Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(C) Pending admission, hearing this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased get the site situation inspected through independent agency acquainted having technical knowledge with regard to construction on the laws pertaining to it, in the interest of justice.

(D) ......"

3. In both the matters the grievances made and issues raised are common against the grant of commencement letter (Raja Chitthi) dated 03.03.2015 for putting up construction of building for commercial use on land bearing City Survey No.3285, Shahpur Ward No.2, Gamtal, Ahmedabad (the land in question). The commencement Letter is the development permission granted under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 ('the Act') and the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 ('the BPMC Act'). The petitioner of the first matter has its property of hotel HC-NIC Page 3 of 25 Created On Tue Jun 06 01:24:10 IST 2017 known as "Hotel Royal Haynes" (earlier known as "Hotel Roopali") on eastern side touching boundary of the plot in question. The petitioner of the second petition has been in occupation of the land admeasuring 2236 square meters of City Survey No.3293/1 on the western side touching boundary of the land in question as tenant.

9.1.2 Gamtal (CM) This zone constitutes of gamtals having a traditional, organic HC-NIC Page 10 of 25 Created On Tue Jun 06 01:24:10 IST 2017 character and compact development. This zone is identified to conserve this traditional character.

9.1.3 Gamtal Extension (GME) This zone acts as a buffer zone for gamtals to allow their natural growth. It permits land use as per R2 zone.

Then from Regulation 9.1.4 onwards different Zones like Residential Zone - I, II, III, Commercial Zone, Logistic Zone, Industrial Zone etc. are provided. Under Regulation 9.2 Zoning Table is prepared showing Use Zones and zone-wise applicability of the Regulations and permissible uses therein.

8. The developer applied for development permission after it purchased the land in question on 18.6.2014. The copy of the application for development permission is placed on record, wherein it is stated that the land in question is within Village Shahpur, Ward- Shahpur and its Zone is shown as Gamtal (before D.P. 2021) and Gamtal- Core Walled City (After D.P.2021). There is no dispute that the area of Shahpur is covered under the Development Plan- 2021. It is stated at the bar that for development of the land in question, the GDCR framed under the Draft Comprehensive Development Plan 2021 applies and the application for development permission for the land in question is dealt with in accordance with the GDCR.

HC-NIC Page 11 of 25 Created On Tue Jun 06 01:24:10 IST 2017

10. Learned senior advocate Mr.Deven Parikh appearing with learned advocate Mr.M. A. Patel and learned advocate Mr.Zubin Bharda for the petitioners submitted that the development permission granted for the land in question and the construction carried out thereon is in clear violation of the mandatory requirements of keeping margin space, fire safety margin, open-to- sky space, light and ventilation, drainage etc. as per GDCR. Mr.Parikh submitted that as per the provisions made in the Schedule-4 attached with the GDCR, the plan submitted for the development must show the situation of the adjacent property but in the plan sanctioned for the land in question, the properties of the petitioners which are adjacent on both sides of the land in question are not shown but shown as empty place. He submitted that unfortunately, no inspection was carried out either before sanctioning the plan for the land in question or at the time of construction thereon. He submitted that requirement of keeping margin space for the development apply to all Zones. He submitted that even if the development of the land in question is considered to be within Core Walled City, open-to-sky space is to be left as provided in Regulation 10. Mr. Parikh submitted that in fact, as per zoning certificate, the land in question falls within Gamtal but if it is to be considered within the Core Walled City as per the development plan, it could be said to be Gamtal Extension and for Gamtal Extension Regulation 13.6 for margin space will apply. Mr. Parikh submitted that under Regulation 24, strict compliance of fire safety requirements for all buildings in all Zones is to be observed and as per Regulation 24.3, marginal space adjacent to the building as open-to-sky is required to be left. Mr. Parikh submitted that for the land in question, when 65% ground coverage for the building is permissible, remaining 35% open space is meant to cover margin space and open-to-sky space as required under the GDCR. Mr. Parikh submitted that the city survey no.3285 is formed by amalgamating other lands bearing different city survey numbers which is not permitted for development in Core Walled City zone, however, HC-NIC Page 12 of 25 Created On Tue Jun 06 01:24:10 IST 2017 contrary to Regulation 10.2, the plan is sanctioned for amalgamated plot which has resulted in permitting illegal constructions even on the open space then existed before the amalgamation between the land occupied by the petitioner of the first matter and the building of Roopali Cinema originally existed. Mr.Parikh submitted that the development permission granted for such amalgamated plot has violated the rights of the petitioners to receiver light and air through the open space and also caused damage to the properties of the petitioners and even the construction put up on the land in question has totally closed drainage line of the petitioner of the first matter. Mr.Parikh submitted that from the view point of the public health as also the rights of adjoining owners, respondent - authorities were not required to permit any construction on the land in question contrary to the provisions made in the GDCR. He submitted that even though there was no plan sanctioned in the name of the developer, the developer commenced the construction activities causing damage to the adjoining properties of the petitioners. Mr.Parikh submitted that though repeatedly requested, the petitioners were not provided with any information as regards the sanctioning of the plan and the development permission granted with result that on one hand, the developer continued with its construction activity and the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to immediately approach the Court of law. Mr. Parikh submitted that after the petitioners got information as regards sanctioning plan and granting development permission contrary to the GDCR, the petitioner of the first matter could file first petition before this Court and as per the direction of this Court, the Corporation was required to look into the grievance of the petitioners, however, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner has not applied his mind to all the issues raised by the petitioners and has mechanically decided that the construction put up by the developer is not in breach of GDCR. Mr.Parikh has taken through the various provisions of the GDCR to point out that the development permission given, as also the construction put up by the developer are not as per the provisions of HC-NIC Page 13 of 25 Created On Tue Jun 06 01:24:10 IST 2017 the GDCR. Mr.Parikh submitted that the grant of development permission and the construction put up pursuant to the development permission on the land in question have violated the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Act. Mr. Parikh thus submitted that the development permission is required to be cancelled and the construction put up based on the development permission is required to be removed.