SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT REPORT:

Over the last two months, Mumbai’s municipal commissioner Sitaram Kunte has sent back file after file because the buildings they propose do not meet a specification for open spaces ruled mandatory by a recent Supreme Court order.

The court on December 17 ruled that developers must set aside a minimum 15 to 25 per cent of the plot size at ground level towards open recreational spaces. So far, many developers had been creating such spaces at the podium level and adding that to the open space at the ground level so that the total came to 15-25 per cent. With the Supreme Court insisting on the minimum at the ground level, real estate experts estimate that it will halt over 60 per cent of projects in the city.

“We have been sending back files that are not as per the order of the Supreme Court. These developers are being asked to modify their building plans as per new rules for submission to the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation),” Kunte said.

Builders say it is a challenge to provide recreational facilities at ground level while keeping the project commercially viable. “We cannot provide all the recreational space at ground level as there is an increasing need for parking space in the city. This, coupled with stringent norms for fire passages, will make it extremely difficult for developers to take up projects, especially redevelopment, cluster and slum rehabilitation schemes,” said Vimal Shah, president of Maharashtra Chamber of Housing and Industry and managing director of Hubtown (Ackruti City).

Rule 23 of the Development Control Regulation of 1991 did mandate 15-25 per cent open space at ground level but the BMC, by an amendment in January 2012, permitted that space on a podium. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that any green space on a podium would have to be in addition to the mandatory space at the ground level.

The Trigger

The order came on a case arising, ironically, out of a demolition notice served by the BMC itself.

The notice was on a commercial tower at the 4.8-acre Kohinoor Mills No.3, bought in 2005 at Rs 421 crore by Kohinoor Group and Matoshree Realty, firms owned respectively by former Lok Sabha speaker Manohar Joshi’s son Unmesh Joshi and MNS chief Raj Thackeray. The tower is being built by Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company, with the group holding the majority share and the rest owned by financial services firm IL&FS.

The 52-storey tower, Kohinoor Square, is planned to be among the tallest in Mumbai and envisages a luxury hotel on its topmost floors apart from retail space, a food court, sky gardens and multi-level parking zones. Next to it are two residential towers of 48 and 32 storeys.

The project was among 11 that had been granted extra building rights as an incentive. The developers would build public parking space as high as 10 to 20 storeys and hand it over to the BMC, which in return would allow an additional FSI, or floor space index, a measure of how high a building can be against a given floor area.

Amid criticism, however, Chief minister Prithviraj Chavan scrapped the policy and the BMC in 2011 asked the builders to demolish the parking tower planned till the 13th floor. Citing a new policy, it issued a notice to cancel the commencement certificate (it had been granted) above the fourth floor. The developers, having already constructed lots until the seventh floor, went to the high court, which quashed the stop-work and demolition notice, leading to a BMC appeal in the Supreme Court.Subsequently, the two sides settled out of court that the public parking lot would not be on ground plus 13 but on ground plus four, with captive parking for residents on floors 5 to 13.

But by then, the Supreme Court had noted that there arose several other issues concerning such highrises.

The Order

A bench of justices Hemant Gokhale, a Mumbaikar himself, and J Chelameswar referred to “serious questions of reduction of compulsory green space and fire safety hazards”. A rule permitting a 1.5m passage on small plots under redevelopment, it held, is a fire hazard and thus invalid. A minimum 6m is necessary on plots up to 600 sq m unless the plot abuts a road, the court said, and directed the chief fire officer to certify the accessibility for each proposal.

The bench held there is “excessive concretisation, and a very serious reduction in open spaces,” and that the “right to a healthy environment is within the ambit of the right to life”. At Kohinoor Square, the recreational space at the ground level was 7.7 per cent of the plot area rather than 15 to 25.

The court cited the “harsh realities of open spaces becoming smaller and smaller in Mumbai”; the city has just 1.91 sq m open space per person while the National Building Code prescribes 3 sq m.

The order comes as a boost to environment activists but the BMC stresses it will hinder redevelopment. In the court, it had declared in an affidavit, “Some buildings in the city are very old and dilapidated. To (prevent) loss of property and life, those need to be redeveloped in addition to providing accommodation to existing tenants. If side open spaces are increased, it will result in increase in floor area resulting in increase in height of the building… Some small narrow plots cannot be developed.”

