Bombay High Court
Anand Apartment Co-Op Hsg Soc. ... vs Aikya Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Director on 2 February, 2022
Bench: S. K. Shinde
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
SHIVGAN
5-AO-136-2021.odt
NILESH
SHIVGAN Date:
2022.02.03
15:39:03
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.136 OF 2021
Anand Apartment Co-op. Hsg.
Society Ltd. Thr. Treasurer ...Appellant
Vs
Aikya Pvt. Ltd.
Thr. Director ... Respondents
...
None for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanmish Gala i/by M/s. Markand Gandhi & Co. for R.No.1.
Mr. Girish Godbole with Mr. Ravindra Sirsikar for MCGM-
Respondent.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2022.
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :
Praecipe is filed for 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the
Judgment dated 28th January, 2022.
2 Accordingly, following corrections are made in the said
Judgment;
Shivgan 1/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
Page Para Line Original To be substituted with
No. No. No.
11 7(a) 1 "7)(a)Plaintiff's building is "7)(a) Plaintiff's building is on Plot
on Plot no.391; whereas no.392; whereas proposed
proposed construction i.e. construction i.e. development
development permission permission has been granted in
has been granted in respect of Plot No.391; a plot
respect of Plot No.392; a adjoining to plaintiffs' building..
plot adjoining to plaintiffs'
building.
11 7(b) 1 "7)(b) Old building on "7(b) Old building on Plot no.391
Plot No.392 was was constructed prior 1940,
constructed prior 1940, accommodating the tenants."
accommodating the
tenants."
11 7(c) 3 "7)(c) Defendant no.1- "7)(c) Defendant no.1-developer
developer moved a moved a redevelopment proposal
redevelopment proposal under Regulation 33(7) of the
under Regulation 33(7) of DCPR in respect of Plot no.391."
the DCPR in respect of
Plot no.392."
11 7(e) 1 "7)(e) Old building on "7)(e) Old building on Plot
Plot No.392 was a Cess No.391 was a Cess building
building within the within the meaning of Section
meaning of Section 82 82 of the Maharashtra Housing
of the Maharashtra and Area Development Act,
Housing and Area 1976
Development Act, 1976.
Shivgan 2/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
15 9 4 "9) ....Thus, on the "9) ....Thus, on the northern
northern side of the side of the Plot, plaintiffs'
Plot, plaintiffs' building building stands. It is ground
stands. It is ground plus plus 4 upper floors. It could be
4 upper floors. It could seen that, then existing open
be seen that, then space between plaintiffs'
existing open space building and old building on
between plaintiffs' Plot No.391 (prior demolition),
building and old was ..............."
building on Plot No.392
(prior demolition),
was ................."
3 Aforesaid corrections be carried out and judgment be read
accordingly.
4 Praecipe stands disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 3/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 136 OF 2021
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1170 OF 2021
IN
L.C. SUIT (ST.) NO. 3729 OF 2021
ANAND APARTMENT CO-OP HSG.
SOCIETY LTD. } APPELLANT/
(ORIG.PLAINTIFF)
V/S.
1. AIKYA REALTY PVT. LTD.
AND ORS. } RESPONDENTS/
(ORIG.DEFENDANTS)
****
Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal i/by. Mr. Ram Singh a/w. Mr. C.B.
Yadav, Mr. Pradeep Yadav a/w. Mr. Arjun Aggarwal,
a/w. Mr. Vishal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Girish Godbole a/w. Mr. Ravindra Shirshikar, Advocate
for M.C.G.M.
Senior Advocate Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar a/w. Ms. Tanvi
Gandhi, with Mr. Atul Kshatriya, Mr. Sanmish Gala i/
by. Markand Gandhi & Co., Advocate for respondent
no.1.
Shivgan 4/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
Coram : Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
(through Video Conference).
Closed for Order On : 10th January, 2022.
Pronounced Order On : 28th January, 2022.
JUDGMENT :
1) Plaintiffs, have filed this Appeal under Order 43 Rule
1 (r) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, challenging the order dated 29 th April, 2021, by which
the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai declined to
restrain defendant no.1(developer) from making construction
on Plot no.391, at Motishah Cross Lane, Byculla, Mumbai.
