wp 2457.2011.

doc
Katkam

M/s.J.GalaEnterprises Apartnershipfirmregistered undertheIndianPartnership Act,1932havingitsoffice at267/71,NarshiNathaStreet, VeermaniMarket,Masjid, Mumbai400009. Mr.AnkitBharatGala, PartnerofthePetitionerNo.1 havinghisofficeat267/71, NarshiNathaStreet, VeermaniMarket,Masjid, Mumbai400009. Versus.

om

ba y

TheStateofMaharashtra ThroughtheGovernmentPleader havinghisofficeatHighCourt, Mumabi. Secretary,UrbanDevelopment Departmenthavingitsoffice atMantralaya,Mumbai400032. MaharashtraHousing&Area DevelopmentAuthority, Astatutoryauthorityconstituted undertheProvisionsofthe MaharashtraHousingandArea DevelopmentAct,1976with itsheadofficeatGriha NirmanBhavan,Bandra
1/41

ig h

C ou
..Petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY ORDINARYORIGINALCIVILJURISDICTION WRITPETITIONNO.2457OF2011

wp 2457.2011.doc

ba y

Dr.VirendraTulzapurkar,SeniorAdvocatewithMr.SanjayV .Kadam andMs.ApekshaSharmai/bM/s.Kadam&Co.forthepetitioners. Ms. P .D. Anklesaria, Special Counsel i/b Mr. P .G. Lad, AGP for the respondentnos.1to4State. Ms.K.R.Punjabiforrespondentno.5BMC. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR& K.K.TATED,JJ. FEBRUARY06,2013 MARCH20,2013

om

JudgmentReservedon : JudgmentPronouncedon:

JUDGMENT:(PERK.K.TATED,J.): 1 2 Heardlearnedcounselfortheparties. BythisWritPetition,underArticle226oftheConstitutionof

India, for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14,

MunicipalCorporationof GreaterMumbai,astatutory Corporationconstituted undertheBombayMunicipal CorporationAct,1988, havingitsaddressat MahapalikaMarg, Opp.C.S.T.Mumbai400001.

ig h

Respondents.

C ou
2/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

TheChiefOfficer, M.B.R.&R.Board,MHADA, havingofficeatGriha NirmanBhavan,Bandra KurlaComplex,Bandra(E), Mumbai400051.

rt

KurlaComplex,Bandra(E), Mumbai400051.

wp 2457.2011.doc

19(1)(g)and300A,thePetitionersseekdeclarationthatclause10(a) ofAppendixIIIunderRegulation33(7)oftheDevelopmentControl Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 as embodied in the

Notification dated 21st May, 2011 is unconstitutional, ultravirus, void,illegalandofnoeffect.

Inorabout1992,thePetitionerspurchased propertybeinga pieceandparceloflandbearingCitySurveyNo.1A/782,2/783,783, 784,785and786ofMazgaonDivisionknownasDoctorsCompound, admeasuring about 11968 square meters situated at D.L. Marg, Chinchpokli(East),Mumbai400012.Thesaidpropertyconsistsof 17cessedstructuresand11noncessedstructures.Nearabout220 familieswereoccupants/tenantsinrespectofthesaidproperty.The

om

Petitioners with the consent of the occupants/tenants decided to redevelop the said property and, therefore, they submitted an appropriateproposaltotheRespondents. Tilltheyear1999,every eligible occupant was entitled to 180 square feet carpet area. Consequently,inkeepingwiththeprinciplesofbalanceandequity,

ba y

ig h

Afewfactsofthematterareasunder:

C ou
3/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

thedeveloper/ownerwhoundertooktheresponsibilityofproviding 180squarefeettoeachoftheeligibleoccupiers,wassubjecttohis propercomplianceofduties,entitledtoexploit2FSIonthegiven property.

Thereafter,theRespondentNos.1and2videnotificationdated

eacheligibleoccupierto225squarefeeti.e.anadditional45square feetcarpetarea.Regulation33(7)(8)andClause10(a)ofAppendix IIIunderRegulation33(7)oftheDevelopmentControlRegulations forGreaterMumbai,1991,werealsomodifiedasunder:

om

ba y

(7) Reconstructionorredevelopmentofcessed buildings in the Island City by Cooperative Housing Societies or of old buildings belonging to the Corporation For reconstruction/redevelopment to be undertakenbyCooperativeHousingSocietiesofexisting tenants or by Cooperative Housing Societies of Landlordsand/orOccupiersofacessedbuildingof'A' categoryinIslandCity,whichattractstheprovisionsof MHADA Act, 1976, and for reconstruction/ redevelopment of the buildings of the Corporation constructedpriorto1940,thefloorspaceindexshallbe 2.5 on the gross plot area or the FSI required for RehabilitationofexistingtenantsplusincentiveFSIas specifiedinAppendixIII,whicheverismore: Provided, however that with the previous approvaloftheGovernment,MHADA/Corporationshall 4/41

ig h

25th January,1999,increasedtheminimumareatobeprovidedto

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc beeligibletogetadditionalincentiveFSIoverotherwise permissible FSI as specified in Annexure III of these Regulations: Provided further that in cases of composite redevelopment scheme for plot having 'A' category as also'B'categorycessedbuildingtheaboveFSIshallbe available: Providedfurtherthatincasesofreconstruction/ developmentofbuildingswhich havebeen declaredas unsafebytheBHADBoardpriortomonsoonof1997, theaboveFSIwillbeavailableirrespectiveofcategoryof cessedbuilding. Provided further, that reconstruction/ redevelopment undertaken by proposed Cooperative Housing Societies of Landlords and/or Occupiers of cessed building of 'B' category, and where composite developmentisundertakenbydifferentownersof5or moreplotstheFSIrequiredforRehabilitationofexisting tenants plus incentive FSI as specified in Appendix III willbeavailable.

om

ba y

(8) Constructionforhousingthedishoused FortheconstructionofthebuildingbytheCorporation inthecategoryofHousingtheDishousedintheIsland CityforthepurposeofHousingthosewhoaredisplaced by the projects undertaken by the Corporation for implementation of proposals of the development plan, theFSIshallbe4.00.SuchadditionalFSIwillnotbe available when owner undertakes development as in Sr.No.1(e)inTable4. (9) Repairs and reconstruction of cessed buildingsandUrbanRenewalScheme:Forrepairsand reconstruction ofceased buildings and Urban Renewal Scheme undertaken by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority or the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board or Corporation in the IslandCity,theFSIshallbe4.00ortheFSIrequiredfor 5/41