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.33402 OF 2012

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others …Petitioners

versus

Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private

Limited and another

…Respondents

O R D E R

G. S. Singhvi, J.

Part-I

1. This petition is directed against order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby Writ Petition No.143/2012

filed by the respondents was allowed and stop work notice dated 22.12.2011

issued by Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City-III, Municipal

Corporation of Greater Mumbai and order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the

Additional Municipal Commissioner restricting the height of Wing ‘C’ of the

buildings being constructed on Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme – III, N.

Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Mumbai to ground and 4 upper floors were

quashed.

2. The plans submitted by respondent No.1 for construction of Wings -

‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the building were sanctioned by the competent authority

of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, ‘the

Corporation’) and Intimation of Disapproval was issued on 15.2.2006. After

the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India granted

clearance for the construction of commercial building, the competent

authority issued commencement certificate dated 13.9.2006. The Joint

Commissioner of Police (Traffic) issued NOC dated 11.12.2009 for the

development of a multi-storied public parking lot and vide letter dated

2.6.2010, the State Government granted in-principle approval under Clause

33(24) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) for Greater Mumbai,

1991 for construction of a multi-storied public parking lot. Thereafter,

the competent authority issued the Letter of Intent dated 27.7.2010.

3. During the construction of the building, the Urban Development

Department of the State Government sent letter dated 4.3.2011 to the

Municipal Commissioner requiring him to submit a proposal for amendment of

Clause 33 (24) of the DCR for limiting the height of parking towers to 4

floors and also for revocation of all sanctioned proposals where the

commencement certificates had not been issued. In view of that letter, the

Corporation issued circular dated 22.6.2011 prescribing certain conditions

under Clause (iv) of DCR 33(24) and clarified that all proposals for public

parking lots shall be considered subject to those conditions. The new

conditions sought to limit the height of public parking to ground plus 4

upper floors and 2 basements.

4. As a sequel to the above changes, the Corporation issued notice dated

29.11.2011 to respondent No.1 under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional

and Town Planning Act, 1966 requiring it to show cause as to why the

commencement certificate may not be revoked. Respondent No.1 submitted

detailed reply dated 14.12.2011 and pleaded that the amended DCR 33(24)

cannot be made applicable to its buildings because substantial construction

had already been made at a cost of Rs.167/- crores. Thereafter, the

concerned Executive Engineer issued stop work notice dated 22.12.2011 and

directed respondent No.1 to restrict the work of public parking to 4 floors

instead of 13 floors. After about six months, Additional Municipal

Commissioner passed order dated 27.4.2012, the relevant portion of which is

extracted below:

“As there is a substantial construction on core part of the plot, PPL

done in this part shall be allowed to the extent of already executed

construction as per report dated 27/12/2011. In the remaining portion

of the plot, where there is no substantial construction, PPL shall be

limited to G + 4, Developer is to be asked to modify his plans in

consonance with modified DCR.”

5. The respondent challenged the stop work notice and the order of the

Additional Municipal Commissioner in Writ Petition No.143/2012, which was

allowed by the High Court in the following terms:

“In the facts of this case, the admitted position as accepted in the

order of the Additional Municipal Commissioner indicates that the work

of development had substantially progressed by the time a notice to

show cause was issued under Section 51 of the M.R. & T.P. Act, 1966.

The impugned order passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner

restricting the Petitioners to a height of a ground floor and four

upper floors in deviation of the permission granted earlier is

therefore contrary to law. Hence, the impugned order would have to be

quashed and set aside and is accordingly set aside. The stop work

notice which has been issued to the Petitioners on the basis of the

notice to show cause dated 29 November 2011 is to that extent quashed

and set aside. Rule is made absolute in these terms. There shall be no

order as to costs.”

6. The special leave petition filed by the petitioners was taken up for

admission hearing on 23.11.2012, on which date S/Shri F.S. Nariman, K.K.

Venugopal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan and other learned counsel appeared

on behalf of the respondents. During the course of arguments, Shri Harish

N.Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners made some

suggestions. Thereupon, Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing

for respondent No.1 gave out that his assisting counsel will seek

instructions. The case was then adjourned to 10.12.2012 with liberty to the

parties to file additional affidavits incorporating their respective

suggestions and also produce copies of the sanctioned plans.

7. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 10.12.2012, this Court passed the

following order:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The engineers of the Corporation and the respondents may hold a

joint meeting, examine the plans prepared by the Corporation which

have been filed before this Court and submit a report on the

feasibility of providing ramp at the point suggested by the

Corporation.

