The Bombay high court has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to respond to a plea by a developer from Andheri seeking clarification on how long the civic body would keep possession of a building constructed under the slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) scheme.
The BMC had taken possession of the completed building in the first week of May to use it as a Covid-19 quarantine facility but did not inform the developer of the duration of its use or amount of compensation it would pay, the developer then approached the court.
A division bench of justice R D Dhanuka and justice Abhay Ahuja while hearing a petition filed by Sahyog Homes was informed by advocate Nilesh Gala through video conferencing that the developer had undertaken an SRA project at Andheri and had completed construction of a couple of buildings. However, construction of other buildings were held up as the civic body had not issued other certificates required to continue work on the project.
Gala further submitted that as the building acquired by the BMC did not have an Occupation Certificate or a No Objection Certificate, the civic body would be solely responsible in the event of any untoward incident and the developer could not be held answerable for it. He further submitted that in light of this the court should direct the BMC to expedite granting of certificates for the completed buildings in the project as well as disclose the duration till when the building would remain in its custody.
{{/usCountry}}Gala further submitted that as the building acquired by the BMC did not have an Occupation Certificate or a No Objection Certificate, the civic body would be solely responsible in the event of any untoward incident and the developer could not be held answerable for it. He further submitted that in light of this the court should direct the BMC to expedite granting of certificates for the completed buildings in the project as well as disclose the duration till when the building would remain in its custody.
{{/usCountry}}Additional government pleader Jyoti Chavan submitted that the state had not been served a copy of the petition. After hearing the petitioner’s claim she informed the bench that a similar petition had come up earlier on May 11 with almost identical prayers and hence both petitions could be heard together.
After hearing the submissions, the bench directed the BMC’s advocate Rupali Adhate to file an affidavit within two weeks and to mention the period for which the building was requisitioned and the compensation amount that would be paid to the petitioner and posted the petition to be heard along with the earlier petition on June 2.