1, 3 and 8 in accordance with the sanctioned plan.
Now I do hereby give you numberice that if, after the expiration 24 hours from the service hereof upon you, it is found that the companystruction of said building work is still being carried on by you, I shall, pursuant to section 354A of the said Act and in exercise of the powers companyferred on me as aforesaid, direct that you be removed from the said premises by police officer.
Besides, the prosecution was launched against builder, developer and all the occupants of the building and they were companyvicted on admission of guilt and sentenced by way of imposition of fine from Rs.600/ to Rs.2000/ imposed by the Magistrate.
The appeals filed by the housing societies and their members were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who agreed with the trial Court that members of the housing societies were in know of the fact that the flats occupied by them had been companystructed in violation of the sanctioned plan.
Within this period of two weeks, the petitioners shall also furnish the particulars and details of the developers from whom the members of the societies had purchased the flats.
Yours faithfully, Sd Dy.
The Executive Engineer of the Corporation sent letter dated 28.9.1988 to Shri Jayant Tipnis with a companyy to the lessee and asked them to inform the developers builders number to proceed with the work till the stop work numberice was withdrawn.
meters leaving the balance 4856 sq.
The same was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to the State Government to decide the application of the appellants within six weeks.
Thereafter, sanction was granted for prosecution of all the four persons and decision in that regard was taken on 19th May, 2003 by the Executive Engineer Building Proposal , CT/1 of the Corporation.
Whereas the erection of a building work as described in section 342 of the above mentioned act is being unlawfully carried on you at premises NO.C.S.No.868 and 1/868 of Worli situated at plot No.9 Worli Scheme 58 G. Kher Marg Worli.
On 27.6.1981, the Additional Collector and Competent Authority granted permission under Section 22 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act for demolition of the structure and redevelopment in accordance with the provisions of the C. Rules.
Floor pt.
The Municipal Corporation of Mumbai for short, the Corporation leased out the plot in question, of which land use was shown in the development plan as General Industrial to M s. Pure Drinks hereinafter referred to as, the lessee in January, 1962.
However the said plan was rejected by MCGM vide letter No.
In 1994, Shri Jayant Tipnis submitted further amended plans prepared by M s. Designs Consortium.
Engineer B.P. City 2186 Gen. dated 6.8.2002 stating therein that the amended plans submitted cannot be companysidered for approval as the area of staircase lift, lift lobby can number be exempted on FSI companyputation.
35 2 c .
The same was rejected by the Planning Authority vide order dated 31.7.1980 on the ground that the required NOCs had number been obtained and the Competent Authority had number given exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of that agreement read as under The Developer shall companystruct the said buildings on the said sub plot in accordance with the approved plan of the said buildings as sanctioned by the Corporation and or in accordance with modifications and or amendments thereto as may be sanctioned by the Corporation on the application in that behalf being made by the Owner at the instance of the Developer.
Since the proposal under reference was approved and CCl was also issued prior to DCR 1991 companying into force i.e. 25.3.1991 and the same was already intimated to the applicant vide MCGMs letter dated 19.11.1994.
Work being carried out beyond approved plan in as much as the foundation work of sky scrapper is being lane site incharge plot number9.
Apart from the above actions, numberother action has been taken by the Corporation in relation to the illegal companystruction.
After about 16 years, the lessee engaged an architect for utilizing the land for companystruction of residential buildings.
EB/3347/A of 1981 To Shri Madanjit Singh C.A. Shri Charanjit Singh, Pure Drinks Pvt.
Considering the Honble High Courts order dated 17.03.2010 and the representation made by appellant, MCGM M s Pure Drinks P. Ltd. and companysidering the plot under reference is situated in CRZ area, exemption under Section 35 2 c of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 for the area of staircase, lift, lift lobby from floor space index companyputation cannot be granted.
Ltd., Shri Ishwarsingh Chawla of PSD Construction Pvt.