List the case on 11.01.2013.”

8. Further arguments were heard on 22.1.2013, 30.1.2013, 19.2.2013,

28.2.2013 and 11.4.2013. On 18.4.2013, learned senior counsel for the

parties gave out that their clients have amicably settled the matter. Their

instructing counsel also filed a Memorandum of Settlement along with an

annexure duly signed by the representatives of the parties and their

advocates.

9. Accordingly, the Memorandum of Settlement signed by the

representatives of the parties and their advocates on 18.4.2013 together

with the annexure are taken on record. We note that this settlement is

arrived at on the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of this case. We

clarify that we have not in anyway held the Municipal Circular dated

22.6.2011 to be bad in law. We direct that the parties shall strictly abide

by the terms of settlement.

Part-II

(A) The problem concerning reduction in the recreational area at the

ground level:-

10. Having dealt with the actual controversy between the parties which

led to this SLP, we deem it proper to take cognizance of a few important

issues, which arose in the course of this proceeding concerning the impact

of excessive construction and higher FSI on the urban environment. The

concept of Floor Space Index (FSI) implies the buildable potential of a

plot of land. The FSI to be allowed must take into consideration the

availability of civic infrastructure including open spaces, transport

facilities, requirements for protection against fire, and water supply and

sewerage as well as electricity. An increase in FSI is likely to result

into an increase in the density of population. FSI has an important bearing

on the quality of urban life. A relaxation of FSI norms or, as the case may

be, an enhancement of FSI by urban planners cannot be removed from the

issue of adequacy, or as the case may be, inadequacy of civic services.

11. The requirement of keeping open spaces at the ground level should be

read in this context. The recreational areas and greens in the multi-

storied buildings have to be scrupulously safeguarded. The problem with the

existing Municipal and Town Planning statutes is that they factor only two

out of the three compelling needs. The first need is that of increasing

housing stock – which is undeniable. The second need is that of keeping

recreational areas for residents. The third entirely different and equally,

if not more compelling, is the need to assess the sustainable capacity of

the city and to balance the development with this capacity. The principle

of sustainable development which has been construed by this Court as an

integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution deserves to be applied to

town and urban planning throughout the country. This requires a thorough

assessment of the environmentally sustainable capacity of every city/urban

area. The preparation of Master Plan/Town Planning Schemes has to be made

keeping in view the issue of sustainable capacity of the particular

city/urban area.

12. Clause 23 of DCR for Greater Mumbai lays down the minimum requirement

for providing the recreational ground. The area to be retained as

recreational ground varies depending upon the size of the plot. The present

position under the DCR is as follows:-

|(i) |Area from 1001 SQ.M. to 2500 SQ.M. |15 per cent |

|(ii)|Area from 2501 SQ.M. to 10,000 SQ.M. |20 per cent |

|(iii|Area above 10,000 SQ.M. |25 per cent |

|) | | |

13. In the present case, we find that as per the approved plan, the

recreational space available at the ground level is only 7.7% of the area

of the plot and respondent No.1 has accordingly raised construction. The

respondents’ plea, which appears to have been accepted by the Corporation,

is that under DCR 38(34) the recreational area can be provided on the

podium. We may add that since the petitioners and respondents have arrived

at a settlement, we do not propose to go into this issue with respect to

the construction of the respondent. We are, however, surprised that the

Municipal Corporation did not look into the reduction in the recreational

area at the ground level very seriously, probably because the rule permits

recreational space on the podium. If this is treated as a correct

interpretation, then it is quite possible that the recreational area left

at the ground level could simply be zero. It may leave no space on the

ground floor for the residents/occupants of the apartments constructed in

the particular building, and that will have serious adverse impact on the

right to life not only of the residents / occupants of the apartments but

also of the people in the adjoining areas because all of them will have to

only fall back on the public parks or play grounds and gardens for their

minimum recreational requirements. When the cities are overcrowded, the

roads are narrow and the traffic is increasing, the situation will be

extremely hazardous for the children and senior citizens. There will be no

greens in the buildings and the people will always crave for fresh and pure

air. The buildings without greens will add to the ever increasing

temperature of the overcrowded cities and urban areas. To put it

differently, all constructions without adequate green and recreational

areas will have serious impact on the environment and human life. If the

recreational area is on 20th or 40th floor, the residents of the apartments

may be able to access the same only through an elevator and that could

never be a substitute for any such activity at the ground level.

