Posts
HC to BMC: Scrutinize building plans at start
Court Hears Builder's Plea In Highrise Lily Ponds Case
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) should take care while approving building plans right at the inception stage itself, and must send out a strong message to builders against violation of building laws. 
A division bench of Justice P B Majmudar and Justice R M Savant was hearing a petition filed by Shravan Developers Pvt Ltd and developer Praful Satra, challenging municipal commissioner Subodh Kumar's July 30, 2011, order for demolition of lily ponds constructed on every floor of an 11-storey luxury tower at the Juhu Vile Parle Development (JVPD) Scheme.
Following the court's February 9, 2011, directive to examine alleged violations, Kumar filed a report on the issue. He directed that lily ponds be demolished or included by the developer in the FSI or if these are to be retained, then equivalent areas of upper floors should be demolished. The developer was given six weeks to exercise the option of working out the revised FSI. The court said the 11 floors can be regularized by charging a premium or penalty, or the same shall be demolished.
"Rules and regulations of
the BMC are meant to be respected or else it will be a rule of the jungle, concrete jungle. Corporation officials willingly or unintentionally allow violations which is mockery of justice. A message should be sent to builders that there should be no violation of law," said Justice Majmudar and added the BMC should take care at the inception while approving plans. "There is no point taking action when equities are created. It is meaningless to issue stop work after 40-45 floors are constructed.''
The developer's petition alleged that the BMC action was at the behest of the Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group, which moved court alleging gross violation. It also alleged that lily ponds are designed as swimming pools and permitted free of FSI. The developer's counsel, Pravin Samdani, argued that construction has been according to the sanctioned plans. "This NGO is holding us to ransom. These are luxurious flats costing crores of rupees and the plot itself was purchased for Rs 61 crore,'' said Samdani. Justice Majmudar riposted, "One who can spend more should be more cautious. In our view, there can be no distinction between hutment dwellers and highrises.'' Samdani said the pond area is three feet below the living room's floor level and there is a misconception that it is a pool. Justice Majmudar asked, "If flowers are removed, can someone take bath in this (pond)?" An intervention petition was moved on behalf of flat purchasers. The judges directed BMC lawyer to take "appropriate instructions by the next date of hearing".
"Verify if they are lily ponds or swimming pools," said Justice Majmudar. The matter is adjourned to September 29. Citizens' group takes architect to task Nauzer K Bharucha | TNN
Mumbai: A month after the BMC ordered part-demolition of a luxury 11-storey residential tower in Juhu, the local Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group has filed a complaint against the building's architect to the Delhi-based Council of Architecture. The council is empowered by Parliament to take action against erring architects.
In 2009, the citizens' group filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against the builder, Praful 'Pappu' Satra, for building violations. Subsequently, civic chief Subodh Kumar directed Satra of Shravan Developers, to pay a hefty security deposit as a deterrent against possible misuse of certain portions of the building.
The commissioner ordered that no occupation permission or water connection be granted unless the deposit is paid to the corporation. Last week, the residents' group wrote to the council, seeking action against architect, M/s S P Associates, for "fraud, cheating, violation of development control rules, collusion and assistance and providing professional expertise to perpetrate illegality, violation of laws and facilitate illegal construction of a building".
Surendra Desai of S P Associates said his firm was appointed as the liasing architect for the project. A liasing architect is tasked with procuring permissions from the BMC's building proposal department. "The designing architect was different. We have nothing to do with the violation," he told TOI. Desai said he was
in a bind despite warning the builder to stop "illegal work".
"Our firm subsequently backed out of the project and we complained to the BMC too. However, after the matter went to court, the BMC refused us permission to withdraw from the project," he said. "The work went beyond our control. Now we are caught," he added.
"Violations" include extension of toilets into duct area, building lily pond and adjacent decks on each floor adjoining the flat to extend the living area of each flat, misuse of parking and maneuvering space to extend the area on each floor and inclusion of flower bed space into the flats. Each apartment with a saleable area of 1,920 sq ft was sold as a 4,200 sq ft flat.
"Architectural plans, designs and maps were submitted by M/s S P Associates to the BMC. They were in disregard of the rules and regulations. The sanction of the proposal was also piloted through the architects and conclusively demonstrates their role in the proposal and the sanction," said the letter issued by group advocate Vibhav Krishna.
He added, "The order passed by municipal commissioner makes it obvious that there have been illegalities and irregularities in the construction of the building on the basis of plans submitted by architect M/s S P Associates. The architect firm were directly responsible for professional guidance on architectural aspects, design and FSI computation." The order stated that the 11th floor can be built within the permissible FSI and can be regularized by charging a premium. Else, it can be demolished.
Following the court's February 9, 2011, directive to examine alleged violations, Kumar filed a report on the issue. He directed that lily ponds be demolished or included by the developer in the FSI or if these are to be retained, then equivalent areas of upper floors should be demolished. The developer was given six weeks to exercise the option of working out the revised FSI. The court said the 11 floors can be regularized by charging a premium or penalty, or the same shall be demolished.
"Rules and regulations of
the BMC are meant to be respected or else it will be a rule of the jungle, concrete jungle. Corporation officials willingly or unintentionally allow violations which is mockery of justice. A message should be sent to builders that there should be no violation of law," said Justice Majmudar and added the BMC should take care at the inception while approving plans. "There is no point taking action when equities are created. It is meaningless to issue stop work after 40-45 floors are constructed.''
The developer's petition alleged that the BMC action was at the behest of the Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group, which moved court alleging gross violation. It also alleged that lily ponds are designed as swimming pools and permitted free of FSI. The developer's counsel, Pravin Samdani, argued that construction has been according to the sanctioned plans. "This NGO is holding us to ransom. These are luxurious flats costing crores of rupees and the plot itself was purchased for Rs 61 crore,'' said Samdani. Justice Majmudar riposted, "One who can spend more should be more cautious. In our view, there can be no distinction between hutment dwellers and highrises.'' Samdani said the pond area is three feet below the living room's floor level and there is a misconception that it is a pool. Justice Majmudar asked, "If flowers are removed, can someone take bath in this (pond)?" An intervention petition was moved on behalf of flat purchasers. The judges directed BMC lawyer to take "appropriate instructions by the next date of hearing".
"Verify if they are lily ponds or swimming pools," said Justice Majmudar. The matter is adjourned to September 29. Citizens' group takes architect to task Nauzer K Bharucha | TNN
Mumbai: A month after the BMC ordered part-demolition of a luxury 11-storey residential tower in Juhu, the local Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group has filed a complaint against the building's architect to the Delhi-based Council of Architecture. The council is empowered by Parliament to take action against erring architects.
In 2009, the citizens' group filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against the builder, Praful 'Pappu' Satra, for building violations. Subsequently, civic chief Subodh Kumar directed Satra of Shravan Developers, to pay a hefty security deposit as a deterrent against possible misuse of certain portions of the building.
The commissioner ordered that no occupation permission or water connection be granted unless the deposit is paid to the corporation. Last week, the residents' group wrote to the council, seeking action against architect, M/s S P Associates, for "fraud, cheating, violation of development control rules, collusion and assistance and providing professional expertise to perpetrate illegality, violation of laws and facilitate illegal construction of a building".
Surendra Desai of S P Associates said his firm was appointed as the liasing architect for the project. A liasing architect is tasked with procuring permissions from the BMC's building proposal department. "The designing architect was different. We have nothing to do with the violation," he told TOI. Desai said he was
in a bind despite warning the builder to stop "illegal work".
"Our firm subsequently backed out of the project and we complained to the BMC too. However, after the matter went to court, the BMC refused us permission to withdraw from the project," he said. "The work went beyond our control. Now we are caught," he added.
"Violations" include extension of toilets into duct area, building lily pond and adjacent decks on each floor adjoining the flat to extend the living area of each flat, misuse of parking and maneuvering space to extend the area on each floor and inclusion of flower bed space into the flats. Each apartment with a saleable area of 1,920 sq ft was sold as a 4,200 sq ft flat.
"Architectural plans, designs and maps were submitted by M/s S P Associates to the BMC. They were in disregard of the rules and regulations. The sanction of the proposal was also piloted through the architects and conclusively demonstrates their role in the proposal and the sanction," said the letter issued by group advocate Vibhav Krishna.
He added, "The order passed by municipal commissioner makes it obvious that there have been illegalities and irregularities in the construction of the building on the basis of plans submitted by architect M/s S P Associates. The architect firm were directly responsible for professional guidance on architectural aspects, design and FSI computation." The order stated that the 11th floor can be built within the permissible FSI and can be regularized by charging a premium. Else, it can be demolished.
0 comments:
Post a Comment