IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
DBS Realty - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11829 of 2016 and & CM No. 46645 of 2016
Decided On : 30-01-2018
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of developing real estate. On 14.02.2008, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereafter `SRA') had issued a public notice inviting expression of interest from land owners/developers interested in undertaking a scheme as per the Development Control Regulation of Great Mumbai, 1991. This was, inter alia, to create additional housing stock for rehabilitation of slum developers that had encroached upon Sanjay Gandhi National Park and another project affected persons.
2. The petitioner had submitted a proposal pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The said proposal was accepted and, on 17.03.2009, a Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner by the SRA for construction of 9927 number of tenements including Balwadi, Welfare Center and Society Offices. The said development was in five parts/plots-Plot I measuring approximately 11,600 sq. meters; Plot II measuring 10,000 sq. meters; Plot III measuring 23,405.65 sq. meters; Plot IV measuring 25,510.83 sq. meters; and Plot V measuring 29,916.52 sq. meters. An educational complex and a hospital were to be constructed on Plot I and Plot II respectively. The Slum Rehabilitation buildings were to be constructed on Plot IV and Plot V and Plot III was earmarked for construction of Sale building.
3. Since buildings were within the specified distance of the Inner Horizontal Surface (IHS) of the Santa Cruz Airport, Mumbai, the petitioner was required to take No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the height of the buildings from the AAI. Initially, the AAI issued separate NOCs for height clearance as indicated below:
"a. Plot I (Educational Complex): 20.740 mts. Above Ground Level (hereafter `AGL') + 35.53 mts. Site Elevation = 56.27 mts. Above Mean Sea Level (hereafter `AMSL')
b. Plot II (Hospital): 19.540 mts. AGL + 36.73 mts. Site Elevation = 56.27 mts. AMSL
c. Plot III (Sale Buildings): 15.790 mts. AGL + 40.48 mts. Site Elevation = 56.27 mts. AMSL
d. Plot IV (9 G+23 Rehab Buildings): 13.910 mts. AGL + 42.36 mts. Site Elevation = 56.27 mts. AMSL
e. Plot V (5 G+23 Rehab Buildings): 18.770 mts. AGL + 37.50 mts. Site Elevation = 56.27 mts. AMSL"
4. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid NOCs, the petitioner filed appeals before the Appellate Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation (MOCA) for reviewing the NOCs and requested that height clearance of 112 meters AMSL (that is, 74.50 meters AGL + 37.50 meters site elevation) be granted to the petitioner.
5. On 18.05.2012, the AAI issued a revised Height Clearance NOC for Plot I permitting the petitioner to raise a building up to a height of 91.53 meters AMSL (that is, 56 meters AGL + 35.53 meters site elevation). A similar NOC was also granted in respect of Plot II permitting the petitioner to raise buildings on the said plot up to a height of 92.73 meters AMSL (56 meters AGL + 36.73 meters site elevation).
6. The petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of height clearance as requested by it for buildings to be raised on remaining plots. It is also the case of the petitioner that the project is located at the foothill of a natural feature named `Lalbatti Hill'. The petitioner claims that the apex of the said natural terrain is at 209.10 meters AMSL and, therefore, by applying the shielding criteria, the petitioner is entitled to construct buildings on Plot IV and Plot V up to a height of 188 meters AMSL.
7. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the decision of the Appellate Committee taken at its meeting held on 30.07.2015 to direct the "Airport Operator"-in this case the Mumbai International Airport Limited (hereafter `MIAL') - to initiate action under Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions caused by buildings & trees, etc.) Rules, 1994. The petitioner also impugns the consequent direction issued by the AAI to MIAL to take suitable action pursuant to the above decision of the Appellate Com