HC upholds cancellation of permission for Ravindra Waikar’s hotel in Jogeshwari East

Bombay High Court upholds BMC's cancellation of permission for construction of a five-star hotel in Jogeshwari East due to hiding of facts about reservation of a public park on the plot.

In a setback to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ravindra Waikar and four others, the Bombay high court on Friday upheld an order passed by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to cancel the permission granted for construction of a five-star hotel in Jogeshwari East.

Mumbai, India - October 26, 2018: Ravindra Waikar during HT Real Estate Awards at ITC Grand, Parel in Mumbai, India, on Friday, October 26, 2018. (Photo by Pratik Chorge/Hindustan Times) (Pratik Chorge/HT Photo)

A division bench of justice Sunil Shukre and justice Rajesh Patil said the five hid the fact that the scheme for reservation of a public park on the said plot, measuring 8,000 square metres, had already been implemented.

The plot was reserved under the Development Plan of 1991 for a public garden. As per a tripartite agreement signed between the original landowners (Mahal Pictures Private Limited), occupiers of the plot (Waikar and the four others), and BMC in February 2004, 67% of the plot was surrendered to the civic body for being used as a public garden. On the remaining 33%, Waikar and the four constructed a sports club by using the floor space index (FSI) available on the entire plot.

BJP leader Kirit Somaiya in September last year lodged a complaint with BMC, claiming that Waikar and the others had suppressed the material facts about the 2004 agreement and the implementation of the reservation.

Eventually, on June 15 this year, the executive engineer (building proposal) of K East ward cancelled the development permission. Waikar and the four others then moved the high court challenging the BMC order.

HC on Friday dismissed the petition filed by the five, stating that they submitted a proposal for development of the reservation shown in DCPR 2034 by suppressing the fact that the reservation had already been implemented and that there was already a tripartite agreement to that effect way back in 2004.

“We are of the view that once the petitioners had received the benefit under the development control regulations 1991 and had constructed the sports club, the whole scheme was implemented. Therefore, having received compensation in the form of FSI for a land which is reserved for a garden, the petitioners now cannot, in view of DCPR 2034, again apply for compensation when the reservation on the subject land has not changed,” the bench said.

The judges also noted that in the 2004 agreement, the petitioners had given an undertaking to the corporation that in future they would not issue any purchase notice to the civic body or claim any transferrable development right or FSI as compensation or any other benefit against the surrendered land.