SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1139

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
Alok Aradhe, CJ., Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Gamdevi Residents’ Association and others - Petitioners
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 128 of 2006
Decided On : 22-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Kashyap, Mr. Meiron Damania and Ms. Hilla Boatwalla i/by. Nanu Hormasjee & Co.
For the Respondent: Ms. Oorja Dhond with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/by. Ms. Komal R. Punjabi, Smt. Usha Rahi, AGP, Mr. Ankit Lohia with Mr. Chirag Sarawagi with Mr. Yash Sinha i/by. Mr. Tushar Goradia, Mr. Pratik Shah

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 of Development Control Regulations.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Development Control Regulations 1991 - Regulation 67(2) - Public Interest Litigation regarding the legality of construction permissions granted for a 15-storey building in Gamdevi Heritage Precinct. Petitioners argued that construction violates heritage preservation norms. The court ruled that special permission for redevelopment was properly granted as per amended regulations, which exempt cessed Grade-III heritage buildings from needing Heritage Conservation Committee approval, confirming that such redevelopment was facilitated to protect human lives in dilapidated structures. (Paras 21, 24, 30 and 33)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged construction permissions granted for redevelopment of a historic structure in the Gamdevi Heritage Precinct, arguing it would detract from the area's heritage. They cited illegitimate tenancies used to claim excessive Floor Space Index (FSI) and sought various legal remedies against municipal permissions.

Findings of Court:
The development complied with applicable regulations, and the Municipal Commissioner’s decision to grant special permission was not arbitrary and was supported by relevant facts.

Issues: The main issues included whether Heritage Conservation Committee approval was required for redevelopment and if the Municipal Commissioner's permission was valid considering claims of illegal tenancy inflation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that cessed Grade-III heritage buildings might be subject to special permissions for redevelopment without prior Heritage Conservation Committee consultation, and such provisions are constitutional. (Paras 22 and 24)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to construction permissions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments against construction permissions (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. opposition to the petition by respondents (Para 9 , 10)
4. legal compliance of mcgm and delay in litigation. (Para 11)
5. court's examination of heritage regulations (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. regulatory intent and classification regarding heritage buildings. (Para 18 , 20)
7. details on regulation 67 and its application (Para 19 , 21 , 22)
8. limits of judicial review in statutory provisions (Para 24 , 26)
9. discussion on merits of permission granted (Para 27 , 29)
10. conclusion and dismissal of the petition (Para 30 , 31 , 33)
11. final ruling on dismissed petition. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present petition in public interest challenging the construction permissions granted for re-developement of old structure forming part of Gamdevi Heritage Precinct. Petitioners are aggrieved by construction of 15 storey building in Gamdevi Heritage Precinct on the ground that construction of such a tall building would mar the grandeur of Gamdevi Precincts. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 14 August 2006 of Municipal Commissioner granting Heritage NOC for the impugned construction. Since the Municipal Commissioner has granted special permission for construction of the building from heritage point of view under sub- clause (iii) of DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATION 67(2), the same is also challenged by the Petitioners.

2. Briefs facts leading to filing of the present petition, as pleaded, are as under:

Petitioners-Gamdevi Residents’ Association is an Association of Persons who reside in the buildings forming part of Gamdevi Heritage Precinct, Mumbai. Petitioner No.1 claims to have been engaged in preserving and protecting the urban environment in and around the Gamdevi Heritage Precinct. It is claimed that Gamdevi Heritage Precinct is threatened by illegal excessive development activity that far exceeds the carrying capacity of the locality.

3. By Indenture of Lease dated 15 February 1918, the trustees for Improvement of City for Bombay leased Plot No.71 of Gamdevi Estate with building thereon to one Dattaram Vinayak Mulgaonkar for a period of 999 years. From 1 October 1933, the properties of the trustees including Plot No.71 came to be vested in the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MGCM). The said Plot No.71 is a leasehold land admeasuring 599 sq. mtrs. and a building thereon named ‘Saraswati House’ was constructed comprising of ground plus two upper floors with a garage. The leasehold interest in the said plot was inherited by the lessee’s widow Savitribai Dattaram Mulgaonkar and upon her death on 8 October 1972, to one Dr. Achyut Vishwanath Kerkar. It appears that Dr. Achyut Vishwanath Kerkar died intestate on 22 February 2001 leaving behind his wife Mrs. Chitra Achyut Kerkar as sole legal heir. On 1 March 2001, the Deed of Assignment was executed between Mrs. Chitra Achyut Kerkar and Shri. Sumermal Hajarimalji Shah and Shri. Kishorimal Hajarimalji Shah by which leasehold rights in the plot were assigned. According to the Petitioners, the building Saraswati House was occupied by only three families, the ground floor being in occupation of Zaveri family, the first floor and the two rooms on the second floor were occupied by Kerkar Family and the balance portion of the second floor was occupied by Sanghavi Family. The Developer sought No Objection Certificate from MHADA for redevelopment of the subject plot in accordance with modified D.C. Regulation No.33(7). The Executive Engineer certified the total number of occupiers in Saraswati House as six. The Chief Officer of Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board issued NOC for redevelopment of the subject plot on 8 March 2002. The Architect of the developers submitted plans to the Municipal Corporation for construction of building on the plot. According to the Petitioners, bogus tenancie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top