Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sai Chintan C.H.S.LTD. and MPR Builders and Developers LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a demolition notice dated 20.12.2022 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 337 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The notice alleged that the construction of a building at Plot No.56, TPS II, Prarthana Samaj Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai, violated the Development Control Regulations (DCR) 2018, specifically regarding FSI and other parameters. The petitioners contended that the building plans were approved by MCGM in 2015, and construction had substantially progressed before DCR 2018 came into force. They argued that they had a vested right to complete the construction as per the earlier regulations. The court examined the timeline: the building was approved in 2015, construction commenced, and by 2018, the building was substantially complete. DCR 2018 came into effect on 01.09.2018. The court held that the petitioners had a vested right to complete the construction based on the approved plans, and DCR 2018 could not be applied retrospectively to affect those rights. The court also noted that the notice under Section 337 was issued without proper consideration of the petitioners' explanation and without following principles of natural justice. The court quashed the demolition notice and directed MCGM to consider the petitioners' application for occupation certificate in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by MCGM to the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Demolition Notice - Vested Rights - Section 337 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The petitioners challenged a demolition notice issued by MCGM for alleged deviations from DCR 2018. The court held that since the building plans were approved and construction was substantially completed before DCR 2018 came into force, the petitioners had a vested right to complete the construction as per the earlier regulations. The notice was quashed. (Paras 1-22) B) Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospective Operation - Development Control Regulations - The court held that DCR 2018 cannot be applied retrospectively to constructions that were approved and substantially completed prior to its enforcement. The principle that statutes are presumed to be prospective unless expressly made retrospective was applied. (Paras 15-18) C) Municipal Law - Section 337 Notice - Compliance with Natural Justice - The court found that the notice under Section 337 of the MMC Act, 1888 was issued without proper application of mind and without considering the petitioners' explanation. The notice was set aside for non-compliance with principles of natural justice. (Paras 19-22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned demolition notice dated 20.12.2022 issued by MCGM is valid when the construction was approved prior to the coming into force of DCR 2018 and the building was substantially completed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the demolition notice dated 20.12.2022, and directed MCGM to consider the petitioners' application for occupation certificate in accordance with law. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were awarded to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Doctrine of vested rights
- Non-retrospective operation of Development Control Regulations
- Section 337 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
- Regulation 4.7 of DCR 2034
