Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Defendant No.1 was granted an IOD to develop Plot A on 17th December, 2009. By the year 2013, Defendant No.1's construction had reached stilt + 2 Podiums + 10 storeys. As of 2019, the construction had reached 12th storey out of the proposed stilt + 2 Podiums + 14 storeys.

7. The Plaintiff addressed a notice to the Municipal Commissioner on 24th November, 2013 through their Advocates wherein it is alleged that development plan had been submitted by Defendant No.1 on the basis of larger property instead of plot A alone. Though the developer of Plot A was to keep a minimum distance of 1.5 meters from the shared perimeter / boundary of Plot B, Defendant No.2 had kept open space around the new building at Plot A but had calculated the said space from the walls of the bungalow of Plot B and not from the common perimeter / boundary line between Plots A and B on the North and West side. The developer of Plot A had built a podium upto the boundary line NMS-1450-2019.DOC which according to Plaintiffs, further open space was required to be kept for any future redevelopment of Plot B. It was thus the contention of the Plaintiffs that minimum open space had not been kept. Further the Developer had failed to ensure provision of 15% RG area on Plot A. The Plaintiffs have claimed that they were not aware of the construction until recently when they claimed to have learnt that the Developer had constructed a podium column at the perimeter between Plot A and B.

8. It is the Plaintiffs case that though in September, 2009 the Plaintiffs had learnt that the then owners of Plot A had negotiated with Defendant No.2 of redevelopment of Plot A and that the Plaintiffs also learnt that owners for Plot No. A had entered into agreement dated 16th February, 2010 with Defendant No.2 for the said purpose, it was only around August, 2013 that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.14 observed that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had carried out the aforementioned construction of podium column touching the common perimeter between Plot A and B without leaving requisite open space as provided under Development Control Rules ("DCR"). The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.14 had appointed their architect to conduct a site inspection to assess the NMS-1450-2019.DOC situation and submit report. It was only upon receiving a report dated 18th November, 2013 from their chartered architect that the violations of DCR which the Defendant No.2 had committed was brought to the knowledge of the Municipal Commissioner on 24th November, 2013.

34. Mr. Kanade has submitted that Regulation 37(31) provides for podium to be permitted in plot admeasuring 1000 meters or more. Since, the subject plot A admeasured only 795.176 sq. meters, the podium could not have been permitted to be erected in the subject plot A. He has submitted that an illegal building has been constructed on subject plot A which is almost touching the common boundary between plot A and plot B on the northern and western sides. Had the plans been submitted only in respect of Plot A, it would never have been sanctioned as it would be de hors the open space requirement of Regulation 41 of the DCPR 2034 and fire safety requirements of Regulation 47 of DCPR 2034.

48. Mr. Kadam has submitted that in view of commercial considerations and the obligation to complete the development on subject plot A, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took a decision to revise the building plans to meet the Plaintiffs' allegations in the Plaint. Under the revised plans, open space was to be maintained of 1.5 meters in the North and West along with the common boundaries between subject plot A and plot B. For creating this open space, the existing portion for podium touching the west boundary line between the subject plot A and plot B was to be demolished. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were to retain the RG area of the proposed building within the subject plot's area, 6 meters of open space would be maintained on the South side of the subject plot A for ingress / egress of fire fighting tenders/vehicles. A fireman's lift would be installed which would open at requisite mid landing point at the staircase. The revised plans took care of the grievance of the Plaintiffs and hence, there was no subsisting basis for continuing the injunction granted under the ad-interim order.