Skip to main content

Can't regularize illegal structure by buying FSI: Bombay HC

Buying extra floor space index or paying a penalty cannot be a way to regularize an unauthorized construction, the Bombay high court has ruled.

Refusing to come to the aid of a seven-storey building in the Campa Cola compound in Worli, Justice Roshan Dalvi upheld an order vacating the stay on the demolition of the top two floors of Shubh apartments.

"Purchase of the FSI cannot legalize such unauthorized construction," said the judge.

The court said that if the building rights in the form of FSI of a plot or layout were exhausted, then additional unauthorized construction cannot be authorized in violation of the sanctioned plans. "Just as all constructions must conform within the extent of the FSI for its regularization on an individual plot, all construction in a layout must conform to the total FSI of the plot in that layout. That having been exceeded, the construction would be in violation of the Municipal Act. That would also be wholly unauthorized construction that, therefore, cannot be protected," the court said.

The judge said that the total FSI of the plot had been exceeded by Shubh and other buildings in the Campa Cola compound layout and the BMC "could not and has not regularized the unauthorized construction of the 6th and 7th floors, which is in excess of the sanctioned plans".

The plea that the BMC had rules allowing payment of penalty for regularization did not find favour with the court. "The work may be regularized by penalty if it is within the permissible FSI and consequently approvable," the judge said.

In February, the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of the irregular floors of buildings in the Campa Cola compound.

These buildings included Midtown, Esha Ekta Apartments, Shubh Apartments, Patel Apartments, B Y Apartments and Orchid. The buildings had permissions to construct up to five floors, but went on to construct two additional floors. Shubh was granted an interim stay after the BMC issued demolition orders in 2005. Recently, after the SC order, the BMC moved the court for vacating the stay order. The society opposed it saying unlike other buildings in the compound, it had excess FSI and sought regularization of the illegal floors.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-26/mumbai/40814346_1_campa-cola-compound-permissible-fsi-total-fsi

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even