File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

MCGM Must Do Whatever It Needs To Do Whether By Means Of Acquisition Or Otherwise To Maintain The Road At 9 Mts: Bombay High Court

[1]The developer, NDZ Infrastructure who had undertaken the redevelopment of the society had proposed the construction of a 16- floor structure so that the existing members could be accommodated and the balance could be sold in open market to make the project feasible.

The original developer was permitted to maintain a 6-6.8 meter wide access for the construction of 16 floors in the proposed new building for re- accommodating all the members of the society. However, as per the revised Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (for short, "DCPR") presently for constructing a 16 floor structure, the developer is required to maintain a 9 mts wide access road and in the absence the developer cannot construct more than 7 floors.

Based on the arguments made by the parties, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court bench comprising of Justice G.S Patel and Justice Kamal Khata has held that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, MCGM's) approach is inconsistent by insisting on increasing the width of the road without removing the encroachments as removal or the continuance of encroachments is a matter which falls under the purview of the MCGM and that MCGM cannot insist on a road having width of 9 mts till it adopts necessary measures for removing the existing encroachments.

The Court has also taken note of the fact that in some cases the structures are not encroachments in nature but in fact, are authorized and in such a case the MCGM does not have any substantial ground to demand that the width of the road should remain 9 mts, when the authority itself is refraining from maintaining the said road width.

In this matter, the MCGM agreed to extend the concession of maintaining the road width of 6.8 mtrs while the bench has held that the MCGM will not insist on a road width of 9 mtrs so long as the encroachments are not removed, however the Court has not refuted and abandoned or set aside the requirement of a 9 mtr road but it has just directed that it cannot be cited as an obstruction or a pre-requisite for obtaining further development permissions from the concerned authorities in the prevailing situation between the parties.

The Court has also directed that in situation as encountered above, such an obstruction should not be cited as an impediment or a pre-condition for further development.

  1. Contempt Petition (L) No. 131 of 2019 in Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2014 in Arbitration Petition No. 342 of 2019 - Joginder Singh Salariya & Ors v/s Rajendra Wani & Ors.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly