HC paves way for demolition of 8 floors of Dongri building
The Bombay high court has paved the way for demolition of eight floors of a 12-storied unauthorised structure in Dongri, which were demolished by civic staff at least four times earlier. The court recently dismissed the plea of the owner to restrain the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from pulling down the eight illegal floorsmumbai Updated: Nov 02, 2016 00:19 IST
The Bombay high court has paved the way for demolition of eight floors of a 12-storied unauthorised structure in Dongri, which were demolished by civic staff at least four times earlier. The court recently dismissed the plea of the owner to restrain the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from pulling down the eight illegal floors.
Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi rejected Haji Kasam Ghaneria’s plea observing that “he had scant regard for the law and even the multiple demolition jobs failed to deter him from indulging in the same activity of putting up unauthorised constructions. Ghaneria had approached the high court after the Bombay city civil court rejected his plea for interim relief – restraining civic officials from demolishing the illegal floors of his building.
The building on Xth Nishanpada Lane was originally a four-storied structure – ground plus three upper floors. In October 2015, he obtained permission from MHADA to repair the cessed structure and immediately started repair work. The BMC issued him a stop-work notice after noticing that unauthorised construction work was being carried out at the site.
The judge rejected the plea primarily in view of the fact that between October 2015 and April 2016 six stop-work notices were issued to the owner and in April 2016 itself, the unauthorised parts of the building were pulled down four times, and inspite of repeated stop-work notices and action of demolition, Ghaneria continued to build unauthorised, and equally unsafe, additional floors over the old and dilapidated structure.
The high court noticed that the documents produced by the BMC on record were “more than sufficient and speak for themselves to show that despite repeated actions of issuance of stop-work notices and carrying out demolitions of the unauthorised construction, the appellant was bent upon indulging in the same activity and proceeding with the illegal and unauthorised construction.”
Besides, the judge also noticed that not a single document was produced by the building owner to show that he had obtained requisite permission for carrying out construction of the 12-storied structure.