Redevelopment – Refusal of further permission only because the public road is less than 9 mts –Does it mean that the owner should on his own widen the public road to minimum width of 9 meters. Interesting case and facts as to how the authorities think and act against the public interest in redevelopment.
The petitioner is the owner of the plot stands on Bapty Road, Tardeo, Mumbai. It is a cessed structure. It is Redevelopment of a building to accommodate over 100 tenants. MHADA had issued NOC on 22.8.2017, MCGM IOD was issued on 14.3.2022 and Commencement Certificate to the plinth level was issued on 31.3.2022. Fire brigade permission was granted on 23.3.2022. Revised IOD was given on 13.1.2023, CC to the 7th floor on 2.2.2023 and CC was revised on 3.3.2023.
From 2017 to 2023, the road was less than 9 meters. When the petitioner needs to go above 7th floor, suddenly the authorities have realised that the road is less than 9 meters.
HIGH COURT observed that we can make neither head nor tail of the impugned communication dated 10.1.2024 of the Assistant Engineer, D Ward that since Bapty Road does not meet the required minimum width of 9 mts, further permissions cannot, therefore, be granted. The impugned order demands that the petitioner comply with all Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) conditions and to resubmit the proposals. What seems to be suggested is that the Petitioner must some how arrange to have Bapty Road widened on his own to a minimum width of 9 mts notwithstanding the fact that this is a municipal road vested in the Corporation. The Corporation has no plans to widen the road. Thus, nothing can be done for the tenants but it is not the concern of the Corporation. The Corporation exists to serve the interests of rate papers of the City, not developers and builders. The primary focus is and will forever be the concern of residents and citizens.
Judgment dated 23.2.2024 in W.P.No.456 of 2024 of Gufran Suleman Qureshi Vs. Municipal Corporation and others