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc rehabilitationofexistingtenant/occupiers,whicheveris more. 10.(a) Incaseofredevelopmentschemesalready inprogress, iffulloccupationpermissionhasnotbeen granted, then Cooperative Society of the landlords and/ortheoccupiersoroftheCorporationbuildingmay convert the proposal in accordance with these regulations subject to submitting structural stability certificatefromthelicensedStructuralEngineer. (emphasissupplied)

notificationdated2nd March,2009,modifyingclause2ofAppendix III of Regulation no.33 (7) and clause 10 (a) of the Development ControlRegulationsforGreaterMumbai,1991replacing225square feetareaby300squarefeetwhichreadthus:

om

ba y

20.90 sq.mt. (225 sq.ft.) area is modified and replaced as 27.88 sq.mt. (300 sq.ft.) (fixed) appearing in clause 2 of Appendix III of Regulation No.33(7). (i) Clause(15)AnamountofRs.5000/ per sq.mt. shall be paid by the owner/ developer/ societyasadditionaldevelopmentcessforthebuiltup areaoverandabovethenormally permissible FSI, for therehabilitationandfreesale components. This amountshallbepaidtotheCorporationinaccordance withthetimescheduleforsuchpaymentasmaybelaid down by the Commissioner, MCGM provided the paymentof installments shall not go beyond the completionofconstruction.Thisamountshallbeused forSchemetobepreparedfortheimprovementoffsite Infrastructureintheareaaroundthedevelopment.The 6/41

ig h

The Respondents State of Maharashtra then issued

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc abovedevelopmentcessshallbeenhanced@10.00% everythreeyears. (ii) Clause(16)Aspertheprovisionsofclause2, eachresidential/nonresidential occupant shall be rehabilitatedonlyforcarpetareamentionedinthesaid clauseNo.2andsuchareasshallbeclearlyshownon the building plan submitted to the Corporation/ MHADA. 10(a) Incaseofredevelopmentschemesalready inprogressand buildingisnotcompleteduptoplinth level then proposal may be converted in accordance with the above modified regulations. However, such conversion is optional and not binding. (emphasis supplied).

Thereafter, the Respondents State of Maharashtra issued

anothernotificationdated21stMay,2011modifyingRegulation33(7)

occupant/tenant.ModifiedRegulation33(7)andClause10(a)read thus:

om

ba y

and clause 10 (a) providing 300 square feet area to the

ClauseNo.2. Eachoccupantshallberehabilitatedand giventhecarpetareaoccupiedbyhimforresidential purposeintheoldbuildingsubjecttominimumfixed carpetareaof27.88sq.mt.(300sq.ft.)andmaximum carpetareaupto70sq.mt.(752sq.ft.)asprovidedin the MHADA Act, 1976. In case of nonresidential occupier the area to be given in the reconstructed buildingwillbeequivalenttotheareaoccupiedinthe oldbuilding.

ig h

C ou
7/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc Provided that if carpet area for residential purpose exceeds 70.00 sq.mt. (753 sq.ft.) the cost of construction shallbepaid by tenant/occupanttothe developer. The cost of construction shall be as per ReadyReckonerrateofthatyear.However,thecarpet area exceeding 70.00 sq.mt. (753 sq.ft.) shall be consideredforrehabFSIbutshallnotbeconsideredfor incentiveFSI. ClauseNo.4. The tenements in the reconstructed building shall be allotted by the landlord/occupants cooperativehousingsocietytotheoccupiersasperthe listcertifiedbytheMumbaiRepairsandReconstruction Board.Theprescribedpercentageofthesurplusbuilt upareaasprovidedintheTableintheThirdSchedule oftheMHADAAct,1976,shallbemadeavailableto the MR & RB for accommodating the occupants in transit camps or cessed buildings which cannot be constructed, on payment of an amount as may be prescribedunderMHADAAct,1976. Providedthattheareaequivalenttothemarketvalue (TheMarketValueshallbeaspertheReadyReckoner rate of that year) of area admissible as per the prescribed percentage of builtup area can be made availablewithinthesamemunicipalwardofMCGM. ClauseNo.5. The FSI to rehabilitation of existing tenants/ occupiers in a reconstructed building and incentiveFSIthatwillbeavailableshallbeasunder: (a) Incaseofredevelopmentof'A'Categorycessed buildingundertakenbylandlordand/orCooperative Housing Societies of landlord and/or occupiers, the totalFSIshallbe3.00ofthegrossplotareaortheFSI required for rehabilitation of existing occupiers plus 50%incentiveFSI,whicheverismore. (d) Incaseofcompositeredevelopmentundertaken by the different landlords and/or Coop. Housing 8/41

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc Societiesoflandlordsand/oroccupiersjointlyof2or moreplotsbutnotmorethan5plotswith'A','B',and 'C'categorycessedbuildingstheFSIpermissiblewillbe 3.00 or FSI required for rehabilitation to existing occupiersplus60%incentiveFSI,whicheverismore; Provided,however,thatifthenumberofplotsjointly undertaken for redevelopment is six or more the incentiveFSIavailablewillbe3.00orFSIrequiredof rehabilitation for occupiers plus 70% incentive FSI whicheverismore. ClauseNo.17.A corpus fund is to be created by the Developerwhichwilltakecareofthemaintenanceof thebuildingforaperiodof10years. ClauseNo.18.Restrictionontransferoftenementsshall begovernedbyprovisionofRentControlActtillCoop. Society is formed and after that the same shall be governed by the provision of Maharashtra Coop. Society'sAct. ClauseNo.19. Non Deduction of noncessed structureareaintheschemesof33(7)forFSIpurpose.

om

ba y

Incaseofmixofthestructuresi.e.cessed&non cessed structures and if the area of non cessed structures existing prior to 30/9/69, area of land componentundernoncessedstructureworksoutupto a limit of 25% of plot area, then FSI shall be consideredontotalplotarea.Ifthisareaexceeds25% of the total area, then area above 25% shall be deductedfromplotarea.FSIfordeductedareashallbe asperregulation32andtheremainingplotareashall beasper33(7). ClauseNo.10(a) In the case of Redevelopment SchemeinprogressandsuchschemeswhereLOIhas beenissuedandiftheconstructionofrehabbuildingis not completed up to plinth level, then Owner/Developer/Coop. Housing Societies with the prior approval of Govt. may convert the proposal in 9/41

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc accordance with modified regulations only regarding sizeoftenementsandloadingofFSI,insitu.However suchconversionisoptionalandshallnotbebinding. (emphasissupplied)

7.