(B) The problem of impact on traffic:-

14. The next issue which came up during the discussion of this SLP was

concerning the impact of the construction of high rise buildings in thickly

populated areas on the traffic in the city. In the present case parking is

proposed to be provided in the basements of the three buildings and in the

ground floor plus 13 floors of building / tower C, wherein now as per the

settlement between the parties, basement and ground plus 4 floors are to be

reserved for public parking and the upper floors from 5th to 13th are

reserved for the parking of the residents / occupants of the building

concerned (called as captive parking). It is alright to say that parking

is being provided for public purpose as well, but on that ground higher FSI

is granted to the developer. The object of the arrangement is not merely

to provide space for public parking but also for the parking of vehicles by

the residents of the high rise buildings, and then to get further FSI.

Consequently, such high rise buildings bring along with them more number of

vehicles of the occupants. Under DCR No.31 (1), the height of the building

has to be in proportion to width of the road which is adjoining the

building. Proviso to DCR 31 (1) lays down that construction schemes under

certain DCRs bearing Nos.33 (7), 33 (8) and 33 (9) which relate to

reconstruction / redevelopment of old buildings are exempted from

application of DCR 31(1). The consequence is that the schemes of

reconstruction bring along with them more population and more vehicles into

an already congested area. The question is whether such exemption is

justified, valid and legal?

15. The Municipal Corporation has prepared a document called "City

Development Plan under Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).

The document sets out that for a population of 12 million, in an area of

437 Sq. Kms. there are only 753 parks with an area of 4.4 Sq.Kms. There is

a vehicle population of 1.2 million with annual increase of 4 to 5%. 9.9

million people commute daily. The transportation system is plagued by

inadequate capacity of the existing arterial roads, overriding surface of

the roads, traffic bottle-necks and over burdened suburban rail system. The

traffic density at peak hours is 6 to 8 kms. per hour. All these aspects

will have to be kept in mind while examining the issues concerning

recreational areas and traffic problems.

(C) The hazards arising out of non-compliance of fire safety standards:-

16. The third question which came up during deliberations was with

respect to the hazards due to fire in such towers. There are provisions

with respect to the space to be kept around such buildings for the movement

of the fire-engines within the compound and within such building [DCR No.43

(1) 2]. There are also provisions with respect to sprinklers and other

provisions in Appendix-VIII. The fire engines with their ladders available

with the Municipal Corporation are reportedly not reaching anywhere beyond

14th floor. Even the fire which very recently engulfed the Secretariat

Building of the State of Maharashtra (known as Mantralaya) took a few days

to be controlled when the building has a height of 6 floors, and in which

exercise a few persons unfortunately died. The issue of safety of the

occupants of the high rise buildings, the residents in the neighbourhood

and the firemen is equally important.

17. We are, therefore, of the view that following four issues require a

consideration:-

1) What should be the correlation between DCR 23 and DCR 38 (34)

regarding the recreational area? Is it permissible to reduce

the minimum recreational area provided under DCR 23 on any

ground?

2) Whether the exemption from DCR 31 (1) under DCR Nos. 33 (7), 33

(8) and 33 (9) is justified, valid and legal particularly in the

island city of Greater Mumbai? If so, to what extent and in

which context?

3) What is the impact of the addition of FSI in the island city on

the traffic situation? How can it be controlled?

4) Whether the present mechanism for protection against the fire

hazards is adequate and is being implemented effectively? If

not, what should be the mechanism for enforcement with respect

to the provisions concerning the fire safety?

18. We propose to examine these questions in the light of the statistics

of the population in the island city of Mumbai, the availability of the

roads therein, and the incidents of fire which have taken place in the

island city. We will require the assistance of Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai and the State of Maharashtra for this purpose. These issues

have become urgent particularly for the residents of island city which is

not disputed by Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners as well as Mr. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondents. It is, therefore, that we feel that although the

petitioners and respondents may be permitted to proceed with the settlement

that they have arrived at, this SLP be kept alive so that Mr. Salve and Mr.

Nariman can assist us on these issues in public interest.

19. We will also have to hear the State of Maharashtra. We would like to

look into the aforesaid issues in the light of Constitutional provisions

under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 48A. We would like the counsel for both

these parties and the learned counsel appearing for the State of

Maharashtra to help us arrive at early decision since the problem has

become urgent and acute. They may as well suggest appropriate protective

measures including prohibitory/guiding orders with respect to on going

constructions.

