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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

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...

Preferential Right Of Hindu Heirs Applicable Also To Agricultural Land

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2553 OF 2019,  Babu Ram vs Santokh Singh, the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding scope and applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and particularly, whether preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under said Section 22 will be inapplicable if the property in question is an agricultural land. The Supreme Court observed that Section 22 of the Act says:- Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases –  (1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether solely or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in class I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred.  (2) The consideration for which any inte...