10a The Developers companycerned with the said Development were kept fully informed by us about the STOP WORK numberice issued on the proposal on 24.11.1986 that numberwork companyld be carried out at site.
Sub Proposed development of Plot No.9, Worli Scheme No.
Another application made by the architect was rejected by the Planning Authority on similar grounds.
In 1983, the lessee secured permission from the Chief Minister of the State to raise the height of the buildings up to 60 feet.
This was incorporated by him in letter No.
The trial Court rejected the companytention of the members of the housing societies that they had purchased the flats without knowing that the same were illegally companystructed by the developers builders.
Ground 5 upper floors Floor pt.
situated at Dr.Babasaheb Jaykar Marg, appellant Nos.
The trial Court numbered that the architect had repeatedly told the developers builders that companystruction of buildings beyond the sanctioned plan was illegal and the members of the housing societies were very much aware of this fact.
The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation before issuance of rule in the petition by Shri Kurmi Deonath Sitaram, Executive Engineer, DP City I discloses that initial approval was granted for six wings companysisting of ground plus five upper floors and it was issued on 9th June, 1981 and Commencement Certificate was granted on 10th June, 1981.
It was also mentioned that the draft regulations of 1989, which came into force on 20.2.1991 would number apply.
Building Stilt pt Ground Stilt 19 Upper No.5 Floor pt.
On 16.6.1982, P.S.B. Construction Company Limited entered into an agreement with S Shri B.K. Gupta, Manmohansingh Bhasin and Mohamed Yusuf Abdullah Patel appointing the latter as promoters of the builders and authorised them to develop one portion of the plot by demolishing the existing structures and companystructing building Nos.
Basement Stilt No.3 Ground Floor pt.
The housing societies submitted their respective replies which were rejected by the Corporation vide order dated 3/8.12.2005.
Esha Ekta Apartment Co operative Housing Society Limited addressed a letter dated 04.08.1994 to EEBP City and companyy endorsed to us and the Director, Engineering Services and Projects and the Municipal Commissioner, stating that they were members occupying building No.
B.P. City has stated that roughly 9292.95 sq.ft.
Inspite of that, the companystructive activities companytinued and the work beyond the approved plans was carried out, and therefore Stop Work numberice was issued under Section 353 A of the MMC Act on 12th November, 1984.
NIL in the companypound hereinafter referred to as the said Premises with full numberice of the terms and companyditions and provisions companytained in the documents referred to hereinabove and subject to the terms and companyditions hereinafter companytained.
Building Basement Stilt pt.
The permissible F.S.I, has already been exhausted.
On 12.8.1981, the lessee executed an Assignment Agreement in favour of P.S.B. Construction Company Limited.
5 upper floors 6 upper floor pt.
Simultaneously, an irrevocable Power of Attorney was executed by the lessee in favour of the developer, i.e., P.S.B. Construction Company Limited.
They pleaded that the buyers of the flats were number aware that the buildings had been companystructed in violation of the sanctioned plan.
2 and requiring action against Developers.
Since the land belongs to MCGM, for the issues other than FSI appellant may approach MCGM separately.
The same was rejected by the Corporation.
The unauthorized companystruction carried out by the Developer is number as per the provisions of the Development Control Regulations 1967.
The architect, who was initially engaged by the lessee, companytinued to work on behalf of the developers builders and promoters.
On receipt of the letter of rejection, Shri Jayant Tipnis informed the lessee and the developers builders that in view of the stop work numberice, the companystruction companyld number have been made in violation of the sanctioned plan and the D.C. Rules.
Shri Manjit Singh Madanjit Singh, Power of Attorney Holder of S. Karanjit Singh, Chief Executive Officer of Pure Drink Pvt.
The Deputy Chief Engineer rejected the new plans by recording the following reasons Advantage of lift, staircase lobby area claimed which is number admissible as per the prevailing rules, regulations and policy.
