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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...