The Bombay High Court on Monday asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) if Union Minister Narayan Rane's plea seeking regularisation of his house can be considered under Regulations of 2034, enacted only a couple of years ago, despite the building getting an occupational certificate in 2013.
A Division Bench headed by Justice R.D. Dhanuka was hearing a petition filed by Kaalka Real Estate Private Limited, which is associated with Mr. Rane’s family, seeking directions to the civic body to consider a fresh proposal for the regulation of the allegedly unauthorised sections of the BJP leader’s residence under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Senior advocate Anil Sakhare, appearing for the BMC, said any development permission, even in an existing building, will fall under the Development Control and Promotions Regulation (DCPR) 2034.
The court asked, “So existing construction can be regularised using the new DCPR? All the floor space index (FSI), transferable development rights, be adjusted of an old building?”
Mr. Sakhare replied in the affirmative and added that a project affected person (PAP) gives a person fresh FSI for rehabilitation and that is done under DCPR 2034, and Mr. Rane had sought to claim FSI rehabilitating a PAP.
The court asked, “Can the PAP be accommodated anywhere?” To which Mr. Sakhare replied, “No, it has to be within a five kilometre radius.”
The court said the entire plot, along with two other buildings on it, was to be considered as one whole for FSI, according to the BMC, and this was accepted by the court during the previous round of litigation. “There is no consent from the other two societies,” the court said. “In the first round, the petition was rejected on merits, considering the plot as a whole. Today, without the consent of other societies, can the application for regularisation be considered?”
“There is no bar on the second application so long as the defects are removed. It will have to be examined and a decision will have to be taken,” Mr. Sakhare responded.
The Bench said, “The defects pointed out by BMC and accepted by the court, can it cured? One of the reasons is that there is threefold unauthorised regularisation. Whether 300% additional construction would be an irregularity or an unauthorised construction, you have to decide.“
The court directed the civic body to file an affidavit on regulating the plot under DCPR 2034.
