Partly allowed

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2013WP/914/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a clarificatory amendment expanding the definition of 'built up area' applies to pending projects. However, relying on precedents preventing delay, the Court modified stop work notices to allow continuation of construction up to 20,000 sq. meters pending environmental and CRZ clearances, requiring the petitioner to file an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Stop work notices modified to restrain construction only beyond 20,000 sq. meters; petitioner directed to file undertaking not to exceed limit and must obtain clearances thereafter.

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

¶2

gopi

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.470 OF 2013

¶5

M/s.Saumya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India & Ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Kanade and Mr. Hemant Shah i/b. IC Legal and Mira Lalani for petitioner. Mr. N.D. Sharma with Mr. H.V. Mehta for respondent No.1. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, AGP for respondent State. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent MCZMA. Ms. Sharmila Modle for respondent B.M.C.

¶11

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 06 March 2013

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶13

Rule. Respective counsel waive service of Rule. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

¶14

The petitioner is a developer who had acquired development rights over the land situated and lying at Survey No.777, 778, 779 and 780 (Part) of Worli Division, Mumbai admeasuring 7872.14 sq. meters. The petitioner is in the process of implementing the project as contemplated under Article 33(7) of the Development Control Regulation, 1991.

¶15

The land belongs to respondent No.4 which had constructed flats for municipal tenants, who have formed a Co-operative Housing Society which is respondent No.6 herein. The petitioner had submitted

1 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

building plans to the Municipal Corporation for construction of buildings with 99 flats for rehabilitation of the municipal tenants and 9 shops, municipal school building, having ground plus 5 floors and a free sale building having various floors, for parking, club, etc. and first to 33 upper residential floors.

¶20

When the building plans were submitted in the year 2004 and they were approved, the applicable notification was Environment Impact Notification dated 14 September 2006 which lays down the following requirements for obtaining environmental clearance:-

¶21

“2. Requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC): -

¶22

The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category “A” in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category “B” in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:

¶23

(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this Notification.

¶24

(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;

¶25

(iii) Any change in product – mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range.”

2 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

(See Paragraph 2 and 7)

¶30

LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE:

¶31

Project	or Activity Category with threshold limit A B	Conditions if any
1	2 3 4	5
8	Building/Construction projects/Area Development proje	cts and Townships.
8(a)	Building and Construction project > 20000 sq.mtrs and < 1m 50,000 sq. mtrs. of built-up area #	# (built up area for covered construction; in the case of facilities open to the sky, it will be the activity area)
8(b)	Townships and Area Development projects Covering an area > 50 ha and or built up area > 1,50,000 sq. mtrs. ++	++ All projects under Item 8(b) shall be appraised as Category B1.

¶32

The petitioner also applied to the MCZMA which granted approval by communication dated 14 February 2007 at Exhibit “F”, in the following terms:-

¶33

“Accordingly, the proposal was forwarded to the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India for grant of necessary CRZ clearance vide letter No.MCZMA/54, dtd. 16/10/2006. Now, the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India (1A-III Division) vide letter dtd.24/1/2007 (copy enclosed) accorded CRZ clearance for the above project, subject to the following conditions:”

¶34

It is necessary to note that as per the criteria laid down in the aforesaid Notification dated 14 September 2006 the proposed construction was to the extent of 15,645.70 sq. meters. It is also necessary to note that as per Environment Impact Notification dated 14 September 2006 in the

3 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

case of facilities open to the sky, it was to be treated as the activity area and not built up area and only covered construction was to be treated as built up area.

¶39

As per the IOD and the commencement certificate granted by the Municipal Corporation the petitioner proceeded to construct the buildings having 99 flats for rehabilitation of municipal tenants and 9 shops. The construction is almost complete. Similarly, the petitioner also proceeded to construct the Municipal School building of ground plus 5 floors and it is stated that the construction is almost complete.

