New Delhi, Feb 17 : The Supreme Court on Thursday warned a Mumbai-based real estate developer that its project will meet the same fate as Noida-based Supertech’s twin towers, if residents of the housing society are deprived of parking space.
A bench of Justices D.Y.Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath said: “We will demolish the tower like Supertech.”
The bench emphasised that the real estate developer should create car parking for the residents of the societies and it should not come up on space allocated for recreational ground, meant for children.”It is a big fraud, the building will come down,” noted the bench during the hearing.
The Supreme Court in a judgment, delivered on August 31, issued directions for the demolition of Supertech twin towers in Noida.
Advocates Sumeedha Rao and Sudhanshu S Choudhari represented the residents of Videocon Tower “A” Co-operative Housing Society.
Residents of Tower “B” also moved to the top court.
In the first direction, in the order, the bench said: “Within a period of two weeks, the appellant (Nikunj Developers and now known as Veena Developers) shall submit a proposal to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for sanctioning of 227 car parking spaces, inclusive of the 25 per cent discretionary quota of the Municipal Commissioner.”
It further added that the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai will consider the proposal in accordance with the Development Control Rules, as applicable, and take a decision thereon within a period of one month.”The appellant shall, upon the sanctioning of the proposal, take necessary steps for compliance so as to assuage the grievance of the cooperative societies in regard to the absence of car parking spaces,” the bench said.
“In addition to the submission of the proposal for 227 car parking spaces in terms of (i) above (first direction), the appellant shall submit, within a period of two weeks, an additional proposal for sanctioning of 124 car parking spaces (thus, making a total of 351 car parking spaces).”
The bench clarified that the additional proposal shall be at the cost and expense of the developer by purchasing such FSI as may be permissible in law.”The proposal shall be evaluated by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in terms of the applicable Development Control Rules and a final decision shall be taken thereon which shall be placed on the record of these proceedings,” it added.The top court scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 31, and asked the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file an affidavit, indicating the decision which has been taken on the proposals in accordance with law.It has been alleged that the developer had built an illegal structure on the space meant for car parking, for which it had obtained environmental clearances.The real estate developer had moved the top court challenging an order passed by the National Green Tribunal.Senior advocate A.N.S.Nadkarni, appeared on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, while senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared on behalf of the developer.
ss/vd
The court clarified that the new proposal will be made at the expense and cost of the developer through the purchase of the FSI that are permitted in the law.”The proposal will be analyzed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in terms of the applicable Development Control Rules and a final decision will be made upon which the decision will be placed in the record of the sessions,” it added.The top court set the matter up for hearing again on March 31 and requested the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file an affidavit detailing the decision that was taken on the plans in conformity with law.It is claimed that the developer constructed an illegal structure in the space intended for parking cars and had obtained environmental approvals.The developer filed a petition with the top court to contest an order made by the National Green Tribunal.Senior advocate A.N.S.Nadkarni was the advocate on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and senior advocate Huzefa Ahmedi was on the behalf of the developer.