In view of the amended provisions of Regulation 33(7) and

Clause10(a),Petitionersappliedtotheauthorityforallowingthem toavailofthebenefitsprovidedinthe Notificationdated21 st May,

2011forthebuildingstheyhadalreadyconstructedorwereunder construction. Their request was rejected by the authority on the groundthatasperclause10(a),incaseofredevelopmentschemein

construction ofrehabbuildingiscompleteduptoplinthlevel,the

benefitsundertheamendedprovisions.

om

behalfofthePetitionerssubmitsthatthegrantofadditionalFSIand increase in the allotable area for rehabilitation as was done previously could have been made applicable to all redevelopment schemesundertheDevelopmentControlRegulation33(7)whichare incompleteandwhereOccupationCertificateisnotgrantedsubjectto
10/41

ba y

Owner/Developer/Coop. Housing Societies are not entitled to the

The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Tulzapurkar appearing on

progress and such schemes where LOI has been issued and the

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

thebuildingssatisfyingtheconditionofthestabilityandstructural strength. However, by the impugned Government Resolution, it is provided that the benefit of the Notification dated 21 st May, 2011 wouldbeavailableonlyiftheplinthlevelisnotcompleted.Inother

words,ifconstructionhasgonebeyondplinthlevel,thenthebenefit wouldnotbeavailable.Hesubmitsthatthereisnojustificationfor

constructionuptoplinthlevelisnotcompleted.Hesubmitsthatwhat isrelevantaccordingtothePetitionersisthestabilityandstructural strength of the buildings, therefore, the criteria which has been adoptedformakingthebenefitsofthenotificationavailablehasno nexustotheobjectsoughttobeachievedbytheamendmentand, therefore, impugnedclause 10 (a)is violative of Article 14of the Constitution of India. He submits that the Government issued

om

Notificationdated2ndMarch,2009layingdownthatthecarpetarea ofresidentialtenementtobeallottedforrehabilitationwouldbe300 squarefeet.Itwasprovidedthatthenotificationwillcomeintoforce on such day as the modification is published in the Government Gazette.TheStateGovernmentconsequenttoGovt.Resolutiondated

ba y

ig h

restrictingthebenefitsoftheNotificationtotheschemeswherethe

C ou
11/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

2nd March,2009issuednotificationdated21st May,2011.However, perusalofNotificationdated21stMay,2011showsthatitproceedson thebasisthatexistingminimum carpetarea tobe allottedfor the

purposeofrehabilitationis225squarefeet,thereby,implyingthatthe modification made by Notification dated 2 nd March, 2009 had not come into force. However, in the communication dated 16 th

DevelopmentDepartmentoftheGovernmentofMaharashtrabythe DeputyDirectorofTownPlanning,itisstatedthatthemodification madebynotificationdated2ndMarch,2009hascomeintoforce.Even in the report submitted by the same Deputy Director dated 16 th November, 2009 to the Principal Secretary, it is stated that while issuing the draft notification, pursuant to which notification dated 21st May,2011wasissued,cognizanceofthemodificationmadeby

om

notificationdated2nd March,2009hasnotbeentaken.Hesubmits thatifclause10(a)ofthenotificationdated21 stMay,2011isgiven effect, only those occupants of category A building whose rehabilitationbuildinghasnotreachedthestageofcompletionofthe plinthconstructionwouldbeentitledtolargerarea.Inotherwords,

ba y

ig h

November,2009,addressedtothePrincipalSecretaryintheUrban

C ou
12/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

in case the construction of rehabilitation building has crossed the stageofplinthconstructionthenthoughwithoutcompromisingon thestrengthofthestructureandstabilityofthebuildingwithsuitable modificationinsanctionedbuildingplan,occupantswillhavetobe

givenlargerarea.Theownerisnotabletodosobecauseinviewof theimpugnedclause10(a)hewillnotbeabletogettheincreased

F.S.I.shoulddependonthestabilityandstrengthofthebuildingand notonthefactwhetherconstructionoftheplinthhasbeencompleted ornot.Incase,constructionoftheplinthiscompletedbefore21 st May, 2011 nothing prevents the owner from demolishing the constructedportionandrestartalloveragainsothathecanavailof the benefits under notification dated 21 st May, 2011. But though someownersmaybeinapositiontoconstructabuildinginwhich

om

larger area can be given to the occupant without demolition of a portion of the construction he is not permitted to do so. This is arbitraryand,volativeoftheArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia. 9 He further submits that the impugned clause 10 (a) is

completely unreasonable and untenable in as much as no logical,

ba y

ig h

F.S.I.Grantoflargerareatotheoccupantsandconsequentincreased

C ou
13/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

objectiveandpragmaticreasoningforthesamecanbededucedmuch less be satisfactorily accepted. The impugned clause creates an unwarranted,illegalandunlawfuldivideandinequalityamongstthe developers/builderswithoutrhymeorreason. Hesubmitsthatthe

Petitionersarereadyandwillingtocomplywithallotherformalities asrequiredbyDevelopmentControlRulesand/orinexistingRules

occupants. He submits that the restriction imposed by the Respondents in clause 10 (a) is against justice, equity and good conscienceandthesaidrestrictionisliabletobestruckdown.

10

appearingonbehalfoftheRespondentnos.1to4StateMHADA vehemently opposed the present Petition. She submits that the

om

Petitionershadknowledgeofnotificationdated2 ndMarch,2009,that conversion is permissible only before the completion of the plinth level work, but they continued with the construction and even completed the rehab buildings with notice. She submits that amendmentofthesaidparagraph10(a)fromtimetotimewasmade

ba y

On the other hand, the learned counsel Ms. P .D. Anklesaria

ig h

andRegulations,sothattheycanprovidemaximumbenefittothe

C ou
14/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

under and according to the provisions of Section 37 (2) of the MaharashtraRegionalTownPlanningAct,withpublicnoticeofthe

draftoftheproposedamendmentinvitingobjectionsandsuggestions fromthepublic.Noobjectionsand/orsuggestionswerereceivedfrom

thePetitioners.Therefore,thePetitionfiledbythePetitionersisliable tobedismissedonthegroundoflaches.

11

Ms.Anklesariafurthersubmitsthatchanges/amendmentmade

in clause 10 (a) in Appendix III [Regulation 33(7)] of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 is a policydecisionoftheGovernmenttakeninpublicinterest.Itisnot

andmalafide.Thewholepurposeofthechangeistoprovidesafety andstabilitytotheoccupantsoftheredevelopedbuildingandalsoto

om

avoidthepossibledelayandinconveniencelikelytobecausedtothe occupants who are homeless and those who are staying in transit camps.Therefore,thereisnosubstanceinthepresentPetitionand thesameisliabletobedismissed. 12 TheRespondentnos.3and4MHADAhavealsofiledtheir

writtensubmissions.
15/41

ba y

liabletobechallengedunlessthePetitionersshowthatitisarbitrary

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

13

Afterhearingboththesidesatlength,theprincipalpointwhich

emergesforconsiderationinthepresentWritPetitionis:whether therestrictionimposedintheamendedclause10(a)inAppendixIII [Regulation 33 (7)] of the Development Control Regulations for GreaterMumbai,1991,isviolativeofArticle14oftheConstitution

14

TodeterminethepointinvolvedinthepresentPetition,itis

necessarytoreproducesomeoftheprovisionsoftheDevelopment ControlRegulationsfor Greater Mumbai,1991.The Regulation 33 (7)ofAppendixIIIreadsthus:

APPENDIXIII [REGULATION33(7)] REGULATIONS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF CESSED BUILDINGS IN THE ISLANDCITYBYLANDLORDAND/ORCOOPERATIVE HOUSINGSOCIETIES(D.C.REGULATIONNO.33(7)) 1.(a) Thenewbuildingmaybepermittedtobe constructed in pursuance of an irrevocable written consentbynotlessthan70percentoftheoccupiersof theoldbuilding. (b) Alltheoccupantsoftheoldbuildingshall bereaccommodatedintheredevelopedbuilding.

om

ba y

ig h

ofIndia?

