Summary
Disputes concerning the Palais Royale development involved a public parking lot, incentive floor space and refuge areas. The Court held that deemed permission for the parking lot had accrued after the Corporation failed to respond to a substantially compliant plinth-completion notice. It rejected retrospective restrictions founded on an executive circular, upheld the Commissioner’s refuge-area determination in the particular circumstances, and required a decision on the upper residential floors.
Issues
- Whether development permission lapsed despite timely completion up to plinth level.
- Whether the architect’s notice triggered deemed permission for the parking lot.
- Whether subsequent parking restrictions and objections to refuge areas warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 48, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966Under the amended second proviso, timely construction to the specified plinth or corresponding level obviated fresh development permission. (¶¶ 40, 41)
- Regulation 5(6), Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991The renewal provision was construed consistently with amended section 48. (¶¶ 39, 41)
- Regulation 6(4) and Appendix XVI, Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991Substantial compliance with the completion-notice form and absence of refusal within fifteen days supported deemed permission where construction conformed to sanctioned plans. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 66)
- Regulation 6(5), Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991Approved variations during construction were permissible and did not invalidate the endorsements in this case. (¶¶ 77, 78)
Held
- Where construction had reached plinth level within four years of development permission, fresh permission was unnecessary under amended section 48; the contrary High Court finding was set aside. (¶¶ 40, 41)
- The architect’s notice substantially complied with Appendix XVI. Stating that the work had been completed as approved owned responsibility for its execution. Receipt and non-response were admitted, and the work conformed to sanctioned plans; deemed permission arose after fifteen days. (¶¶ 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66)
- The later challenge to the form of notice was also barred by constructive res judicata. The Court nevertheless determined the issue on merits. Contradictory inventories did not displace the evidence of timely plinth completion, and the earlier stop-work notice did not concern the parking lot. (¶¶ 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71)
- The 2011 executive circular could not derogate from statutory development regulations and had been quashed in other cases. Parking construction was completed under deemed permission before the 2014 amendment; regularisation of that construction was unnecessary. (¶¶ 74, 75, 86, 87)
- The Municipal Commissioner’s order of 31 August 2016 determining refuge areas was upheld in the peculiar circumstances, taking account of expert fire-safety approval and the belated objections. The Court did not substitute its own technical assessment. (¶¶ 83, 84, 89)
- The parking lot was to be taken over by the Corporation. Availability of incentive floor space and the Corporation’s decision concerning residential floors 44 to 56 remained to be worked out as directed, within one month. (¶¶ 44, 90)
Result
The High Court’s order was partly set aside, including its finding against deemed permission for the parking lot. The refuge-area order dated 31 August 2016 was upheld. Janhit Manch’s specified PIL and transferred cases were dismissed. The Corporation was directed to take over the parking lot and decide concerning residential floors 44 to 56 within one month.