HC paves the way for occupancy of Colaba building lying vacant for a decade

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to process the application for occupancy certificate for an 11-storey Colaba building that has been lying vacant for the past 10 years as the civic body had insisted that the developer obtain revised Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) clearance

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to process the application for occupancy certificate for an 11-storey Colaba building that has been lying vacant for the past 10 years as the civic body had insisted that the developer obtain revised Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) clearance.

HT Image

MRK Enterprises, the owner of the property, Amir House, had moved high court last year, challenging April 20, 2021 decision of the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) to decline CRZ clearance for issuance of occupancy certificate for the building, treating that the construction was done without the clearance and insisting the developer to apply for regularisation of the breach.

After the original ‘Amir House’ building was declared dilapidated by the BMC, the property owners had decided to go for its redevelopment. As the property is located within CRZ-II, the developer had in May 2010 applied for clearance from the MCZMA through the BMC.

Accordingly, a month later, the MCZMA granted CRZ clearance for the project and the developer completed the building by 2013 in accordance with the plans approved by the BMC. However, when the developer applied for occupancy certificate, the civic body insisted on obtaining revised CRZ clearance for revised construction permissions from time to time. When the BMC applied for revised CRZ clearance, the MCZMA treated the construction as done without the clearance and asked the developer to apply for regularisation.

The firm argued before the high court that revised clearance was not necessary because of change in applicable Development Control Regulations (DCR), as clearance was already granted for the project.

The HC, however, said that the BMC had granted development permission to petitioner under Regulation 33(6) of the DCR 1991 in violation of the CRZ clearance, which envisaged construction as per the DCR 1967. The bench also felt that since the civic body amended the development permissions four times, it ought to have approached the MCZMA for revised CRZ clearance for the DCR 1991 as CRZ Notification 2011 had come into effect in the meanwhile.

The division bench of acting chief justice SV Gangapurwala and justice Sandeep Marne said that the MCZMA could have examined whether the changes were permissible from an environmental point of view.

The bench, however, ordered the BMC to consider the plea for issuance of occupancy certificate primarily since the building was completed a decade ago and waiting for occupancy certificate since long. “It is not that CRZ clearance was never obtained. The CRZ clearance was granted on June 9, 2010 and there is no change in height or footprint of the building. Few minor changes in the building or alleged consumption of extra FSI (which is permissible under the DCR 1991) would not be a reason enough to insist on revised CRZ clearance,” the court said.

The bench has directed the BMC to issue occupancy certificate if it found the building fit for occupancy.