C ou
16/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc 2. Eachoccupantshallberehabilitatedand given the carpet area occupied by him for residential purpose in the old building subject of the minimum carpetareaof20.90sqmt.(225sqft.)and/ormaximum carpetareaupto70sqmt.(753sqft.)asprovidedinthe MHADAAct,1976.Incaseofnonresidentialoccupier theareatobegiveninthereconstructedbuildingwillbe equivalenttotheareaoccupiedintheoldbuilding. 3. Thelistofoccupantsandareaoccupiedby eachofthemintheoldcessedbuildingshallbecertified bytheMumbaiRepairsandReconstructionboardand the irrevocable written consent as specified in 1(a) aboveshallbecertifiedbytheBoard. 4. The tenements in the reconstructed buildingsshallbeallottedbythelandlord/occupants'co operativehousingsocietytotheoccupiersasperthelist certified by the Mumbai Repairs and Reconstruction Board.Theprescribedpercentageofthesurplusbuiltup areaasprovidedintheTableintheThirdScheduleof the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976,shallbemadeavailabletotheMumbaiRepairs and Reconstruction Board for accommodating the occupants in transit camps or cessed buildings which cannotbereconstructed,onpaymentofanamountas maybeprescribedunderMHADAAct,1976. 5. The FSI for rehabilitation of existing tenants/occupiers in a reconstructed building and incentiveFSIthatwillbeavailableshallbeasunder: (a) In case of redevelopment of A category cessed building undertaken by landlord and/or co operative Housing Societies of landlord and/or occupiers,thetotalFSIshallbe2.5ofthegrossplotarea oftheFSIrequiredforrehabilitationofexistingoccupier plus50%incentiveFSI,whicheverismore. (b) In case of redevelopment scheme of B categorycessedbuildingundertakenbylandlordand/or cooperative Housing Societies of landlord and/or 17/41

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:16 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc occupiers, the total FSI shall be the FSI required for rehabilitation of existing occupier plus 50% incentive FSI. (c) Incaseofcompositeredevelopmentof'A', 'B', and 'C' category cessed buildings declared as dangerousbytheBoardbeforeMonsoon of1997,FSI availableforredevelopmentundertakenbythelandlord and/or cooperative Societies of landlord and/or occupiers, will be as available for 1A category cessed buildingsvidesubclause(a)above. (d) In case of composite redevelopment undertaken by the different landlords and/or Co operative Housing Societies of Landlords and/or occupiersjointlyof2ormoreplotsbutnotlessthan5 plots with'A','B'and'C'categorycessedbuildingsthe FSI permissible will be 2.5 of FSI required for rehabilitation of existing occupiers plus60% incentive FSI,whicheverismore. Provided however, that if the number of plots jointlyundertakenforredevelopmentissixofmorethe incentive FSI available will be 2.5 or FSI required of rehabilitation for occupiers plus 70% incentive FSI whicheverismore. 6. The entire FSI available under clause 5 shall be allowed to be utilised on plot/plots under redevelopmentscheme.However,iftheowner/societyso desirescanavailtheincentiveFSIinthesameplotor canavailthebenefitofTransferableDevelopmentRights tobeusedinsuburbsorextendedsuburbsinaccordance withtheRegulationsasgiveninappendixVII. 7. Construction or reconstruction of old building falling under reservation/zones contemplated in the Development plan shall be permitted in accordance with the provision of notification No.TBP 4392/4080A/RDP/UD11,dated3 rdJune,1992issued underSection31oftheMR&TPAct.

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
18/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc (a) Redevelopment/reconstructioninanyzone shall be allowed to be taken in site without going throughtheprocessofchangeofzone.Fortheindustrial user the existing segregating distance shall be maintainedfromtheexistingindustrialunit. (b) Anyplotundernonbuildablereservations admeasuringonlyupto500sqmtsmaybeclearedby shiftingtheexistingtenantsfromthatsite. (c) The stipulation of 33 per cent of area under nonbuildablereservationmaybereducedbythe Government/Commissioner to the extent necessary wherethereareheightandsuchotherrestrictions. (d) Forotherbuildablereservationsonlands whereguidelinesapprovedbyGovernmentunderSection 31oftheMaharashtraRegionalandTownPlanningAct arenotavailable,builtupareaequaltonotmorethan 15percentareaoftheentireplotor25percentofthe area under reservation in the plot, whichever is less, shall be made available free of cost for Municipal Corporationorforanyotherappropriate Authority. (e) Where a Development Plan Road passes throughredevelopmentschemearea,the entire FSI admissibleunderthisregulationfortheareaoftheroad maybegiveninthe samesite,ontheremainderofthe plot. (f) ContraveningstructuresinTownPlanning Scheme regulations shall also be included in the redevelopmentschemeFSIforthesamewillbeasunder DevelopmentControlRegulation33(15)orasprovided inthisregulationwhicheverismore. 8. Relaxation in building and other requirements for rehabilitation. Notwithstanding anythingcontainedintheseregulations,therelaxations 19/41

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc incorporated in regulations No.33 (10) of these regulationsshallapply. 9. 20%oftheincentiveFSIcanbeusedfor nonresidential purposes otherwise permissible in the DevelopmentControlRegulations. 10. (a) In case of redevelopment scheme alreadyinprogress,iffulloccupationpermissionhasnot beengranted,thenCooperativeSocietyofthelandlords and/ortheoccupiersoroftheCorporationbuildingmay convert the proposal in accordance with these regulations subject to submitting structural stability certificatefromthelicensedStructuralEngineer. (b) In case of redevelopment of buildings undertaken by MHADA, where construction is in progress,whethertheareaofnewtenementshouldbe 20.90sqmt.orotherwisethequestionshallbedecided byMHADAineachcase.However,ifareaoftenementsis notincreasedto20.90sqmt.thendevelopmentwillhave tobecarriedoutasperapprovedplanandFSI.

om

ba y

11. The FSI as in subregulation (7) of Regulation33shouldbeallowedbytheCommissioner onlyafterMumbaiRepairsandReconstructionBoardis satisfiedthatthesaidredevelopmentproposalfulfillsall conditions to be eligible for the benefits under these regulations. 12. In case of redevelopment of cessed buildings,theconcessionsregardingexclusion ofareas fromcomputationofFSIforgeneralbuildingsstipulated inRegulation35(2)ofDCRforGreaterMumbai1991 shallapply. 13. Since the permissible FSI in clause 5 of this Appendix is dependent upon the number of occupiersandtheactualareaoccupiedbythem,nonew tenancy created after 13.6.1996 shall be considered. Furtherunauthorisedconstructionsmadeinthecessed 20/41

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc buildingsshallnotbeconsideredwhilecomputationof existingFSI.However,theoccupiermaybeallowedto declare whether the tenement is residential or non residential. 14. For smooth implementation of the redevelopment shcme undertaken by owners and/or Cooperative Housing Society of the occupiers, the temporarytransitcampsmaybepermittedonthesame landorlandsituateadelsewherebelongingtothesame owner/developerwiththeconcessionspermissibleunder SRS project under Regulation 33 (10) of these regulations. Such transit camps should be demolished withinonemonthfromthedateofoccupationcertificate granted by the Corporation of the reconstructed buildings. Note:Allirregulations/modificationsmentioned above shall not be applicable to the areas which are affectedbyCoastalRegulationZoneNotificationissued byMinistryofEnvironmentandForest,Governmentof IndiavideNotificationdated19th February,1991and ordersissuedfromtimetotime. (emphasissupplied)

15

om

16

dated25thJanuary,1999readsthus:
10.(a) In case of redevelopment schemes already in progress, if full occupation permission has not been granted, then Cooperative Society of the landlords and/or the occupiers or of the Corporation buildingmay converttheproposalinaccordancewith 21/41

ba y

ThedefinitionofplinthinRegulation2(71)readsthus:
2. (71) "Plinth" means the portion of a structure between the surface of the surrounding ground and surfaceofthefloorimmediatelyabovetheground.

Clause10(a)Theamendedclause10(a)aspernotification

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc these regulations subject to submitting structural stability certificate from the licensed Structural Engineer. (emphasissupplied)

17

As per the Government Resolution dated 2 nd March, 2009,

amendedclause10(a)readsthus:

AspertheGovernmentResolutiondated21 stMay,2011,clause

om

10(a) InthecaseofRedevelopmentSchemeinprogress andsuchschemeswhereLOIhasbeenissuedandifthe constructionofrehabbuildingisnotcompletedupto plinth level, then Owner/Developer/Coop. Housing SocietieswiththepriorapprovalofGovt.mayconvert the proposal in accordance with modified regulations only regarding size of tenements and loading of FSI, insitu.However,suchconversionisoptionalandshall notbebinding. (emphasissupplied)

18

providemaximumbenefittotheoccupierstoberehabilitated;butat thesametime,theyhavetoseethesafetyandstabilityofthebuilding also.SafetydesignsmeanstheintegrationofControlmeasuresinthe designprocesstoeliminateorifthisisnotreasonableorpracticable

22/41

ba y

ItistobenotedthatthemainobjectoftheRespondentsisto

10(a)readsthus:

ig h

10(a) Incaseofredevelopmentschemesalready inprogressand buildingisnotcompleteduptoplinth level then proposal may be converted in accordance with the above modified regulations. However, such conversionisoptionalandnotbinding.

(emphasissupplied)

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

minimum risk to the health and safety throughout the life of the structurebeingdesigned.Safetydesignisbasedontheprinciplethat everyonehasarighttobeprotectedfromunnecessaryriskofinjury orharm.Initially,occupantswereentitledto180squarefeetareain redevelopment.Thereafter,itwasincreasedto225squarefeetvide GovernmentResolutiondated25th January,1999.Atthattime,the

wheretheconstructionisinprogressandoccupationcertificateisnot issuedtheowner/developerwouldbeentitledtoadditionalFSIi.e. 2.5.Thereafter,clause2ofAppendixIIIofRegulationNo.33(7)was amendedbytheGovernmentResolutiondated2 nd March,2009.It increasedthecarpetareato300sq.ft.andstipulatedthatforavailing thebenefitsundertheResolutiontheconstructionofabuildingmust not have been completed up to the plinth level. Thereafter, by

om

notification dated 21st May, 2011, the Government sanctioned the modificationtotheRegulationNo.33(7)ofDCRules.However,this Resolution does not make reference to the increase in FSI norms. Moreover,theconditionthatifredevelopmentschemeisalreadyin progressandbuildingisnotcompleteduptoplinthlevel,onlythen

ba y

ig h

Government Policy was that in case of redevelopment of building

C ou
23/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

the proposal can be considered in accordance with modified Regulation, is bereft of any logic. In that, in cases where the developer/builderisabletosubstantiateandsatisfytheAuthorities that the construction already put up by them, albeit beyond the plintharea,wasastablestructureandcansafelybeartheadditional loadduetoincreaseofFSI,therecanbenotangiblereasontodeny

permitting usage of additional FSI after the construction of the buildingisalreadycommenced,oughttobestabilityofthestructure tobeartheadditionalloadandnotthethestageofitsconstruction. Indeed,iftheconstructionisanongoingoneandhasnotreachedthe stage of issuance of occupation certificate, coupled with the possibilityofthealreadyconstructedstructurebeingstableenoughto taketheloadofadditionalFSI,whichisotherwisepermissibleasper

om

the amended Regulation, would have deleterious and serious civil consequences for the owner/builder of having been permenantly deprivedoftheadditionalFSI.Whereas,similarlyplacedpersonsmay availofadditionalFSImerelybecausetheirconstructionworkhad notexceededtheplinthlevel.Suchclassificationhasnonexuswith

ba y

ig h

the benefit of amended Regulations. The core element for

C ou
24/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

theobjectsoughttobeachievedinthecontextofthestabilityofthe structuretobeartheadditionalFSIload. Therefore,thecondition providedinclause10(a)asamendedbyResolutiondated2 ndMarch 2009andnotifiedon21stofMay2011,thatinordertoavailofthe

benefits provided therein, the owner or developer must not have completedtheconstructionexceedingtheplinthlevelhasnorational

oftheoccupiers/tenantsinthereconstructedbuilding. 19 TheargumentoftheStateAuthoritiesthattheCertificationto

bedonebytheArchitectoftheProjectregardingstructuralstabilityis

stability of the building is completely secured. This argument completely overlooks the known commercial practice and host of

om

literaturebyauthoritiesonthesubjectregardingmethodologytobe followed before issuance of structural stability certificate and regarding structural engineering and structural strengthening mechanisms.For,itmay be useful to refer to the work of M.J.Monteiro & Prof. N.J.Pathak titled as Structural Soundness of Buildings in International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering ISSN 0974-5904,
25/41

ba y

alwaysverysubjective;andthereisnoguaranteethatthestructural

ig h

toornexuswiththeobjectsoughttobeachieved.Towit,thesafety

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

Volume 04, No 06 SPL, October 2011, 00.677-680; paper titled Nondestructive Testing of Concrete Structural Engineering Forum available on

f1fe60a101c8d5cb6c8166da0; by Kumar K.Ghosh, Vistasp M.Karbhari titled Assessment of FRP Composite Strengthened Reinforced Concrete

Structures at the component and Systems Level through Progressive Damage and Non-Destructive Evaluation published in the Journal `Structural Systems' Research Project of the University of the California; by Suresh Chandra Pattanaik titled Structural Strengthening of Damaged

http://www.drfixitinstitute.com/dowload/ microconcrete-publication.pdf; by Tarek

Using External Post-Tensioning Systems appearing in Journal 'Structural Practices' of July, 2009 available on http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?

om

articleID=932; by Tarek Alkhrdaji, Ph.D., P.E. and Jay Thomas titled Keys

to Success: Structural repair and strengthening techniques for concrete facilities with specific reference to significant number of facilities in the Unites States which were constructed during the first half of the 20 th Century using reinforced or prestressed concrete materials available on
http://www.cenews.com/magazine-article-gostructural.com-may-2004-keys_to_

ba y

Alkhrdaji, Ph.D., P.E. and Jay Thomas titled Structural Strengthening

R.C.C. Structures with Polymer Modified Concrete available on

ig h

C ou
26/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

http://www.sefindia.org/forum/download.php?id=5862&sid=3875205

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc success_structural_repair_and_strengthening_techniques_for_concrete_facilities4146.html.

looking at the structure or its size, but only after carrying out specified scientific chemical tests for ascertaining the strength and stabilityofthestructure. ItisopentotheMunicipalAuthoritiesto

there are known scientific mechanisms to have an objective assessmentaboutthestrengthandstabilityofthestructurealready

dependantonthefoundationofthebuildingbutalsoonfulfillmentof

structure and the possibility of taking additional load on the construction already done as per the approved plan. That is a

om

technical matter of Structural Engineering and structure strengthening mechanisms. It is possible for the Municipal Authoritiestoprovide for veryhighstandardsofthose parameters and norms while considering the request for permission to have additionalFSIonthestructurealreadyconstructed,progressively.In other words, higher level of completed construction must satisfy
27/41

ba y

other parameters which can define the factum of stability of the

constructed. Further, the stability of the structure is not fully

ig h

insistforaveryhighstandardoftestnorms.Sufficeittoobservethat

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

20

The Structural Stability Certificate is not issued by merely

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

higher benchmark than the benchmark prescribed for permitting additional FSI in respect of building when construction has not exceededtheplinthlevel.Thatrestrictionmaybeareasonableand permissible restriction but applying the yardstick of the level of construction completed, as in this case plinth level, by itself, is completelyignoringtheelementofadequacyofstrengthorstability

aforesaid, it is known commercial practice of strengthening the existingbuildingbymeansofreinforcementofthecolumnstomake itstrongerandstable. Bythatprocess,thestabilityofthestructure canbeenhancedtothelevelrequired,soastotaketheburdenof additional FSI. This can be insisted by the Municipal Authorities keepinginmindthesafeguardsprovidedundertheextantbuilding Regulations, before issuance of occupation certificate for such

om

building. The safeguards in the building Regulations to ensure stabilityandsafetyofthebuildingandobligationoftheowneror developer to carry out the work in accordance with those RegulationscanbediscernedfromRegulation6oftheDevelopment ControlRules,whichreadsthus:

ba y

ig h

of structure already constructed to take the additional load. As

C ou
28/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc 6.Procedureduringconstruction: (1) Construction to be in conformity with Regulations.Owner'sliability:Neitherthegrantof permission nor approval of the drawings and specifications, nor inspections by the Commissioner duringerectionofthebuilding,shallinanywayrelieve theownerofsuchbuildingfromfullresponsibilityfor carrying out the work in accordance with these Regulations. (2) Notice for start of work:The owner shall givenoticetotheCommissionerofhisintentiontostart workonthebuildingsiteintheformgiveninAppendix XV.Theownermaystarttheworkafter7dayshave elapsedfromthedateoftheservicesuchnoticetothe Commissionerorearlier,ifsopermitted. (3)Documentsatsite: (I) Results of tests: Where tests of anymaterialare made to ensure conformity with therequirementsoftheseRegulations,records of the testdatashallbekeptavailableforinspection duringtheconstructionofthebuildingandfor such period thereafter as required by the Commissioner. (ii) Developmentpermission:Thepersonto whomadevelopmentpermissionisissuedshall,during construction,keep (a) postedinaconspicuousplace,onthesite forwhichpermissionhasbeenissued,acopyof thedevelopmentpermission;and (b) a copy of the approved drawings and specificationsreferredtoin Regulation5onthesitefor whichthepermitwasissued. (4) Checkingofplinthcolumnsuptoplinth level:The owner through his licensed surveyor, engineer, structural engineer or supervisor or his architectshallgivenoticeintheformofAppendixXVI 29/41

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc to the Commissioner on completion of work upto plinthleveltoenabletheCommissionertoensurethat the work conforms to the sanctioned plans. The Commissioner may inspect the work jointly with the licensed technical personal or architect within fifteen daysfromthereceiptofsuchnoticeandeithergiveor refuse permission for further construction as per the sanctioned plans in the form in Appendix XVII. If within this period, the permission is not refused, it shallbedeemedtohavebeengivenprovidedthework iscarriedoutaccordingtothesanctionedplans. (5) Deviation during constructions:If duringtheconstructionofabuilding,anydepartureof a substantial nature from the sanctioned plans is intended by way of internal or external additions, sanction of the Commissioner shall be necessary. A revisedplanshowingthedeviationsshallbesubmitted and the procedure laid down for the original plans heretoforeshallapplytoallsuchamendedplans.Any work done in contravention of the sanctioned plans, withoutpriorapprovaloftheCommissioner,shallbe deemedasunauthorised.

om

ba y

(6) Completion certificate:The owner, throughhislicensedplumber,shallfurnishadrainage completioncertificatetotheCommissionerintheform in Appendix XIX. The owner through his licensed surveyor/engineer/structural engineer/supervisor or hisarchitect,whohassupervisedtheconstruction,shall furnish a building completion certificate to the Commissioner in the form in Appendix XX. These certificatesshallbeaccompaniedbythreesetsofplans ofthecompleteddevelopment.TheCommissionershall inspecttheworkand,aftersatisfyinghimselfthatthere is no deviation from the approved plans, issue a certificateofacceptanceofthecompletionofthework intheforminAppendixXXI. (7) OccupancyCertificate:Onreceiptofthe acceptance of completion certificate in the form in 30/41

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc Appendix XXI, the owner, through his licensed surveyor/engineer/structural engineer/supervisor or his architect, shall submit to the Commissioner a development completion certificate in the form in Appendix XVIII with three copies of the completion plan,oneofwhichshallbeclothmountedforrecord. The Commissioner may inspect the work and after satisfyinghimselfthatthereisnodeviationfromthe sanctionedplans,issueanoccupancycertificateinthe form in Appendix XXII or refuse to sanction the occupancycertificatewithin21daysfromthedateof receiptofthesaidcompletioncertificate,failingwhich theworkshallbedeemedtohavebeenapprovedfor occupation,providedtheconstructionconformstothe sanctioned plans. One set of plans, certified by the Commissionerasthecompletedplans,shallbereturned to the owner alongwith the occupancy certificate. Wheretheoccupancycertificateisrefusedorrejected, the reasons for refusal or rejection shall be given in intimationoftherejectionorrefusal. (8) Part occupancy certificate:When requestedbytheholderofthedevelopmentpermission, the Commissioner may issue a part occupancy certificate for a building or part thereof, before completionoftheentirework,asperthedevelopment permission,providedsufficientprecautionarymeasures are taken by the holder to ensure public safety and health.Theoccupancycertificateshallbesubjecttothe owner'sindemnifyingtheCommissionerintheformin AppendixXXIII. (emphasissupplied)

om

21

additionalFSIaftertheconstructionhasexceededtheplinthlevel,it wouldimmediatelyentailindelayandinconveniencetobecausedto theoccupantswhoarehomelessandaccommodatedin the transit

ba y

Theargumentoftherespondentsthatbyallowingloadingof

ig h

C ou
31/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

camps,doesnotcommendtous. Thedelayincompletionofwork cannotbesolelyattributabletochangeandmodificationofapproved plans whilst the construction is in progress. It is not unknown, ratheritiscommonpracticeofsubmittingsuccessiveamendedplans totheoriginallyapprovedplans,inmostcases.Theremayhardlybe

anycasewhentheamendmentoftheapprovedplanisnotproposed

having a norm only if the construction of the building has not exceededuptoaparticularlevelonthiscount, doesnotstandto reason; much less it cannot stand the test of reasonableness, as predicatedinArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.