2) Heard Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal, learned Counsel for
the appellant; Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for
the Municipal Corporation and Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar,
learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1.
Factual matrix :
Shivgan 5/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
3) Plaintiff is a Co-operative Housing Society. It owns a
building, situated at Plot no. C.S. No. 392, Motisha Cross Lane,
Byculla, Mumbai. The defendant no.1 is, the Developer/Owner
of adjoining plot no.391. Plaintiffs' alleged, that the defendant
no.1 in collusion with Planning Authority, started constructing
ground plus 15 floors building on Plot no.391, as per
development permission dated 15th April, 2020 which was
void, being granted in breach of building regulations. Plaintiffs'
would assert, that, the development permission has been
granted by the Planning Authority in defiance of Development
Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034
("DCPR" for short), by compromising the urban safety
requirements. Plaintiffs would plead that, the building, then
existing on Plot no.391 was demolished by the defendant no.1
and that distance between the old building prior to demolition
and plaintiff's building was approximately 9 feet/mtrs;
however, as per approved plan, open space between their
building and proposed building is 1.5 meters. In other words,
plaintiff's case is, that the Planning Authority granted
Shivgan 6/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
development permission, and approved plans under Section 45
of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, by
compromising the fire, and health safety, of inhabitants of
neighbourhood. As well, plaintiffs', would assert that the
proposed construction on Plot no.391, would affect its'
members right to air and light. To assert these rights in the
Suit (St.) No. 3729/2021, plaintiffs' seek the following reliefs :
"(a). That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the
development permission and or grant of commencement certificate
dated 15/04/2020 and approved plan issued by the defendants no.2
for the development of proposed building known as cozy cottage in
favour of defendant no.1 is illegal, improper and bad in law and same
is required to be declare invalid, void and be cancelled in respect of
the construction of the proposed building known as cozy cottage at
C.S. no.391 situated at 1st, Motisha Cross Lane, (love lane), Byculla
(E), Mumbai-400 027. (emphasis supplied)
(b). That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the
construction of the proposed building known as cozy cottage
situated at C.S. no.391 situated at 1st Motisha Cross Lane, (love
lane), Byculla (E), Mumbai-400 027 is illegal, improper, bad in law.
(c). That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to passed the order directing
the defendants no.1 and 2 to remove the illegal, improper and
unauthorized construction work of the proposed building known as
Shivgan 7/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
cozy cottage situated at C.S. no. 391 situated at 1 st Motisha Cross
Lane, (love lane), Byculla (E), Mumbai-400 027.
(d). That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant the permanent order
and injunction restraining the defendants, their officers, servants,
agents, person/persons claiming through them from carrying out
any addition, alteration and or construction of any nature of the
proposed building on the plot bearing C.S. 391 situated at 1 st,
Motisha Cross Lane, (love lane), Byculla (E), Mumbai-400 027."
4) Pending suit, vide Notice of Motion No. 1170/2021,
plaintiffs', sought an order, to restrain defendant no.1 from
making construction on Plot No.391, on the premise that the
development permission under Section 45 of the M.R.T.P. Act
being granted in breach of DCPR, it was void. The learned trial
Court declined the reliefs to the plaintiffs on the ground that,
development permission, being a final order, its' legality or
correctness cannot be questioned, in the civil suit, in view of
Section 149 of the M.R.T.P. Act, which contains express
prohibition to deal with the matters specified thereunder,
unless the order complained of, is nullity. Mr. Aggarwal,
learned Counsel for the appellants, would dispute this finding,
to contend that since development permission has been
Shivgan 8/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
granted in gross defiance of the DCPR 2034, and by
compromising fire safety requirements, such a permission
being void, the jurisdiction of the civil court was not excluded.
Questioning the correctness of development permission, Mr.