¶40

It is necessary to note that when the petitioner was granted the MCZMA clearance in the year 2007 the built up area for the residential building and the shops was 6373.57 sq. meters and the built up area of the Municipal School building was 1045.54 sq. meters. However, by MOEF Notification dated 4 April 2011 the definition “built up area” was substituted as under:-

¶41

“The built up area for the purpose of this Notification is defined as “the built up or covered area on all the floors put together including basement(s) and other service areas, which are proposed in the building/construction projects.”

¶42

In other words, what was earlier known non-FSI area was not included in the definition of built up area but by the aforesaid Notification dated 4 April 2011 the definition of “built up area” was expanded to include construction of not only covered area, but also basement and other service areas which were earlier not included in the definition of built up area. In view of the above Notification, the built up area of the residential building

4 of 13

gopi

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

for 99 flats and 9 shops was re-computed at 8720.51 sq. meters and the built up area of the municipal school was re-computed at 1196.16 sq. meters aggregating to 9916.67 sq. meters as against the previous area aggregating to 7419.06 sq. meters.

¶47

In view of the above amended Notification the built up area of the proposed sale component building which was earlier computed at 8226.57 sq. meters would now be 14,000 and odd sq. meters and aggregating all the three built up areas of the residential building, 9 shops, municipal school building and the free sale component building the aggregate area would work out to 39,681.13 sq. meters.

¶48

In view of the above, as the construction area is to exceed 20,000 sq. meters, the petitioner is required to obtain environmental clearance from the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The SEAC would forward its recommendation to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The petitioner has accordingly submitted its application to the SEAC in June 2011. However, by the impugned decision dated 16 November 2011 the petitioner has been informed about the following decision :-

5 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

“ Decision:

The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. The proponent is requested to comply with the following observations:

¶54

The proponent shall obtain CRZ Clearance as per 4(d) of CRZ Notification 2011 which states that any construction involving more than 20000 m² BUA in CRZ-II, prior recommendation of concerned CZMA shall be essential for considering grant of environmental clearance as per EIA Notification 2006 or grant of approval by the relevant planning authority.

¶55

The proponent shall submit letter from MCGM (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) with detailed clarification on the following points:

¶56

a. Total area of the plot nearing C S No.777, 778 and 780.

¶57

b. Plot area on which “Prerna Co-op. Housing Society” is proposed.

¶58

¶59

c. Remaining plot area and details, if any other scheme, proposed thereon.

¶60

The draft general guidelines of MCGM dated 16^th July 2011, including fire safety norms, for High Rise Building Proposals, shall be complied with.

¶61

Details of car park arrangement calculations.”

¶62

In the meantime, the petitioner has also been served with stop work notice dated 21 June 2011 from the Secretary, Environment Department of the State Government stating that since the petitioner's project construction is more than 20,000 sq. meters, it was obligatory on the petitioner's part to obtain prior environmental clearance from competent authority as per EIA Notification dated 14 September 2006

6 of 13

gopi

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

before starting any building construction activity. The notice further stated that since the petitioner had failed to obtain prior environmental clearance before starting construction activities, there is violation of Notification dated 14 September 2006 and, therefore, the petitioner must stop the construction work forthwith. Consequently the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has also issued stop work notice dated 27 July 2011.

¶67

According to the petitioner the petitioner has complied with both the stop work notices and the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the above decision dated 16 November 2011 and the aforesaid two stop work notices.

¶68

Dr.Milind Sathe, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following contentions:

¶69

(i) That the petitioner's project was approved and the CRZ clearance was granted on 14 February 2007 by MCZMA. The project was for construction with built up area of only 15,645.70 sq. meters in view of the definition of “built up area” then prevailing. In fact, the petitioner has only constructed the residential building for rehabilitation of municipal tenants for 99 flats, 9 shops and the Municipal School building of ground plus 5 floors which is to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai free of costs.

