour of respondent no.4-Seven-Eleven Hotels Private Limited (hereafter “the Company”, for short) to construct star grade hotel on a plot falling under no development zone (hereafter ‘NDZ’ for short).
3. The petitioner claims to be an active member of various NGOs and avers that he had participated in various activities to protect and preserve the environment. It is averred that the petitioner is conscious of the mushrooming growth of structures due to violation of planning laws by the bureaucrats or with their deliberate action/inaction, which ultimately make the members of the public suffer. It is the petitioner’s case that the subject plot falls in NDZ. It is averred that permissions are granted by respondent nos.1 to 3 to construct a star grade hotel in utter disregard of the Development Control Regulations (hereafter “DCRs”, for short) for the Corporation.
4. Following are the facts pleaded by the petitioner in support of the reliefs sought in the PIL petition. On February 15, 2008, the authorised person of the Company, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of Smt. Sakhubai Damodar Patil and others applied to the Corporation for NA permission in respect of plot of land bearing old Survey no.265/4, 266/2, 3, 5, 6 and 267/3 of Village Navghar admeasuring 11170 sq.mtrs. On February 16, 2008, the Corporation granted permission to the Company to make an application to the Collector for NA permission, subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, an application was made by the Company on February 29, 2008 for NA permission. The NA permission was considered and granted by the Collector, Thane by NA order dated April 9, 2008 qua old Survey no.265/4, 266/2, 3, 5, 6 and 267/3 of Village Navghar. By a letter dated October 30, 2015, M/s. B. A. C. Planners and Engineers Private Limited applied to the Corporation for issuance of commencement certificate in respect of the plot of land bearing old Survey no.266/1 to 6, 265/4 and 267/2, 3 of Village Navghar. Commencement certificate date
T. Vijayalakshmi and Ors. vs. Town Planning Member and Anr., Civil Appeal No.4555 with 4556 of 2006
R. Satyanarayana vs. Smt. Shantha and others, Civil Appeal Nos.397-98 of 1987
The judgment emphasized the citizens' rights to property and residence, and the binding nature of previous court orders on the authorities.
Writ petitions challenging planning permissions are maintainable if jurisdictional issues arise, and compliance with zoning regulations validates construction, despite potential public nuisance.
Plot under development/redevelopment affected due to Nalla, Nallah/river buffer, road widening, height restriction due to statutory restriction as per these Regulations such as railway buffer, height....
Special permissions for redevelopment of Grade-III heritage buildings do not require Heritage Conservation Committee approval if the height exceeds 24 meters, reaffirmed by the court's interpretation....
Regulatory powers of NOIDA cannot arbitrarily deny building permits; valid ownership rights must be respected and decisions must be backed by statutory reasons.
Regulatory authorities cannot arbitrarily deny building permits without valid statutory reasons, especially when ownership rights are undisputed.
Public lands designated for parks cannot be repurposed for commercial use without proper authority and procedural compliance, as dictated by urban planning laws.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.