SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 24-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
993
SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR.
v.
        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8265-8266 of 2019)
OCTOBER 24, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Urban Development:
Town Planning –  Permission to construct residential building
to appellant-company – Commencement Certificate granted under
the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 read with Development Control Regulations for Greater
Bombay, 1991 (DCR) – Thereafter incorporation of clause 24 to
Regulation 33 of 1991 Regulations providing for permission to
develop multi-storeyed Private Parking Lots (PPL) – On handing-
over of the PPL to the Corporation, incentive FSI was to be allowed
on the land belonging to the private owners –  Appellant-Company’s
application for construction of PPL approved upto 15 floors –
Incentive FSI of the PPL was to be used by the appellant -company
in the main residential building – Though commencement certificate
for PPL  was given only for upto plinth level, the appellant-company
constructed all 15 floors – Appellant-company completed the
construction of main residential building upto 56 floors, though
commencement certificate for that was only upto 43rd floor –
Thereafter the Corporation issued a Circular on 22.6.2011
restricting the PPL to two basements, ground and four upper floors
– Notice u/s. 51 and s.354A of 1966 Act seeking revocation of
commencement certificate and for stopping the work of PPL beyond
plinth level – Suit by the appellant-Company – Civil Court decreed
the suit declaring the stop-work notice as illegal on the ground that
construction of PPL above the plinth level was under deemed
permission in terms of Regulation 6(4) of DCR – In appeal, High
Court set aside the decree holding that construction of PPL above
plinth level and construction of residential building above 43rd floor
was illegal since they were constructed without obtaining
commencement certificate (s)  and the Court directed the appellant
to apply for regularisation of these construction – PIL was filed
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 993
993
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
before High Court challenging construction of residential building
and construction of PPL above plinth level – The High Court in the
PIL held that construction of PPL was not illegal and that since the
FSI granted in respect of refuge area was excessive, Commissioner
was directed to re-examine the issue – On direction of High Court
in PIL, Commissioner passed order dated 12.09.2013 – The order
dated 12.09.2013 was challenged by the appellant before High Court
and also sought direction to the Commissioner to take over possession
of PPL and to endorse the commencement certificate for residential
building upto 56 floors –The Commissioner passed order dated
31.08.2016 deciding the refuge area – Subsequently Notice u/s. 51
of 1966 Act was withdrawn by the Corporation – Another PIL was
filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2016  whereby the
Corporation had held that since the construction of PPL had
proceeded substantially on the date of notice u/s. 51, the Planning
Authority cannot revoked or modify the permission – The PILs have
been transferred to Supreme Court – Held: The construction of the
main building as well as the PPL were  as per the sanctioned plan –
The construction of PPL beyond plinth level was under deemed
permission under Regulation 6(4) of 1991 Regulations – The refuge
area as determined by the Commissioner by order dated 31.08.2016
does not call for interference – Corporation is directed to take over
possession of PPL and to proceed to decide about the 13 floors
(44th to 56th floors) of the residential building – Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – ss. 48 and 51 –
Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regn.
6(4), 5(6) and 33 (24).
Partly allowing the appeal and dismissing the Transfer
petitions, the Court
HELD:  1.1  It is provided in the first Proviso to  section
48 of  Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 that
permission for development or deemed permission shall remain
in force for a period of 1 year from the date of receipt of such
grant, and thereafter it shall lapse. It can be extended from year
to year, but such extended period shall in no case exceed three
years. The second proviso, as inserted by way of amendment of
MRTP Act  in 2007,  provides that if the development is not
completed up to plinth level or where there is no plint

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.