Dismissed

Baner Citizen'S Forum v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2013PIL/98/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition questioned the Pune Municipal Corporation's permission for an office complex, alleging environmental harm and incorrect measurement of plot slope under Development Control Rules. The court held that 'site' is defined as land enclosed by boundaries, validating the Corporation's measurement method from the plot boundary. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Construction permission granted by the Corporation was upheld.

Baner Citizen'S Forum Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

PIL.98.2010.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 98 OF 2010

¶4

BANER CITIZEN'S FORUM :- PETITIONER VERSUS PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. :- RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel, with Mr. V. P. Sawant and Mr.P.M.Jadhav, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. S. N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶7

Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. A. P. Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Counsel, with Mr. P. S. Dani, for Respondent No. 5.

¶9

CORAM :- A.M.KHANWILKAR & K.K.TATED,JJ. DATED :- FEBRUARY 11, 2013

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶12

The challenge in this Petition is to the construction

¶13

permission given by the Corporation for an office complex in

¶14

favour of Respondent No. 5 at Survey No. 1(part) and Survey No.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶17

PIL.98.2010.17.doc

¶18

6(part), on the ground that the same would cause environmental damage and prejudice the development of Bio Diversity Park.

¶19

Considering the grievance made in the Petition, the Court allowed the parties to take joint measurement. It is not in dispute that such joint measurement was done in the presence of Surveyor of the Petitioner and the officials of the Corporation. There is no challenge to the figures as recorded during the said measurement. The challenge, however, is limited to the method of taking measurement. According to the Petitioner, the Corporation has measured the distance by taking the point of boundary of the plot, instead of from the end of plinth of the proposed building.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Schedule 'A' appended to Notification No. TPS-1806/2125/CR-435/06/UD-13 dated 6^th December, 2007. It is in respect of modification of regulation No. 11.1(o)(A). The modification provides that if the site in any developmental zone is located such that the slope of the existing ground is exceeding 1:5. Relying on this modification and the dictionary meaning of expression “site”, as predicated in

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶23

PIL.98.2010.17.doc

¶24

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases, 3^rd Edition, it was argued that the only possible interpretation is that the measurement should be taken from the plinth portion and not from the boundary of the plot.

¶25

We are not impressed by this submission. The

¶26

expression site or plot has been defined in the Development Control Rules itself. In clause 2.75 expression “site or plot” has been defined to mean, a parcel/piece of land enclosed by definite boundaries. The expression “site corner” is defined in clause 2.76 to mean, a site at the junction of and forming on two or more intersecting streets. Similarly, the expression “site depth of” has been defined in clause 2.77 to mean, horizontal distance between the front and rear site boundaries. The expression “site, double frontage” has been defined in clause 2.78 to mean, a site, having a frontage on two streets other than a corner plot. The expression “site, interior or tandem” has been defined in clause 2.79 to mean, a site, access to which, is by a passage from a street whether such passage forms part of the site or not. Therefore, the expression “site” occurring in modified clause 11.0(o)(A), mentioned in

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶29

PIL.98.2010.17.doc

¶30

Notification dated 6^th December, 2007 will have to be understood on that basis and if so understood, no fault can be found with the method of measurement undertaken by the Corporation. Going by the said measurement, it is indisputable that the permission given by the Corporation fulfills the necessary requirements of the Development Control Rules. Hence, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed.

¶31

(K.K.TATED,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶32

Page 4 of 4

¶33

J.V.Salunke,PA

Baner Citizen'S Forum v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baner Citizen'S Forum v. Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Narayan R. Mulye S/O Ramkrishna Muley Vs 1. the High Court at Bombay

The Indian Chamber of Agriculture Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prasad B. Hiray Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidhayak Sansad, a Public Charity Trust Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Rehan Sabri S/O Mohd. Altaf Sabri and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Minority and 3 Others

Pankaj S/O Ramdas Todas Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushak Hitwardhak Sanghatana. Muktainagar, through Presidnet and Ors. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhavan and Ors.

Avinash Tukaram Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Manisha Dilip Apturkar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ratan Gopal Warli and 3 Ors. Vs Pratap Tukaram Surve and 9 Ors.

Shri. Pradeep Prabhakar Bholagiri (Giri) Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Golden Park Residents Association and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Inspector Incharge, Mumbra Police Station and Ors.