Aggarwal, would submit that, since the height of the proposed
building is 54.13 meters, keeping 6 meters open space,
between Southern side of plaintiffs' building i.e. Plot no.392
and proposed building, although was, mandatory, yet, as per
approved plan, the open space kept between, the two buildings
is hardly 1.5 meters. Mr. Aggarwal, to fortify his submissions,
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Supertech Limited Versus. Emerald Court Owner Resident
Welfare Association and Ors. in Civil Appeal 5041/2021
(Arising out of SLP © No.11959/2014). In the case of
Supertech (supra), development permissions granted by
NOIDA (Planning Authority) were questioned and issue for
consideration was, whether second revised plan for
construction of adjacent 'building blocks' was in compliance
with the applicable regulations at the time i.e. National
Shivgan 9/28
5-AO-136-2021.odt
Building Regulations, 2006 ("NBR" for short). Thus, in context
of facts of the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to
Regulations-24, 2.1 of NBR, which provide that, distance
between two adjacent building blocks is to be of minimum 6
meters going upto to 16 meters, depending upon the height of
the blocks. Mr. Aggarwal, taking recourse to those Regulations
(NBR) and relying on the observations in judgment paragraphs
no.66, 67, 68 and 70, of Supertech (supra), would argue that,
the Planning Authority having not kept 6 meters open space
between two buildings, development permission was void and
thus, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was not
excluded. Besides, Mr. Aggarwal would argue that, having not
left required space between two buildings, fundamental right
to air and light of the inhabitants of plaintiffs' building, has
been adversely affected. On these grounds, Mr. Aggarwal,
seeks interference in the impugned order.
5) Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Counsel for the
respondent no.1 and Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Counsel for
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
the Corporation refuted the submissions of Mr. Agarwal and
would contend that,
(i) Development permission in question, is valid
and has been granted in accordance with DCPR and
it does not compromise either fire safety or other
urban safety requirements contemplated in the
Regulations.
(ii) The plot in question since affected by
sanctioned D.P. road was reduced to small size
requiring various concessions in planning, to
accommodate existing rehab tenements (living in
dilapidated and dangerous building constructed
prior to 1940).
(iii) the Municipal Commissioner granted
concessions in exercise of discretionary powers
specified under Regulation 6(b) of DCPR.
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
(iv) the concession granted by Municipal
Commissioner does not compromise health, safety,
fire, structural and public safety of the inhabitants of
the building and neighbourhood.
(v) the Regulation under Section 2(27) of the
M.R.T.P. Act, made under Section 159 would alone
govern and regulate the manner in which
development permission under Section 45 is to be
granted and communicated.
(vi) the National Building Regulations (NBR) has no
application to the permission to be granted under
Section 45 of the M.R.T.P. Act.
(vii) the evidence on record admits, that it was a
case of 'demonstrable hardship within the
permission of Regulation 33(7) of the DCPR.
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
(viii) that since the development permissions and
plans having been sanctioned strictly in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations, the plaintiffs could
not have questioned such permissions in the civil
suit in view of Section 149 of the M.R.T.P. Act and
therefore the impugned order requires no
interference.
6) Having heard Counsel for the parties, the moot
question falling for consideration is,
Whether questioned development permission
granted to redevelop the Plot No.392, under
Section 45(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act was valid ?
And if answer is in affirmative, whether
plaintiffs' could have questioned its'
correctness in the civil suit.
Like manner other allied questions, arising for consideration
are :
(i)Whether development permission in question has
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
been granted by compromising fire protection
requirements stipulated under Regulation 47(A) of
the DCPR ?
(ii) Whether redevelopment proposal under
Regulation 33(7) of DCPR, admits "Demonstrable
hardship" within the meaning of Regulation 2(36) of
the DCPR ?
(iii) Whether order dated 24th July, 2019 passed by
the Municipal Commissioner in exercise of discretion
under Regulation 6(b) of the DCPR, permitting
modification of dimensions was in conformity with
the intent and spirit of the Regulations ?
(iv) Whether impugned order calls for interference ?
REASONS :
7) Facts not in dispute are :
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
(a) Plaintiff's building is on Plot no.392; whereas
proposed construction i.e. development permission
has been granted in respect of Plot No.391; a plot
adjoining to plaintiffs' building.
