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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more