LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ORS. versus KOHINOOR CTNL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 1119 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND A ORS. V. KOHINOOR CTNL INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 11150 of 2013) B DECEMBER 17, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ. ] Urban Development: c Sanction for construction of high-rise building going upto 198. 50 meters - Provision for Public Parking Lot up to 13 floors - During the construction work, decision of Government to limit the height of Public Parking Lot to ground plus 4 upper D floors - Competent authority directing the builder to restrict the work of Public Parking upto ground plus 4 floors instead of 13 floors - By further order, the authority allowed Public Parking to the extent of already executed construction -:-- High Court quashed the orders passed by the authorities as being contrary to law - On appeal, settlement arrived at between the parties - The Court also noticed certain violations while granting initial sanction in respect of the building in question E - Memorandum of Settlement taken on record and parties directed to act strictly in accordance thereof - As regards other violations it held: Minimum recreational space as laid down F under Development Control Regulation (OCR) 23, cannot be reduced on the basis of OCR 38(34) - The second proviso to OCR 43(1)(A) regarding fire protection requirements, is discriminating as against occupants of the plots upto the size of 600 sq. mtrs. and hence violative of Art. 14 of the G Constitution - The provision is also violative of Article 21 as it is likely to lead to hazardous situation - Suggestions given regarding height of buildings vis-a-vis the adjoining roads and 1119 H 1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 16 S.C.R. A impact of additional FSI on the traffic situation - State Government, Development Plan Drafting Committee, and appellant-Municipal Corporation directed to consider the suggestions while framing the Development Plan for Greater · Mumbai - 'Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings' B reconstituted - Development Control Ri~gulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21. Words and Phrases: C 'Open space' and 'Site' - Meaning of, in the context of urban development. Respondent No.1 commenced construction work of 'A', 'B' and 'C' wings of a building, after due approval 0 from the competent authorities including the approval for development of a multi-storied Public Parking Lot (PPL). The appellant-Corporation issued a Circular on 22.6.2011 prescribing certain conditions un~er Clause 33(24) of Development Control Regulation (DCR) limiting the E height of PPL to ground plus 4 upper floors and 2 basements. In view of the circular, the appellant- Corporation issued notice dated 29.11.2011 to respondent No.1 under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Respondent No.1 in its reply pleaded that amended clause 33(24) of the DCR could not be F made applicable to its building, because substantial construction had already been made. Thereafter stop- work Notice was issued on 22.12.2011 directing respondent No.1 to restrict the work of PPL to 4 floors instead of 13 floors. Competent Authority of appellant- G Corporation passed ord~r dated 22.4.2012 holding that on the part of the plot on which there was substantial construction, PPL on that part shall be allowed to the extent of already executed construction and in the remaining portion of the plot, where there was no H MUNICIPAL COPRN. OF GREATER MUMBAI v. KOHINOOR CTNL 1121 INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY PVf. LTD. substantial construction, PPL shall be limited to ground A plus 4 floors.Petitioner No.1 challenged the Stop-work notice as well as the order dated 27.4.2012. High Court allowed the petition. In appeal to this Court, the parties entered into settlement, bringing about changes as desired by appellant-Corporation, while taking care of interest of the respondent. As per the settlement Public parking was to B be provided in the ground plus 4 upper floors in Wing 'C' and also in the three level basements below Wings 'A', 'B' and 'C'. From 5th to 13th floors of Wing 'C' there would C be private parking. This Court in its order dated 25.7.2013 took ton record, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 18.4.2013 between the parties. This Court by order dated 25.7.2013,. D apart from taking on record the settlem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.