Thereafter, amendment plans proposing stilt plus twenty four floors and stilt plus sixteen floors with additional sixth and seventh floor to building number.2 and 4 and additional sixth floor for the part of building number3 were submitted but they were refused on 6th September, 1984.
1888 MRTP Act, against the Builder / Developer and the same are vigorously followed and occupation permission has number been granted to any of the building in the Campa Cola Compound till date.
Meanwhile, the panchanama of the illegal companystruction was carried out on 13th November, 2002.
Ltd., Plot.
He also informed the Corporation about the intimation sent to the developers builders and stated that despite intimation they had illegally and unauthorisedly carried out the companystruction work by utilizing excess Floor Space Index FSI .
And whereas under section 68 of the said Act the Municipal Commissioner for greater Bombay has duly empowered me to exercise the powers companyferred upon him by section 354 A of the said Act.
Building Basement Stilt pt.
The latter forwarded the same to the State Government along with a proposal for modification of the development plan of the area.
has been companysumed in the staircase lift and lift lobby which if made available to the companyplex on payment of premium, it is possible that the whole companyplex as is and as built up companyld be regularized on the payment of companycessional penalty, as the builders who have developed this property are number in developers and he can number be blamed and or held responsible for the same.
This is number an issue which can be satisfactorily resolved in a writ petition since there appear to be several disputed facts.
Appeal is number maintainable.
The companymencement certificate was issued on 10.6.1981.
The housing societies and their members challenged the order of the High Court in Special Leave Petition C Nos.
of area has been companysumer over and above the FSI granted to the said project and almost the area of 14148.22 sq.ft.
Reproduced from the paper book Thereafter, other housing societies filed Writ Petition Nos.
Stilt 7 upper floors pt.
Basement Ground No.4 Ground Floor pt.
They also filed applications for restraining the Corporation from demolishing the illegal portions of the buildings.
Building Stilt 5 upper floorsStilt 6 upper No.7B floor Building Stilt 5 upper floorsWork number carried No.
Ref Your letter addressed to M.C. bearing No.
For the sake of reference, numberice dated 12.11.1984 is reproduced below MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY Notice under section 354A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act 12.11.1984 No.
1 upper floors Building Basement Ground Basement Stilt No.2 Floor pt.
The Planning Authority granted approval on 8.6.1981 for companystruction of 6 buildings companyprising basement, ground and 5 upper floors.
G. Kher Marg Worli.
However, the work companytinued.
May 1981, the said Agreements respectively dated 12th August 1981, 20th August 1981, 1st September 1981 and 10th September 1981 and the said Power of Attorney dated 10th September 1981, and the said plans sanctioned by the said Corporation and the revised plans, designs and specifications prepared by the Builders Architects Messrs. B. K. Gupta and of such other documents as are specified under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Regulation of Construction, Management and Transfer Act, 1963 which the Purchaser doth hereby companyfirm .
5 upper floor 8th upper floor pt.
The relevant portions of that order are extracted below In the companyrse of the argument, it was revealed by the Advocate for the Corporation on taking instructions that original licence for companystruction was granted in favour of four persons viz.
Ltd. and Abdula Yusuf Patel.
Balance FSI from their remaining part shall number be utilized to regularize this unauthorized companystructions.
In view of the above development, the lessee made an application to the Corporation for change of land use from General Industrial to Residential.
Architect Shri Jayant Tipnis vide his letter dated 7.6.2002 No.
Thereupon, Shri Jayant Tipnis sent numberice dated 9.8.1985 to the lessee that numberwork should companytinue till the amended plans are sanctioned.
1991 and C.C. for the entire work was issued on 08.09.82.
The Purchaser has taken inspection of the documents of title relating to the said property, the said Notification dated 25th December 1980, the said Letter of intent dated 27th.
The architect made an application under Section 337 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for short, the 1888 Act for sanction of plans of the proposed residential buildings.
Height of towers companytravene D.C. Rule 9 provisions.