20. A notice will be issued to the State of Maharashtra to file its

response within 4 weeks hereafter. The Municipal Corporation and the

respondents who are the builders are already before this Court. They are

also directed to file their response within 4 weeks on the above referred

four issues.

(A). We direct the Municipal Corporation to file following affidavits on

the above four issues:-

(i) The affidavit of the Chief Engineer, Town Planning on issues

no.1 and 2.

(ii) The affidavit of the Chief Engineer, concerning traffic on issue

no.3.

iii) The affidavit of the Chief Fire Officer on issue no.4.

(B). We direct the State of Maharashtra to cause affidavits to be filed

on the above four issues.

(i) By the Secretary, Urban Development Department on issue nos. 1,

2 and 3 above.

(ii) By the Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on issue no. 3 above.

21. The SLP be notified for further hearing after 4 weeks.

New Delhi,

July 25, 2013.

-----------------------

NB:_ I am unable to find the final order of the SC on its website. However, will try in office tomorrow for the further final order.

Analysis of expert:

Supreme Court is heavily down on Developers to maintain open space, passageway of 6 meters, recreational

area and podium rules in redevelopment as per various clauses as specified in DCR.

The recent judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others

as Appellants Versus Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Company Private Limited and another as Respondents has

ruled to maintain adequate space around buildings at the ground level both as recreational areas and to allow

fire engines smooth passage. The ruling has sent most Developers in lurch. The Real Estate Industry in

Mumbai, which is already stumbling under recession, has virtually come to a grinding halt.

The Apex Court has whipped the strictures in case of redevelopment projects under consideration that the

minimum recreation area under the Development Control Rules (DCR) 23 should not be reduced. The

recreation area if any provided on podium as per DCR 38 (34) should be in addition to that provided as per

DCR 23.

Rule 23 of the Development Control Regulation of 1991 mandates 15-25% open space at ground level

depending on the plot size for every building. By an amendment in January 2012, the Authorities had permitted

recreation space on a podium. The Apex Court said that any green space on a podium had to be in addition to

the space mandated at ground level. For redevelopment, the minimum open space norm stays at 8% for small

plots. Podiums are allowed only in plots covering more than 1,500 sq. meters.

The decision would apply to all those constructions where plans are not approved or where the

Commencement Certificate (CC) has not been issued till date and further directed that the Chief Fire Officer

(CFO) must certify the accessibility for each redevelopment proposal.

Developers, architects and even the civic body represented to the Supreme Court the rising demand for

parking space in residential towers supposedly creating the lots either in basements or on podiums, which in

turn required ramp space, thus reducing area meant for the gardens.

The Apex Court pointed that the Greater Mumbai has just 1.91 sq. meters of open space per person. It falls

way short of the 3 sq. meters prescribed by the National Building Code 2005 and the 11 sq. meters

recommended by the Union govt.

For redevelopment of plots up to a size of 600 sq. meters, an open space of 6 meters on at least one side of

the ground level that is accessible from the road side will have to be maintained for the maneuverability of a fire

engine, unless the building abuts two roads of 6 meters or more on two sides or another access of 6 meters to

the building is available apart from the road abutting the building.

The Developers are stressed that for the redevelopment projects in city and suburbs mostly having small plots,

it would not be feasible unless the 6-metre passageway on one side of a building for fire engines rule is relaxed

and that the ruling’s adverse impact will be felt most in the B and C wards where pre-1960 buildings abound in

narrow lanes which have lined up with applications for reconstruction. Several other issues, such as Heritage,

Doppler, Prisons, Naval Restrictions and Coastal Regulation Zones have already crippled the realty industry.

The result is that in the last three weeks not a single new proposal for construction of buildings has been

received by the BMC. In fact, all the plans are now returned by the BMC which were submitted by the

Developers before the order of Supreme Court, since they would have to comply with the new rule. The CFO,

Fire Brigade and the Building Proposals and Development Plan Departments have been instructed to strictly

follow the Apex Court Guidelines so that no contempt of court is committed.

Due to this stricture, the actual size of plots proposed for redevelopment has shrunk and has upset the

computation with regard to the viability of a project as also the height of buildings has to be increase to

accommodate all the tenants as also the saleable area of Developers in redevelopment projects.