(b) Old building on Plot no.391 was constructed
prior 1940, accommodating the tenants.
(c) Defendant no.1-developer moved a
redevelopment proposal under Regulation 33(7) of
the DCPR in respect of Plot no.391.
(d) Height of the proposed building is 54.30
meters.
(e) Old building on Plot No.391 was a Cess building
within the meaning of Section 82 of the Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
8) M/s. AIKYA Realty Private Limited-defendant no.1
("Developer" for short), submitted the proposal for
redevelopment (composite building) of the CESS building
requiring rehabilitation of existing occupiers plus 50%
incentive FSI, whichever is higher in accordance with DCPR-
33(7) of 2034. The plot is abutting 12.20 meters wide DP
Road. Regulation-41 of DCPR, provides for open spaces within
building plots/layout for composite building. Particulars of
open spaces required as per Regulations were as under :
Side Open spaces Open spaces Deficiency % of deficiency
required proposed
West 3.00 3.00 Nil ----
North 6.00 1.50 4.50 75.00%
East 6.00 1.50 4.50 75.00%
South 6.00 6.00 Nil
. Thus, it could be seen from the above table that open
space deficiency was maximum upto 75% on North and East
side of the Plot. Plaintiffs' building is on North side. Plaintiffs'
would therefore argue that as per the DCPR, space required to
be kept open on the Northern and Southern side of the Plot,
was six meters; yet Planning Authority, granted development
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
permission, despite of the fact that, open space was just 1.5
meters, as against 6 meters, by compromising urban safety
requirements and therefore, it was void permission. To test
the arguments, let me refer to Regulations. Part-IX of DCPR
provides, for urban safety requirements. Regulation-47(1)
provides, fire protection requirements. It stipulates the
planning, design and construction of any building shall be such
to ensure safety from fire and for high rise and special
buildings, additional provisions relating to fire protection
contained in Appendix-I shall also apply. Clause-(A) of
Regulation-47 provides that, for proposals including one under
33(7), for rehabilitation/composite buildings, having height
more than 32 meters upto 70 meters, atleast one side other
than the roadside shall have clear open space of 6 meters at
ground level, accessible from roadside. It may be stated that,
under Old Regulations of 1994, in case of redevelopment
proposal under 33(7) for a plot size 600 meters, 1.5 meters
open space was deemed to be adequate. However, after the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Municipal
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others vs. Kohinoor
City Infrastructure Company Private Limited, (2014) 4 SCC
538, the requirement to keep clear open space of 6 meters
atleast on one side, (emphasized) other than roadside at
ground level and accessible from roadside, is required to be
maintained for maneuverability of fire engine. Therefore,
keeping open space of 6 meters atleast (emphasized) on one
side, which is accessible from the roadside is the mandatory
requirement. The above chart shows, on southern side of the
plot, 6 meters open space was proposed and approved as per
Regulation-47(1)(A), which is on the side, other than the
roadside. Indisputably in this case 12.20 meters wide DP road
is on westside of the Plot, whereas, the 6 meters open space
has been kept on the southern side of the Plot. Therefore, in
consideration of the facts of the case, the Planning Authority
has not compromised the fire safety requirement i.e.
Regulation-47 of DCPR, while granting development
permission to develop the plot in question.
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
9) Now let me address the issue, whether open space
deficiency on northern side of the Plot, has rendered the
development permission, void. To appreciate the plaintiffs'
case, it would be appropriate to tabulate the then, existing
open space and approved open space vis-a-vis plaintiffs'
plot/building. It is as under :
Side Adjoining Property Existing Open Proposed Open Remarks
Space Space
West 12.20 mt wide Road 12.20 + 1.00 12.20 + 3.00 mt Improvement
North Existing Gr.Fl+4 upper 0.00 + 1.50 0.00 + 1.50 No change
East Open Plot Open Plot + 0.00 Open plot + 1.50 Improvement
South Existing Gr.Fl + 4 upper 3.00 + 1.50 3.00 + 6.00 Improvement
. Thus, on the northern side of the Plot, plaintiffs' building
stands. It is ground plus 4 upper floors. It could be seen that,
then existing open space between plaintiffs' building and old
building on Plot No.391 (prior demolition), was 1.50 meters.
