High-rise will not be demolished
After three years of fighting in court to save his 32-storey building at Malabar Hill, diamond merchant and film financier Bharat Shah can finally breathe easy.mumbai Updated: Feb 10, 2011 01:16 IST
After three years of fighting in court to save his 32-storey building at Malabar Hill, diamond merchant and film financier Bharat Shah can finally breathe easy.
The Bombay high court on Wednesday disposed of a public interest litigation saying the petitioner, social activist Simpreet Singh, had filed it 10 years late.
Shah controls One Layer Exports that built the high-rise, which houses one of the most expensive apartments in the country. Singh had alleged that the building had committed 24 violations.
“The petitioner had delayed in moving the court against the construction. Also, the developer has already created third-party rights. Many people must have obtained loans to purchase flats. We have to balance equities,” observed a division bench of justice PB Majmudar and justice Amjad Sayed.
Observing that if the petition had been filed on time, it would have been possible to set aside the permission for construction. “The corporation should be more vigilant about violations in constructions,” the court said.
Aspi Chenoy, counsel for One Layer Exports, said the municipal corporation had granted them commencement certificate in 2001 and the high-rise was completed in 2007. “The PIL was filed in 2008. Besides, all flats have been sold,” Chenoy added.
Even the municipal corporation and other authorities concerned had filed affidavits stating that the developer had obtained all requisite permissions.
Despite, disposing of the petition, the court asked the Maharashtra Coastal Regulatory Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to hear the parties concerned and decide within three months on the issue of alleged violation of coastal zone regulations.
“It is for the MCZMA to adjudicate the notice and act in accordance to law after hearing the concerned parties,” the bench said.
The advocate for the MCZMA informed the court that they had issued a notice to the developer in 2009, which it did not respond to.
The authority would take action against the developer if any violations were found, the advocate added.