22

theplinthlevelisprescribedasperRegulationno.6(4)inAppendix

om

XVIIwhichshowsthatMunicipalAuthoritieshavefullpowertoverify whether the foundation/plinth can bear additional load if the developer/contractoravailsofthebenefitofamendedclause10(a)as pertheGovernmentResolutiondated21 stMay,2011.Thereisforce in the argument of the petitioners that the impugned condition violatesArticle14of the Constitution, whichprovide for equality
32/41

ba y

Theformofapproval/disapprovalofdevelopmentworkupto

ig h

whilsttheconstructionworkisinprogress.Thus,thejustificationof

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

beforethelaw.Itistobenotedthattheprincipleslaiddownbythe ApexCourtinthematterof RamKrishnaDalmiavs.JusticeS.R. Tendolkar reported in AIR 1958 SC 538 for invalidity of the Act and/orthenotificationareasunder:

"TheprovisionsofArticle14oftheConstitution have come up for discussion before this Court in a number of cases, namely, Chiranjit Lal Choudhuri v. TheUnionofIndia[(1950)SCR869],TheState,of Bombayv.F.N.Balsara [(1951)SCR682],TheState ofWestBengalv.AnwarAliSarkar[(1952)SCR284], Kathi Baning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra [(1952) SCR 435] Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja v. TheStateOfBombay[(1952)SCR710],QasimRazvi v. The State of Hyderabad [(1953) SCR 581] and HabeebMohamadv.TheStateofHyderabad [(1953) SCR661].Itis,therefore,notnecessarytoenterupon any lengthy discussion as to the meaning, scope and effect of the article in question. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation,itdoesnotforbidreasonableclassification forthepurposesoflegislation.Inorder,however,topass thetestofpermissibleclassificationtwoconditionsmust befulfilled,namely,(i)thattheclassificationmustbe founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped togetherfromothersleftoutofthegroup,and(ii)that that differentia must have a rational relation to the objectsoughttobeachievedbythestatuteinquestion. The classification may be founded on different bases,

om

ba y

ig h

11. Theprincipalgroundurgedinsupportof thecontentionastotheinvalidityoftheActand/orthe notification is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution. In Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar [(1955)1SCR1045]aConstitutionBenchof sevenJudgesofthisCourtatpages104849explained thetruemeaningandscopeofArticle14asfollows:

C ou
33/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupationsorthelike.Whatisnecessaryisthatthere mustbeanexusbetweenthebasisofclassificationand theobjectoftheActunderconsideration.Itisalsowell establishedbythedecisionsofthisCourtthatArticle14 condemnsdiscriminationnotonlybyasubstantivelaw butalsobyalawofprocedure." The principle enunciated above has been consistently adoptedandappliedinsubsequentcases.Thedecisions ofthisCourtfurtherestablish

om

ba y

(c)thatitmustbepresumedthatthelegislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its ownpeople,thatitslawsaredirectedtoproblemsmade manifestbyexperienceandthatitsdiscriminationsare basedonadequategrounds; (d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to thosecaseswheretheneedisdeemedtobetheclearest; (e)thatinordertosustainthepresumptionof constitutionalitythecourtmaytakeintoconsideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report,thehistoryofthetimesandmayassumeevery state of facts which can be conceived existing at the timeoflegislation;and (f)thatwhilegoodfaithandknowledgeofthe existingconditionsonthepartofalegislaturearetobe presumed,ifthereisnothingonthefaceofthelawor thesurroundingcircumstancesbroughttothenoticeof thecourtonwhichtheclassificationmayreasonablybe 34/41

(b)thatthereisalwaysapresumptioninfavour oftheconstitutionalityofanenactmentandtheburden isuponhimwhoattacksittoshowthattherehasbeen acleartransgressionoftheconstitutionalprinciples;

ig h

(a) that a law may be constitutional even thoughitrelatestoasingleindividualif,onaccountof somespecialcircumstancesorreasonsapplicabletohim andnotapplicabletoothers,thatsingleindividualmay betreatedasaclassbyhimself;

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc regardedasbased,thepresumptionofconstitutionality cannotbecarriedtotheextentofalwaysholdingthat theremustbesomeundisclosedandunknownreasons for subjecting certain individuals or corporations to hostileordiscriminatinglegislation.

Theaboveprincipleswillhavetobeconstantly borneinmindbythecourtwhenitiscalleduponto adjudge the constitutionality of any particular law attacked as discriminatory and violative of theequal protectionofthelaws. 12. A close perusal of the decisions of this Court in which the above principles have been enunciated and applied by this Court will also show thatastatutewhichmaycomeupforconsiderationon a question of its validity under Art. 14 of the Constitution, may be placed in one or other of the followingfiveclasses: (i) A statute may itself indicate the persons or thingstowhomitsprovisionsareintendedtoapplyand thebasisoftheclassificationofsuchpersonsorthings may appear on the face of the statute or may be gatheredfromthesurroundingcircumstancesknownto orbroughttothenoticeofthecourt.Indeterminingthe validityorotherwiseofsuchastatutethecourthasto examine whether such classification is or can be reasonably regarded as based upon some differentia which distinguishes such persons or things grouped togetherfromthoseleftoutofthegroupandwhether suchdifferentiahasareasonablerelationtotheobject soughttobeachievedbythestatute,nomatterwhether theprovisionsofthestatuteareintendedtoapplyonly toaparticularpersonorthingoronlytoacertainclass of persons or things. Where the court finds that the classification satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity of the law, as it did in Chiranjitlal Chowdhriv.TheUnionofIndia[(1950)S.C.R.869], TheStateofBombayv.F.N.Balsara [(1951)S.C.R. 682],KedarNathBajoriav.TheStateofWestBengal [(1954)S.C.R.30,S.M.SyedMohammad&Company v. The State of Andhra [(1954) S.C.R. 1117] and

