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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.
Post a Comment
Read more