As such, in approved plan, there is no change in open space,
although, as per Regulations, 6 meters space is required to be
kept open. In the circumstances, the question arising for
consideration is, "Whether relaxation of open space from 6
meters to 1.50 meters on northern side of the Plot was legal,
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
valid and and as per the Regulations and further whether a
relaxation granted by the Commissioner has affected health
safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety of
inhabitants of plaintiffs' building ?". Well, before answering
this question, it may be stated that, developer requested the
Planning Authority to condone open space deficiency under
Regulation-6(b) by charging premium as per policy.
Regulation-6 of DCPR invest, Municipal Commissioner with
discretionary powers which he may exercise in conformity
with the intent and spirit of the Regulations. Regulation-6
Clauses (a) and (b) reads as under :
"6. Discretionary powers
(a) In conformity with the intent and spirit of these Regulations,
the Municipal Commissioner may :-
(i)modify the limit of a zone where the
boundary line of the zone divides a plot, village
boundary, CS/CTS No. as per records of
revenue by a special permission; and
(ii)authorize the erection of a building or the
use of premises for a pubic service
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
undertaking, Government, Semi-Government,
Local Bodies for public utility purposes only,
where he finds such an authorization to be
reasonably necessary for public convenience
and welfare, even it is not permitted in any
land use classification/zone by a special
permission.
(iii) decide on matters where it is alleged that
there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision, determination made by any
municipal officer under delegation of powers in
application of the Regulations or in
interpretation of these Regulations :
(iv) interpret the provisions of these
Regulations where a street layout actually on
the ground varies from the street layout sown
on the development plan :
(b) In specific cases where a clearly demonstrable hardship is
caused, the Commissioner may for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by special permission permit any of the dimensions
prescribed by these Regulations to be modified, except those
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
relating to floor space indices unless otherwise permitted under
these Regulations, provided that the relaxation will not affect the
health, safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety of
the inhabitants of the building and the neighbourhood."
(emphasis supplied)
. Thus, it could be seen that in a case, where
"demonstrable hardship" is apparent in development of the
plot, the Commissioner is empowered to relax the dimensions,
prescribed under the Regulations (except those relating to
FSI), provided, relaxation will not affect health, fire, structural
and public safety of the inhabitants of building and
neighbourhood. Therefor, which are these specific cases,
disclosing "demonstrable hardship" for exercising
discretionary powers. Expression, "demonstrable hardship" is
defined under Regulation-2(36). It means "plot under
development/redevelopment affected due to Nalla, Nallah/river
buffer, road widening, height restriction due to statutory
restriction as per these Regulations such as railway buffer,
height restrictions in the vicinity of Airport, height restriction
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
in the vicinity of defense establishments, and/or any other
restrictions as per the provisions of these Regulations
affecting the project, odd shape plot, rehabilitation of existing
tenants/occupants on small, size plot/s etc."
. Thus, understood, the "demonstrable hardship" is in
relation to a Plot of which development or redevelopment is
affected due to; (i) Nalla, (ii)Nallah/river buffer, (iii) road
widening, (iv) height restriction due to statutory restriction as
per these Regulations, (iv) height restrictions in the vicinity of
Airport, defense establishments or odd shape plot, (v)
rehabilitation of existing tenants/occupants on small size plots
etc. Therefore, definition of "demonstrable hardship" is
inclusive, and it may admit such other factors because of which
development of the Plot would be affected. In the backdrop of
the aforesaid provisions, let me ascertain which factors have
affected redevelopment of Plot in question and whether
Municipal Commissioner was justified in relaxing the
requirement of open spaces and condone the open space
deficiency on north and east side of the Plot, which was 75%
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
maximum.