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
35/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc Budhan Choudhry v. The State of Bihar [(1955) 1 SCR1045. (ii) A statute may direct its provisions against one individual person or thing or to several individualpersonsorthingsbutnoreasonablebasisof classification may appear on the face of it or be deducible from the surrounding circumstances, or mattersofcommonknowledge.Insuchacasethecourt will strike down the law as an instance of naked discrimination, as it did in Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum [(1953) SCR 404] and Ramprasad NarainSahiv.TheStateofBihar[(1953)SCR1129]. (iii) Astatutemaynotmakeanyclassificationofthe persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions but may leave it to the discretion of the Governmenttoselectandclassifypersonsorthingsto whom itsprovisionsaretoapply.In determining the questionofthevalidityorotherwiseofsuchastatute thecourtwillnotstrikedownthelawoutofhandonly becausenoclassificationappearsonitsfaceorbecause a discretion is given to the Government to make the selectionorclassificationbutwillgoontoexamineand ascertainifthestatutehaslaiddownanyprincipleor policyfortheguidanceoftheexerciseofdiscretionby the Government in the matter of the selection or classification.Aftersuchscrutinythecourtwillstrike downthestatuteifitdoesnotlaydownanyprinciple orpolicyforguidingtheexerciseofdiscretionbythe Governmentinthematterofselectionorclassification, on the ground that the statute provides for the delegationofarbitraryanduncontrolledpowertothe Governmentsoastoenableittodiscriminatebetween personsorthingssimilarlysituateandthat,therefore, the discrimination is inherent in the statute itself. In suchacasethecourtwillstrikedownboththelawas wellastheexecutiveactiontakenundersuchlaw,asit did in State of West Bengal v. Anwar, Ali Sarkar [(1952)SCR 284], Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. TheStateofUttarPradesh[(1954)S.C.R.803]and

om

ba y

ig h

C ou
36/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc DhirendraKrishnaMandalv.TheSuperintendentand RemembrancerofLegalAffairs[(1955)1SCR224]. (iv)Astatutemaynotmakeaclassificationof the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions and may leave it to the discretion of the Governmenttoselectandclassifythepersonsorthings to whom its provisions are to apply but may at the same time lay down a policy or principle for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of such selection or classification, the court will uphold the law as constitutional,asitdidin KathiRaningRawatv.The StateofSaurashtra[(1952)SCR435]. (v)Astatutemaynotmakeaclassificationof the persons or things to whom their provisions are intendedtoapplyandleaveittothediscretionofthe Governmenttoselectorclassifythepersonsorthings forapplyingthoseprovisionsaccordingtothepolicyor theprinciplelaiddownbythestatuteitselfforguidance oftheexerciseofdiscretionbytheGovernmentinthe matter of such selection or classification. If the Government in making the selection or classification doesnotproceedonorfollowsuchpolicyorprinciple,it has been held by this Court, e. g., in Kathi Raning Rawatv.TheStateofSaurashtra [(1952)SCR435] that in such a case the executive action but not the statuteshouldbecondemnedasunconstitutional. Inthelightoftheforegoingdiscussionsthequestionat once arises: In what category does the Act or the notificationimpugnedintheseappealsfall? (emphasissupplied)

om

23

keptinmindwhilestrikingdownanystatuteoranyprovisionthereof on the ground that it offends the provisions of Article 14 of the ConstitutionofIndiawhichprovidesforequalitybeforethelaw. In

ba y

Theaboveprinciples,restatedbytheApexCourt,havetobe

ig h

C ou
37/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

order to pass the test of permissible classification broadly two conditionsmustbefulfilled,namely;(1)thattheclassificationmust befoundedonanintelligibledifferentiawhichdistinguishespersons orthingsthataregroupedtogetherfromothersleftoutofthegroup and,(2)that,thatdifferentiamusthavearationalnexuswiththe objectsoughttobeachievedbythestatuteinquestion.

24

In the present case, the classification made in the

Resolutiondated21stMay2011foravailingofincreasedcarpetarea andloadingofFSI,isonthebasisofthestageofconstructionofthe building(uptotheplinthlevel).Thus,ifabuildingisnotcompleted

be claimed; but the benefits cannot be claimed even if the constructionalreadydoneabovetheplinthlevelisstrongenoughto

om

withstand the load of additional FSI. For the reasons already discussedabove,wefindthatthedifferentiaprovidedthereinforthe classification, the two tests mentioned above are not fulfilled. Therefore,inouropinion,theimpugnedconditionishitbyArticle 14oftheConstitutionofIndiaandassuchitisliabletobestruck down.
38/41

ba y

uptotheplinthlevel,thebenefitsprovidedinthesaidnotificationcan

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

25

TheobjectionsraisedbytheRespondentsaboutthedelayand

lachesinfilingthepresentPetitioncannotbecountenanced,ifthe conditionincorporatedinclause10(a)isagainstthethemandateof Article14oftheConstitution. Inanycase,inthepresentmatter,it has been challenged at the earliest possible opportunity when the AuthorityrefusedtograntbenefittothePetitionersintermsofthe

substanceinthesaidobjectionraisedbytheRespondents.

26

Accordingtotherespondents,thepetitionersaredisentitledon

account of their conduct, for having already entered private

getting additional FSI. In the first place, the challenge to the impugned provision is on the touchstone of Article 14 and its

om

permissibilityaspertheconstitutionalscheme.Further,besidesthis petition,thereisatleastonemorepetitionfiledinwhichthevalidity of the same provision and Government Resolution is put in issue. Therefore,thishypertechnicalobjectionoftherespondentswillnot take the matter any further for the respondents. Accordingly, the sameisnegatived.
39/41

ba y

agreementsandhavechallengedtheprovisiononlytoprofiteerby

ig h

GovernmentResolutiondated21stMay,2011.Therefore,thereisno

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

27

Inviewoftheabove,weholdthattheconditionimposedby

the Respondents under amended clause 10(a) of Development ConstructionRegulation33(7)inAppendixIIIoftheDevelopment

Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 i.e. if the constructionofrehabbuildingisnotcompleteduptoplinthlevel,is

subjecttotheotherprovisionsoftheActandtheRegulationsandin particularonfulfillingthetechnicalrequirementduringconstruction asstatedinRegulation6oftheDevelopmentControlRules,1991and including satisfying the Municipal Authority that the existing structureisstrongenoughtowithstandtheadditionalloaddueto additionalFSIonthebasisofStructuralStabilityCertificatefroma licensedStructuralEngineeraspertheknownnormsinthatregard,

om

thePetitionersmaybepermittedtoavailofthebenefitofamended provisions of Government Resolution dated 21 st May, 2011 i.e. additionalFSIsoastoprovidefortenementsinrehabbuildingof300 sq.ft.carpetareatoalltheallottees.

ba y

ig h

liabletobestruckdown,andhenceitisstruckdown.Itisheldthat

C ou
40/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

rt

wp 2457.2011.doc

28

TheRuleismadeabsoluteontheaboveterms.

29

Noorderastocosts.

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

katkam

om

ba y

H
41/41
::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2013 23:45:17 :::

ig h

(K.K.TATED,J.)

C ou

rt