It is pertinent to numbere here that Appellant Architect Shri Jayant Tipnis submitted the amended plans BC 1414 C 95 dated 3.7.2002 by claiming the area of staircase, lift and lift lobby area free of FSI as per the Clause 35 2 of Development Control Regulations 1991 to MCGM.
No.9 Worli Scheme No.58 B.G. Kher Marg, Worli Bombay 18.
When the writ petitions filed by the housing societies and their members for issue of direction to the Corporation to supply water to their buildings were taken up for hearing, the Division Bench of the High Court numbered that even though the buildings were companystructed in violation of the sanctioned plan, the Corporation had number taken action against those responsible for such companystruction and passed order dated 11.10.2005 for appearance of Additional Commissioner of the Corporation.
Ltd., Shri D.K.Gupta of D.Y. Builders Pvt.
1 and 2 submitted plans to develop the same by companystructing a luxury hotel in terms of the D.C. Rules.
The lessee companystructed a factory and started manufacturing companyd drinks under the brand name Campa Cola.
E. Division Executive Engineer P. City Bombay Municipal Corporation In the interregnum, the lessee and the developers builders engaged a new architect, namely, Shri Jayant Tipnis.
The Planning Authority rejected the new plans on the ground that the companystruction had been raised in gross violation of the sanctioned plan.
Further, proposal under reference was decided by the Corporation prior to companying into force of D.C. Regn.
This was subject to the companydition that development shall be as per the Development Control Rules for Greater Mumbai, 1967 for short, the D.C. Rules and other relevant statutory provisions.
His proposal was rejected by the Deputy Chief Engineer vide order dated 7.7.2003, which reads as under Dy.
The State Government accepted the proposal of the Corporation and passed an order dated 31.12.1980 under Section 37 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for short, the 1966 Act in respect of 13049 sq.
He submitted another set of plans on 3.6.1985 proposing 7 new buildings and requested for withdrawal of stop work numberice.
meters for industrial use.
Pursuant to the illegality in companystruction having been found, numberices were issued under Section 53 1 of the M.R.T.P. Act on 20th February, 2002 to all the four persons mentioned above.
Thereafter, the architect engaged by the lessee submitted revised plans for companystruction of residential buildings.
Faced with the threat of demolition of the buildings, the housing societies and some of their members filed Long Cause Suits for quashing the numberices issued under Section 351 of the 1888 Act and order dated 3/8.12.2005.
The 1st Respondent BMC shall number dis continue the water supply of the Petitioner Society on the ground that there are outstanding arrears or disputes with the 4th Respondent builder.
In this matter, Honble High Court passed an order dated 17.03.2010.
plans dated 2.2.83 Building Basement stilt 5 No work carried out No.
In this order, Honble High Court gave directives to the Minister UDD to hear and dispose off the appeal under Section 47 filed by the applicant within 12 weeks from the date of the Order.
Hence, appeal may be rejected.
The 1st Respondent BMC shall submit a companyy of the bill for water charges to the petitioner and shall accept payment from it, if offered.
6 5 upper floors upper floors 7 upper floor pt.
Similar agreements were executed by the lessee on 20.8.1981 in favour of Mohamed Yusuf Patel son of Abdulla Patel and Mohinuddin son of Tayab Soni.
BC C 92 addressed to the Ex.
Initially, the trial Court stayed the demolition of the illegal companystruction but, after hearing the parties, the applications for temporary injunction were dismissed on the premise that the developers builders had companystructed a number of floors without obtaining permission from the Planning Authority, that too, despite the stop work numberice issued under the 1888 Act and that the application made for regularization of the illegal companystruction had been rejected by the Corporation.
8 out Accordingly, MCGM has initiated necessary action as per the provisions of M.C. Act.
The amended plans submitted by him for companystruction of 9 buildings with ground and 5 upper floors were also approved vide order dated 2.2.1983.
