Redevelopment in Heritage Precincts: Bombay HC Upholds DCR 67, Dismisses PIL to Demolish 15-Storey Building - 2025-07-23

Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Demolish 15-Storey Tower in Gamdevi Heritage Precinct

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed nearly two decades ago seeking the demolition of a 15-storey building in the historic Gamdevi Heritage Precinct. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne , upheld the validity of the permissions granted for the redevelopment, finding no illegality in the process.

The court ruled that under the amended Development Control Regulation (DCR) 67, redevelopment of old, cessed buildings in heritage precincts does not require approval from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) if the building height exceeds 24 meters, provided a special permission from the Municipal Commissioner is obtained.

Case Background

The PIL was filed in 2006 by the Gamdevi Residents’ Association , challenging the redevelopment of 'Saraswati House,' an old cessed building, into a 15-storey tower. The petitioners argued that the high-rise structure marred the "vernacular style" and unique skyline of the precinct, which includes the historic 'Mani Bhavan'. They sought to quash all permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and demanded the demolition of the building.

Key Arguments

Petitioners' Stance: Represented by Senior Advocate Zubin Behramkamdin, the petitioners contended that: - Any development in a heritage precinct mandatorily requires the HCC's approval to preserve its character. -

Interpreting DCR 67(2)(iii)(b) to bypass HCC approval for buildings over 24 meters would be absurd and defeat the regulation's purpose. -

If the court found HCC approval unnecessary, the regulation itself should be struck down as unconstitutional. -

The developers had allegedly inflated the number of tenants to gain a higher Floor Space Index (FSI). - The special permission granted by the Municipal Commissioner was a non-speaking order, lacking reasons.

Respondents' Defence: The developers and the MCGM argued that: -

The PIL was filed with gross delay, only after the building was constructed up to 15 floors. -

The amended DCR 67(2)(iii)(b) deliberately carves out an exception for the redevelopment of cessed buildings in Grade-III and precinct areas to encourage the reconstruction of old, dilapidated structures. -

The regulation requires only the Municipal Commissioner's "special permission" for such projects, not HCC consultation. -

The challenge to a statutory regulation's validity is not maintainable in a PIL. -

The building is now fully constructed and has been occupied for nearly 20 years, creating third-party rights.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legislative intent behind the 1999 amendment to DCR 67. The bench, in its judgment authored by Justice Marne, highlighted the balancing act between heritage preservation and the urgent need for redevelopment.

"The heritage restrictions are somewhat relaxed to ensure that the old and dilapidated buildings which are infested with tenants, which cannot be repaired are redeveloped so as to save human lives... By amending Regulation 67 w.e.f. 25 January 1999, cessed Grade-III Heritage Buildings and cessed buildings in Precincts have been excluded from the purview of mandatory requirement of advice/consultation of Heritage Conservation Committee."

The court rejected the petitioners' challenge to the validity of DCR 67(2)(iii), citing the Supreme Court's precedent in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee , which holds that the constitutionality of a statute or statutory rule should ordinarily not be questioned in a PIL. Furthermore, the court found merit in the classification made by the regulation.

On the issue of the Municipal Commissioner’s permission being granted without reason, the court observed after perusing the official file:

"It therefore cannot be contended that the Municipal Commissioner has not applied his mind or did not record reasons while granting the second permission."

The court also dismissed the petitioners' argument regarding inflated tenancies, noting that the FSI granted was not linked to the number of tenants.

Final Decision

Citing significant delay and the fact that the building has been constructed and occupied for two decades, the court concluded that no relief could be granted. It distinguished the case from precedents calling for the demolition of illegal structures, stating that the building in question was constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans and prevailing statutory provisions.

The bench concluded, "After considering the overall conspectus of the case, we are unable to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioners in the present petition. The PIL is accordingly dismissed."