It is feared that if the height of the proposed building goes up more than 70 metres then the High-Rise

Committee Rules will be invariably applicable such as to keep two staircases with a width of two metres, refuge

floors will have to be provided after each set of eight floors which were earlier free of FSI and now since added

to FSI, premium has to be paid for the same.

EXCERPTS FROM SC JUDGMENT:@ It was noticed that as per the approved plan, the recreational space available at the ground level was

reduced to only 7.7% of the area of the plot, as against the required minimum of 15% (where the area of the

plot was between 1001 sq. meters to 2500 sq. meters as per the DCR 23).

@ Recreational/Amenity Open Spaces in Residential Layouts: As per DCR 23,in any layout or sub-division

of vacant land in a residential and commercial zone, open spaces shall be provided as under:

(i) Area from 1001 sq. meters to 2500 sq. meters: 15 per cent

(ii) Areas from 2501 sq. meters to 10000 sq. meters: 20 per cent

(iii) Area above 10000 sq. meters: 25 per cent

These open spaces shall be exclusive of areas of accesses, internal roads, designations or reservations,

development plan roads and areas for road-widening and shall as far as possible be provided in one place.

Where, however, the area of the layout or sub-division is more than 5000 sq. meters, open spaces may be

provided in more than one place, but at least one such place shall be not less than 1000 sq. meters in size.

Such recreational spaces will not be necessary in the case of land used for educational institutions with

attached independent playgrounds. Admissibility of FSI shall be as indicated in Regulation 35.

@ The minimum recreational space as laid down under Development Control Regulation (DCR) 23 cannot be

reduced on the basis of DCR 38 (34). The recreational space, if any, provided on the podium as per DCR

38(34) (iv), shall be in addition to that provided as per DCR 23.

@ The provisions regarding height of building: Under DCR No.31 (1), the height of the building has to be in

proportion to the width of the road which is adjoining a building, but the proviso to that DCR makes another

exception to this rule with respect to construction schemes under DCRs Nos.33 (7), (8) and (9). DCR 33 (7) is

regarding reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings in the island city, by co-operative housing

societies, or of old buildings belonging to the Municipal Corporation or the police department and it grants FSI

of 3 plus incentive FSI whichever is more. DCR 33 (8) is regarding construction for housing the dis-housed, by

the Municipal Corporation. DCR 33 (9) is regarding reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings or

urban renewal schemes on extensive areas where the FSI is 4. These constructions also add to the population

and the vehicles in that very area. A question therefore arose as to whether these exemptions are justified,

valid and legal?

@ The provisions regarding the podium: The provision regarding the podium is seen in DCR No. 38 (34).

DCR 38 lays down the requirements concerning parts of buildings. DCR 38 (34) reads as follows:

(i) A podium may be permitted on plot admeasuring 1500 sq. meters or more.

(ii) The podium provided with ramp may be permitted in one or more level, total height not exceeding 24 meters

above ground level. However, podium not provided with ramp but provided with two car lifts may be permitted

in one or more level, total height not exceeding 9 meters above ground level.

(iii) The podium shall be used for the parking of vehicles.

(iv) The recreational space prescribed in DCR 23 may be provided either at ground level or on open to sky

podium.

(v) Podium shall not be permitted in required front open space.

(vi) Such podium may be extended beyond the building line in consonance with provision of DCR 43 (1) on one

side whereas on other side and rear side it shall be not less than 1.5 meters from the plot boundary.

(vii) Ramps may be provided in accordance with DCR 38(18).

(viii) Adequate area for Drivers rest rooms and sanitary block may be permitted on podiums by counting in FSI.

@ The second proviso to DCR 43 (1) (A) concerning fire protection requirements: We hold that for the

reconstruction proposals of plots up to the size of 600 sq. meters under DCR 33(7), open space of the width of

6 meters at least on one side at ground level within the plot, accessible from the road side will have to be

maintained for the manoeuvrability of a fire engine, unless the building abuts two roads of 6 meters or more on

two sides, or another access of 6 meters to the building is available, apart from the road abutting the building.

@ The decision as contained above, will apply to those constructions where plans are still not approved, or

where the Commencement Certificate (CC) has not yet been issued. All authorities concerned are directed to

ensure strict compliance accordingly.

@The Government of Maharashtra shall issue the necessary notification within four weeks of this order, re-

constituting the ‘Technical Committee for the High-Rise Buildings’.