¶70

(ii) In any view of the matter, even the built up area of the sale component building added to the above constructions

7 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

would be within 20,000 sq. meters (15,645.70 sq. meters as per the definition of “built up area” when CRZ clearance for the project was granted by MCZMA). The changed definition of built up area as per Notification dated 11 April 2011 cannot apply to a project which was sanctioned prior to 11 April 2011.

¶75

(iii) In any view of the matter, even if the changed definition under Notification dated 11 April 2011 were to apply to the petitioner's project, the petitioner has already applied to SEAC for environmental clearance for a project having built up area exceeding 20,000 sq. meters and the petitioner is awaiting the said environmental clearance, but there can be no requirement again to go back to MCZMA for getting CRZ clearance which was already granted earlier on 14 February 2007. The proposed construction at the time of grant of CRZ clearance on 14 February 2007 and the proposed constructions now are for the same construction areas and merely because there is change in the definition of built up area, there is no justification for the State Expert Appraisal Committee to require the petitioner to obtain CRZ clearance again from MCZMA.

¶76

(iv) Without prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted that in any view of the matter since the environmental clearance from State Expert Appraisal Committee and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority under the EIA Notification dated 14 September,

8 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

2006 is required only when the construction exceeds 20,000 sq. meters, the petitioner is entitled to continue with the construction which would not exceed 20,000 sq. meters.

¶81

(v) Reliance is placed on orders dated 16 January 2013 in Writ Petition No.2809 of 2012 and 24 September 2012 in Writ Petition No.1919 of 2012 and other matters in support of the contention that the authorities cannot be permitted to object to the developer proceeding to construct upto 20,000 sq. meters without obtaining environmental clearance which is required to be obtained only when the construction is to exceed 20,000.

¶82

On the other hand, Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh, learned counsel for MCZMA and Mr. Niranjan Pandit, learned A.G.P., for the State Authorities have opposed the petition and submitted that the notification dated 4 April 2011 of the MOEF is merely clarificatory amendment relating back to the original Notification dated 14 September 2006. As per the amended definition of built up area, even the open construction areas are included in the built up area and since the petitioner's application to the said Expert Appraisal Committee itself indicates that as per the amended definition, the total construction area is going to be 39681.13 sq. meters, the authorities are justified in requiring the appellant to obtain not only environmental clearance, but also CRZ clearance from MCZMA. It is submitted that when the MCZMA had granted clearance on 14 February 2007 it was on the basis of the built up area being less than 20,000 sq. meters. Now that the built up area is going to exceed 20,000 sq. meters fresh CRZ clearance will be required from the MCZMA.

9 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to put up any construction and that the authorities are justified in issuing the stop work notices as the project is for construction exceeding 20,000 sq. meters of built up area.

¶87

As regards the decision of the State Expert Appraisal Committee that the petitioner should obtain CRZ clearance as per the CRZ Notification of 2011, when construction area remains the same, two views may be possible on the question whether the petitioner having obtained CRZ clearance from MCZMA with proposal for built up area upto 20,000 sq. meters should again be required to approach MCZMA for CRZ clearance when the built up area as per the amended definition is exceeding 20,000 sq. meters. However, in matters of environment concern, we would prefer to err on the safer side. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the decision of the State Appraisal Committee requiring the petitioner to move the MCZMA for environmental clearance because now the built up area of the project is computed at 39,681.13 sq. meters. We do not accept the petitioner's contention that because the petitioner's project was earlier granted CRZ clearance before 4 April 2011, the clarificatory amendment provided by the said Notification will not apply to the petitioner's project. The amendment dated 4 April 2011 is clarificatory as indicated in the preamble to the Notification itself. The change in the definition of built up area from merely covered area to areas including basement and service areas will significantly increase the construction area. After all, CRZ clearance is all about construction activity in a coastal zone and, therefore, merely because the construction is open to sky would not make it any less the construction than the construction of the covered area. We, therefore, find considerable substance in the submission made

10 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

on behalf of the MCZMA that the Notification dated 4 April 2011 will apply to the pending projects as well, meaning thereby the projects are not already executed.

