Bombay HC dismisses PIL against nod for redevelopment of ‘Pila house’ at Kamathipura

However, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne passed a verdict held that there was no violation of DCPR in grant of the approval by Chahal the BMC Commissioner and contentions raised by the petitioner were “unfounded and devoid of any merit.”

Sattar alleged that on November 12, 2020, Chahal had permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) 3 on gross plot area under regulation 33(7) and incentive FSI 1 on net plot area under regulation 33 (18) of the DCPR in respect of the redevelopment of the property without assigning any reason.

Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy and advocate Joel Carlos, appearing for BMC, opposed the PIL and objected to it on maintainability and said petitioner had selectively chosen the present case and did not have bonafide.

Senior advocate Anil Anturkar, representing developing Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Ltd, which is carrying out the redevelopment work, indicated that third party rights in favour of interested buyers are being created. He raised a preliminary objection to the PIL and said the same was filed with delay despite Sattar knowing that the redevelopment commenced in 2014 and moved court on November 16, 2021, when the construction work was in a progressive stage.

On December 5, last year, the HC, raising suspicion that petitioner “might have been set up by some occupants who are not eligible for rehabilitation,” had asked Sattar to deposit Rs 2 lakh as a pre-condition for hearing, which he complied with. It had said the deposit shall stand forfeited if the petitioner had failed in his claim. However, on Monday, the bench said it would not penalise the petitioner and allowed him to withdraw the security deposit from the HC registry

The bench observed that BMC had “consistently followed” the same policy while allowing development under combination of schemes and that it “did not find any exception” made by incumbent BMC chief while granting permission to the developer.

Furthermore, the bench observed that the petitioner “ought to have been careful in levelling personal allegations against high-ranking officials and should have avoided making them parties in person For such conduct,the petitioner deserves admonition.” However, the bench said it would not penalise the petitioner even though a coordinate bench had stated that the security deposit shall stand forfeited if petitioner had failed in his claim.