Manish Ramniklal Sawla v. State of Maharashtra Thro Govt. Pleader and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jun 2016PIL/24/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL challenging the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme under Reg 33(10) DCR, the petitioner alleged disproportionate land usage favoring saleable over rehab components. The Court declined to issue writs mandating a city-wide inquiry into these allegations, citing no challenge to regulation validity and the burden on petitioners to file specific grievances for particular proje

What the court decided

AI extract

Manish Ramniklal Sawla Vs State of Maharashtra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

1/5

28 pil 24.15 os.doc

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

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.24 OF 2015

¶6

Manish Ramniklal Sawla ….. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Abhay P. Pande for the Petitioner. Mr. Mohit Jadhav, AGP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. V.D. Patil for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 22 JUNE 2016

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

1 Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent. We have perused the averments made in the Petition. The grievance in the Petition is about the manner in which slum rehabilitation scheme under clause 10 of the Regulation 33 of the Development Control Regulations is being implemented. It is contended that in the most of the projects under Regulation 33(10), the actual land area utilized/consumed for the rehab component is much less than the land actually utilized and consumed for salable component. It is contended in the Petition that that

1/5

2/5

28 pil 24.15 os.doc

the difference in the actual area utilized for rehab component and the actual area utilized for sale component is some times more than 75% of the total available composite land area. The contention is that the Regulation 33(10) is silent on the proportion of consumption of area of the rehab component and the sale component.

¶18

2 There are two substantive prayers in the Petition which read thus: a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction, directing the suitable authority to carry out suitable enquiry about the proportionate utilization of actual land area between the saleable component and rehab component of buildings developed under the SRA Scheme in city of Mumbai.

¶19

b) That after conducting the proper inquiry as per prayer clause (a) above if it is found that far excess FSI is consumed and maximum utilization of FSI in rehab component, though the actual land area is less, and less utilization of FSI in saleable component though the actual land area under the saleable component is much larger then, appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to remove the anomaly.”

¶20

3 The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in absence of a rational proportion, undue benefit is being taken by the Developers and the main object of having a slum rehabilitation scheme for rehabilitating the slum dwellers is being frustrated.

2/5

3/5

28 pil 24.15 os.doc

4 As far as the scheme of rehabilitation under Regulation 33(10) is concerned, the same is governed by the Development Control Regulations as well as the relevant Appendix of the Development Control Regulations. The scheme will have to be implemented in terms of the prevailing Developments Control Regulations.

¶26

5 Shri Avinash S. Rao, Executive Engineer in the office of Slum Rehabilitation Authority has filed a Reply. In paragraph 7 of his Reply, he has stated thus:

¶27

“7. I say that due to the other provisions of the DC Regulations read with Appendix IX Regulation 33(10), the actual land area utilized/ consumed for rehab component is bound to be less in comparison with the actual land area utilized/consumed for the saleable component. It is governed by many factors such as access of building, DP reservation, Buildable/unbuildable height to open space requirement. However, I deny that the difference in actual land area utilization/consumption between rehab and saleable component is sometimes more than 75% of the total area as alleged by the Petitioner. I say that Regulation 36 of DCR, 1991 was modified on 12.08.2009, providing for parking spaces even for rehab buildings. Since then the ratio of rehab to sale is around 40% Rehab & 60% Sale. I say that clauses 6.11 and 6.12 of Schedule IV of the said Regulation provide for front and marginal open spaces in regard to rehab building. The said clauses 6.11 and 6.12 are reproduced herein below:

3/5

4/5

28 pil 24.15 os.doc

6.11 Front and marginal open spaces for building having height upto 24 mters. in the rehab component or composite building, the front and marginal open space shall be 1.5 mtrs. for these buildings. Provided however, that in case of buildings having height more than 24 mtrs. the minimum marginal open space shall be 6.0 mtrs. or as may be prescribed by CFO.

¶33

6.12 Notwithstanding the provisions in DCR 29 Table 10 where the location of the plot abuts DP Road, having width of 18.30 m and above, the front marginal open space shall not be insisted upon beyond 3.0 mtrs. provided it is not an express highway or road wider than 52 mtrs.”

¶34

6 In paragraph 10 of the Reply, it is contended that the Petitioner has raised hypothetical question.

¶35

7 Firstly there is no challenge to the validity of the existing Regulations. Secondly, if the prayers made herein are granted, enquiry will have to be made about each and every project under Regulation 33(10) in the city.

¶36

8 According to the Petitioner, if there is a lacuna in the Regulations, it is for him to make a representation for modification/amendment of the Regulations. If the Petitioner has any specific grievance about any particular project, it is for the Petitioner to invite attention of the

4/5

5/5

28 pil 24.15 os.doc

concerned authorities to any illegality associated with any such project. If the concerned authority does not take cognizance of his grievance, the Petitioner can file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Subject to what is observed above, we are unable to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for in prayer clauses (a) and (b). By granting liberty to the Petitioner as aforesaid, the Petition is disposed of.

¶42

(A.A. SAYED, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

¶43

katkam

¶44

5/5

Manish Ramniklal Sawla v. State of Maharashtra Thro Govt. Pleader and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manish Ramniklal Sawla v. State of Maharashtra Thro Govt. Pleader and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zuber Jabir Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dada Laxman Kunjir Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sanjay Eknath Tupe Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Sudam Khatale Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through the Tribal Development Dept and Ors.

Artist Council Thr. President Shri. O. P. Singh Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur

Khairipura-Binaki Mangalwari Premnagar Niwasi Action Committee Thr. Its President Vs the Union of India Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Ajaz Khan Noor Khan and 6 Others Vs the Union of India, Thr. Its Secretary, Home Department, New Delhi and 2 Others

Sanjay Deu Laxman Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources and Ors.

Sunil Ramkeshav Dubey Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Swapnil Madhukar Kashid and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aaba Suresh Kolekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran Nemchand Petad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dr. Bindu Devdutt Purohit Vs Alka Purohit

Arun Sheshdhar Mishra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.