¶92

We do, however, find some substance in the last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner is required to obtain CRZ clearance from MCZMA again on the basis that the built up area of the project will exceed 20,000 sq. meters, the petitioner is entitled to get the same reliefs which this Court has been granting in case of many other parties where similar prayer was made. In Writ Petition No.1916 of 2012 (Vardhman Developers Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. ) and Writ Petition No.2809 of 2012 (Nahur Vivekanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors) . We have rejected a similar contention urged on behalf of the respondent authorities that when the project proponent cannot undertake construction project for more than 20,000 sq. meters of built up area without obtaining prior environmental clearance, the project proponent cannot be allowed to commence the construction within the limits of 20,000 sq. meters, without obtaining prior environmental clearance. This Court has held that when clearances are required only for projects with built up area exceeding 20,000 sq. meters, redevelopment projects for residential buildings should not be unnecessarily delayed even to the extent of construction upto 20,000 sq. meters when the developer is ready to give undertaking not to exceed the construction beyond 20,000 sq. meters without first obtaining environmental clearance. This Court has noted that the Authorities take considerable time for taking a decision on the application for environmental clearance or for CRZ clearance. In the meantime the redevelopment projects are being delayed. This Court has been granting

11 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

relief in such cases on the basis that even if ultimately the authorities were to reject the applications for clearance, there will be no illegality in so far as the developer has made construction upto 20,000 sq. meters.

¶97

Following the orders in the aforesaid cases i.e. orders dated January 16, 2013 in Writ Petition No.2809 of 2012 and 24 September 2012 in Writ Petition No.1916 of 2012, we are of the view that the respondent authorities are not justified in calling upon the petitioner to stop work even within 20,000 sq. meters of work, particularly when the petitioner has already completed the construction of residential building for rehabilitation of 99 municipal tenants, 9 shops required for the ordinary needs of the residents and municipal school constructed by the petitioner for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation all free of costs. As regards the free sale building also, learned counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that the petitioner will construct only a portion of the free sale building to the extent that the aggregate construction of the rehabilitation building for 99 flats, 9 shops, municipal school building and the free sale building will not exceed 20,000 sq. meters, without first obtaining the CRZ clearance from the MCZMA and the environmental clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

¶98

Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed and the stop work notices dated 21 June 2011 issued by the Secretary, Environment Department, (Exhibit “I”) and 27 July 2011 (Exhibit AA) issued by the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal, City) Municipal E-Ward of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai shall stand modified to the effect that the petitioner is restrained from putting up any construction in excess of 20,000 sq. meters computed on the basis of the MOEF

12 of 13

wp-lodg.470-13.sxw

gopi

Notification 4 April 2011, including the construction of the rehabilitation building for 99 flats, 9 shops and the municipal school building already constructed or almost constructed. An undertaking to this effect shall be filed by a Director of the petitioner company within two weeks from today and the petitioner shall commence construction only after such an undertaking is filed before this Court.

¶103

It is clarified that the above direction is given only in respect of the environmental clearance and the CRZ clearance and this judgment does not exempt the petitioner from complying with the other legal requirements in the matter of construction of the buildings in question.

¶104

It will be open to the petitioner to pursue their application for CRZ clearance before the MCZMA and for environment clearance before the State Expert Appraisal Committee and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

¶105

22. Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶106

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶107

ANOOP V. MOHTA , J .

¶108

13 of 13

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Saumya Builders Pvt.Ltd v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Suryakant Ramdas Patil Vs the Official Liquidator and Ors.

Edwin Britto Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Mohol Taluka Bahu-Udeshiya Shetkari Sangh, Mohol, through Chairman, Shankarrao Sathe Vs the Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Motinagar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited Vs M/S. Zenal Construction Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Shri. Besil Barrato and Ors. Vs the Indian Hotel Company Employees Union and Ors.