10). Indisputably, developers submitted a plan and
accordingly proposal was put up for concessions approval for
consumption of full FSI under Regulation-33(7). The area of
the plot is 560.04 sq.meters. As per certified list of Mumbai
Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), there
were 18 existing tenants. The proposed building was designed
by keeping 3 meters open space on front side and 1.5 meters
open space on two sides and 6 meters open space on southern
side, accessible from the roadside as per provisions of DCPR-
47(1)(A). Hence, there were planning restraints and it was
not possible to accommodate all existing tenants on one
location and therefore rehabilitation of few tenants was
proposed on different locations. Accordingly, splitting of
residence of rehab tenants was allowed. Although, the plaintiff
has not challenged this concession/relaxation granted by the
Municipal Commissioner for splitting of residence of rehab
tenants, yet this fact would show that, there was apparent
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
hardship in developing the plot under Regulation-33(7) of
DCPR. Now, in so far as, condoning/relaxing the space
deficiency (75%) on North and East side of Plot, Corporation
justified it on the following grounds emerging from data note
sheets, annexed to Affidavit-in-reply; viz
"(i) The proposal u/r is under D.C. Regulation-33(7) wherein FSI
3.0 is to be consumed.
(ii) It is not possible to go above 70.0 mtrs height on account of
rules and regulation governing high rise building above 70.0 mtrs.
(iii) In order to accommodate rehab tenants with their respective
agreed rehabilitation areas there are severe planning constraints.
(iv) Proposal does not become viable unless FSI 3.0 along-with
permissible fungible compensatory FSI is consumed.
(v) To enable to consume the said built up area there is hardship in
providing required open spaces.
(vi) The open spaces envisaged in D.C. Regulation cannot be
provided being the proposal of consumption of full permissible FSI
of 3.00 which is a major hardship.
. That being so, Municipal Commissioner's order
condoning/relaxing open space requirement on North and East
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
side of the Plot, would not render development permission
illegal, reason being, Commissioner found, that the
redevelopment proposal under Regulation-33(7), was falling
within the parameters of "demonstrable hardship". Infact,
from the note sheets, 4B Scrutiny Sheet for IOD/CC; 4C Reports
on various concessions; comments of Assistant Engineer (BP);
comments of Executive Engineer (BP), annexed to the Affidavit
of Corporation, show that, development permission has been
granted in conformity with the Regulations. As a consequence,
I hold that development permission has been granted by not
compromising safety requirements stipulated under
Regulation-47A and the relaxation in relation to open space
requirements, was in conformity with intent and spirit of
Regulations.
11. It may be stated that, Mr. Aggarwal, learned Counsel
for the plaintiffs' to a large extent relied on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Supertech (supra), to contend
that, open space between plaintiffs' building and the proposed
construction could not have been less than 6 meters. However,
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
the observations and the findings in Supertech (supra) in
paragraphs-68, 69 and 70 were in context of Regulations with
respect to the distance between two adjacent building blocks
(Regulations-24.2.1.6 of NBR, 2010); whereas in the case in
hand, neither NBR nor NBC has application, since DCPR are
framed in exercise of powers under Section 159 of the MRTP
Act, would govern and regulate the development of buildings.
Factually speaking, plaintiffs have neither questioned
discretionary powers of Municipal Commissioner to relax the
dimensions stipulated in the Regulations, nor challenged order
relaxing space from 6 meters to 1.50 meters on Northern side
of the Plot. There, challenge to development permission was
not peripheral. In so far as, right to air and light is concerned,
no substantive prayers have been made in the plaint. For all
that reasons, in my view, the order granting development
permission under Section 45 of the MRTP Act, was in
conformity with the Regulations. As a consequence, plaintiffs'
could not have questioned its legality and validity in the suit in
view of express bar contained in Section 149 of the MRTP Act.
Shivgan
5-AO-136-2021.odt
The moot question is answered accordingly. In the result,
Appeal fails. It is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
12. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant,
requested to continue the ad-interim relief dated 01 st
September, 2021 and continued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Civil Appeals No. 7106/7107 of 2021 for a period of four weeks
from today. In consideration of the facts of the case, request is
rejected.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
(NOTE: Aforesaid corrections are made in the judgment pursuant to
the 'Speaking to the Minutes' of the order dated 2 nd February, 2022)
Shivgan
