HC eye on SoBo redevpt project over violations

MUMBAI: Eight highrise buildings coming up near the heritage precinct of Crawford Market have come under the Bombay high court’s scanner. A division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Gautam Patel on Friday admitted a PIL alleging violations in the permissions given to the redevelopment project in the heart of the island city. The judges said the constructions would be subject to the court’s final decision in the matter.
The court questioned the decision of the then municipal commissioner Jairaj Phatak who had allowed the buildings to rise up to 36 metres despite the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee’s (MHCC) decision that the height of the structures should not be more than 24 metres. “There seems to be no application of mind by the commissioner as to why he overruled the opinion of the heritage committee,” remarked the judges.
The prime land, spread over 7,277 square metres, had a set of old residential structures called Sitaram building. The land was given to a family on a 99-year-old lease from 1901. In 2007, the property, that was subsequently amalgamated, went in for redevelopment by two developers—Sunrise Lifestyle and Beauty Lifestyle. The initial plans envisaged eight buildings of around 56 metres. The MHCC, however, said that since it was about 100 metres from the Crawford Market heritage precinct, the height of the buildings should be restricted to 24 metres. Phatak, said that since there was already a taller building in the area, the developers could built up to 36 metres.
According to the petition, this was in violation of rules. The petition also alleged that after the property lease expired in 2000, it was not renewed. The BMC and the developer claimed that the constructions were undertaken after complying with all rules and permissions. During the pendency of the petition, five of the eight buildings have already been constructed and awaiting grant of occupation certificates, the developer said.
The advocate for the builders contended that there were many other buildings which would face problems in the city. The HC, however, said the issue had to be gone into. “If 100 illegalities are committed, does it mean that the court should not look into a case that has been brought to its notice,” asked the judges. The high court has scheduled the case for further hearing on January 13, 2016.