BMC in Rane bldg case: ‘No FSI available for regularising work’

Times of India | 2 days ago | 24-06-2022 | 08:21 am

BMC in Rane bldg case: ‘No FSI available for regularising work’

Mumbai: The Bombay high court bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and M G Sewlikar on Thursday heard a petition against the BMC order on Union minister Narayan Rane’s Juhu home. Milind Sathe, senior counsel for Kaalkaa Real Estates, submitted that the refusal to permit regularisation was based on “frivolous and malicious” objections not applicable under the law and “engineered at the behest of a particular political party, particularly the CM”.The HC had earlier, on March 22, restrained the BMC from taking any coercive steps for three weeks post its adverse decision on the regularisation proposal. The protection was till June 24.The BMC in its rejection order had said the proposal for regularisation “is not as per regulations of DCPR 2034 (Development Control & Promotion Regulations), MRTP Act, MMC Act and policies in vogue”. “There is no FSI (floor space index—permissible buildable space) available for regularisation work,” said the BMC. It had more particularly said, “The FSI of the entire plot cannot be loaded on this particular structure as other structures/occupants on the same plot could be adversely affected, as it would amount to the use of FSI which the other owners/occupants of the same plots may be entitled to.”Kaalkaa had challenged the BMC rejection order saying the civic action was “in pursuance of political rivalry and vendetta” as Maharashtra has a Shiv Sena-led government.In the HC hearing on Thursday, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy for the BMC said the building used 2,244 square metres, three times the sanctioned area. Chinoy who opposed his plea said it was a larger plot of over 2,200 sq m and while 1,178 m was leased to the company— building plans were approved on 745 sq m, thus any regularisation would cause an imbalance of FSI to other adjoining building occupants. He said the talk of “victimisation” would be good if three times the sanctioned area is not used.The HC bench agreed with the BMC that mere grant of lease does not automatically sub-divide the plot. It did not accept Sathe’s submission to consider FSI for a larger plot.BMC had said, “NOC from fire department for highrise building is not submitted which is mandatory document as refuge area is encroached.’’ The complaint was filed by one Santosh Daundkar through lawyer Y P Singh alleging the layout was altered without the BMC chief’s permission.

Google Follow Image