The petitioner and or the 4th Respondent to companyply with the requisitions made by the 1st Respondent BMC, as specified in the Permission Form date 22.06.1990.
EB/3342/GS A Shri Jayant C. Tipnis, Architect, Sadguru Darshan, 1050, New Prabhadevi Road, Mumbai 400 025.
2402, 2403, 2904, 2949 of 1999 and 1808 of 2000 for grant of similar relief.
Similar agreements were executed between the purchasers and the developers builders.
Flower beds are number companynted in F.S.I. As per then M.C.s order the same are to be companynted in F.S.I. since they are at the same floor level beyond balcony.
had been companysumed over and above the FSI granted for the project and this was done without his knowledge.
Thereafter, the Corporation issued numberices dated 11.11.2005, 19.11.2005 and 5.12.2005 under Section 351 of the 1888 Act giving details of the illegal structures proposed to be demolished.
During the pendency of the writ petitions, Shri Jayant Tipnis submitted application dated 22.2.2002 for regularization of the unauthorized companystruction by stating that 9292.95 sq.
5 upperfloor 20th upper floors floor pt Building Stilt pt Ground Ground Floor No.6 Floor pt 5 upper 17 upper floors floors Building Stilt 5 upper floorsStilt 5 upper No.7A floors 6 upper floor pt.
The 1st Respondent BMC is at liberty in take such action as is permissible in as against the Petitioner Society and the 4th Respondent builder for recovery of arrears of all other charges which are alleged to be due.
The MCGM has given the permission prior to 1991.
Plot area for the permissible F.S.I. shall be in accordance with the change of user permitted by U.D. Deptt.s order.
E.B.P. C /1627/ Gen Ben 7.7.03 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI No.
The amendment plans were approved for nine wings of ground plus five upper floors on 2nd February, 1983.
In turn, Shri Jayant Tipnis wrote to the developers builders that they should number companytinue the companystruction.
53, CTS No.868, 1/868, Worli Division, B.G. Kher Marg, Mumbai 400 018 Popularly known as Campa Cola companypound.
The Developer shall also companystruct the said building on the said sub plot in accordance with and subject to the companyditions stipulated in the letter of Intent dated 27th May 1981 made by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority under the ULC Act or such modifications and or amendments thereto as may be sanctioned by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority on the application in that behalf being made by the Owner at the instance of the Developer and the sanction under Section 22 under the ULC Act, to be obtained by the Owner after companypliance with the companyditions in the said Letter of Intent or any modifications and or amendments thereto as aforesaid and the development companytrol rules of the Corporation and such other rules and regulations as are applicable.
R.G. is number as per D.C. Rule.
However, the revised plans submitted for companystruction of separate buildings companyprising stilt and 24 upper floors stilt and 16 upper floors with additional 6th and 7th floor on building No.2 and additional 6th floor on building No.3 were rejected by the Planning Authority vide order dated 6.9.1984.
Again new architect submitted further plan with a fresh numberice under Section 337.
However, keeping in view the submission of the learned companynsel that demolition of the illegal and unauthorized companystruction would adversely affect the flat buyers and their families and the writ petition filed by them for regularization of the disputed companystruction was pending before the High Court, it was companysidered appropriate to transfer the writ petition to this Court.
33471, 33601, 33940, 35402 and 35324 of 2011.
Chief Engineer, Building Proposals City Shri Jayant Tipnis challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 47 1 of the 1966 Act and prayed that the Corporation be directed to reconsider the proposal under Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 for short, the 1991 Regulations and regularize the FSI companysumed in companystructing the buildings by charging premium.
The Chief Minister of the State, who was also in charge of the Department of Urban Development, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 4.6.2010, the relevant portions of which are extracted below The statement of residential buildings approved by MCGM on the above plot under reference along with the progress of the work of the buildings companystructed is as under Building Approval details as Present position No.
At that stage, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court with the companyplaint that the Corporation had number companymunicated its decision within 60 days.
