|
#REDIRECT [[Campa Cola Compound Case]]
{{Neutrality|date=May 2014}}
{{Orphan|date=November 2013}}
{{Tone|date=May 2014}}
[[Image:Campa Cola protests.jpg|thumb|Image from the Change.org petition to save Campa Cola Compound]]
'''Campa Cola Compound''' is an apartment complex in the southern part of [[Worli]] in [[South Mumbai]], [[India]]. The Campa Cola Compound was constructed on land leased to Pure Drinks Ltd in 1955, which was permitted by B.M.C in 1980 to develop it for residential purposes. Pure Drinks along with unscrupulous builders, Yusuf Patel, B.K. Gupta and P.S.B Construction Co erected seven buildings, two of which were high-rise buildings of 17 and 20 stories. During the construction period, the authorities issued notices to the builders to stop work. The builders were fined and they paid the penalty and resumed work. After the construction was completed nobody prevented the buyers from occupying their apartments or the buildings from forming co-operative housing societies.
Unaware of these violations, the residents bought the apartments believing that they would get the occupation certificates in due course, as was the norm 25 years ago. Since 2005 the residents have been in litigation with B.M.C. trying to defend their homes and save their families from being thrown on the streets. The society rose to national attention because of a court judgment that deemed construction beyond five floors illegal and called for razing it down.<ref name=ET>{{cite news|last=Agencies|title=Campa Cola housing society: SC stays demolition till May 31, 2014|url=http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/campa-cola-housing-society-sc-stays-demolition-till-may-31-2014/articleshow/25686172.cms|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Economic Times|date=13 November 2013}}</ref>The society is occupied by around 230 families who have been residing there for over 25 years.<ref name=HT>{{cite news|last=Vasudevan|first=Vaishnavi|title=SC stays razing of Mumbai's Campa Cola building till May|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/SC-stays-razing-of-Mumbai-s-Campa-Cola-building-till-May/Article1-1150567.aspx|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Hindustan Times|date=13 November 2013}}</ref> It has seven buildings namely Midtown Apartments, Orchid Tower, Patel Apartments 7A & 7B, Esha Ekta Apartments, BY Apartments & Shubh Apartments.<ref name=ndtv>{{cite news|last=Ghosh|first=Shamik|title=Campa Cola society demolition put on hold as Supreme Court steps in at eleventh hour|url=http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/campa-cola-society-demolition-put-on-hold-as-supreme-court-steps-in-at-eleventh-hour-445297?curl=1384326718|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=NDTV|date=13 November 2013}}</ref>
Over the last two years the Campa Cola Compound has received continual extensive support from the public, political parties, as well as certain celebrities. The residents have also submitted proposals to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation with solutions to the problems that are within the law, but have not yet got any relief from the concerned authorities. The Supreme Court on May 30, 2014 declined to stay the eviction of the residents. As per an earlier Supreme Court order, the residents of Campa Cola society will have to vacate their apartments by May 31, 2014.<ref>http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-declines-to-stay-campa-cola-demolition-agrees-to-hear-plea-on-tuesday-533243</ref>
[[Image:Campa Cola Buildings.jpg|thumb|Image of the compound from one of the buildings]]
== Chronology of Events ==
1. 1962 - BMC leased 17917 sq mt of land to Pure Drinks under perpetual lease for 999 years for industrial purpose.
2. 1980 – 13049 sq.mt. Converted to residential use.
3. 1981 – IOD and CC issued for development.
4. 1981-1983 : Development rights for the entire residential plot sold to the following 3 builders (i) Yusuf Patel (ii) B.K.Gupta (iii) PSB Construction Co
5. 1983 – Plans for 9 buildings of 5 stories each approved as per 1.33 FSI as per DCR ‘67. Total sanctioned FSI - 17,350 sq.mt. Subsequently amended plans for 5 smaller buildings and 2 towers (consuming the same sanctioned FSI) submitted but plans not sanctioned. The following buildings are errected.
Mid Town Apartments - Stilt + 20th floors <br />
Orchid Co-op Housing Society - Stilt + 17 floors<br />
Patel Apartments A - Stilt + 5.5 floors<br />
Patel Apartments B - Stilt + 6 floors<br />
Esha Ekta Apartments - Gr + 8 floors<br />
B.Y.Apartments - Gr + 6 floors<br />
Shubh Apartments - Gr + 7 floors
6. 1984 – Stop work notices issued to builders. Work carries on.
7. 1986 – Penalty of Rs. 6,56,800/- demanded from and paid by Builders.
8. 1987 - Penalty revised based on new land rates to Rs.11,20,900/-. The said penalty includes construction upto the 20th floor of Mid Town, which is the tallest building. Difference of Rs. 4,64,100/- not paid by Builders.
9. By 1989 – Construction complete and practically all the apartments sold. However, sale agreements executed from about 1983 onwards through the construction phase without the innocent flat purchasers having knowledge of the FSI violation. Total FSI violation of 1774 sq.mt. (10% of sanctioned FSI). No conveyance done by the builders.
10. 25th March 1991 – DCR '91 introduced which gave the benefit of staircase, lift and lift lobby area to be considered free of FSI computation.
11. 1991 onwards – Societies start getting formed but no conveyance as on date
12. 1994 – Builders apply for exemption of staircase, lift and lift lobby area exemption from FSI calculation as per DCR ‘91. Application not considered favorably since IOD and CC issued in 1981 and construction completed by 1989.
13. 2002 – Architect makes an application on behalf of the residents, u/s 35(2) requesting
that DCR ’91 be considered. Corporation upholds their earlier decision. Architect appeals to the CM u/s 47 of MRTP Act. (Appeal pending till 2010)
14. 2005 – Individual societies approach high court for water. BMC issues demolition notices u/s 351 to all floors over the 5th floor since it is beyond sanctioned plans. Members apply for a stay in the City civil court.
15. 2007 – Pure Drinks sells the smaller industrial plot admeasuring 4852 sq.mt. to Krishna Developers. Krishna developers not allowed developing the plot by BMC since the residential plot has FSI violation. Hence Krishna joined the litigation.
16. 2009 – The city civil court issued an interim order evicting the stay.
17. 2010 - The residents filed an Appeal against Order (AO) in the High Court. The high court instructs the CM to hear the pending appeal of the resident’s u/s 47 of the MRTP Act.
18. June 2010 – The CM also upholds the corporation’s decision not to allow DCR ‘91. However, his order clearly states that the extent of violation beyond the permissible FSI, as measured by the MCGM staff is 1774 sq.mt. It further states that the residents were free to approach the MCGM for issues other than the 1774 sq.mt. The association File an Appeal u/s 47.
19. 2010 – The residents file a Writ Petition challenging the Chief Minister’s order.
20. August 2011 – High Court rules against the AO, in favour of the Corporation.
21. December 2011 - Residents file an SLP in the Supreme Court asking for FSI available on the industrial plot to be used to regularize the violation on the residential plot.
22. February 2012 – The Supreme court upholds the High court order and dismisses the SLP. However, the Supreme Court directs the writ pending with the High Court, against the CM’s order, to be transferred to the Supreme Court.
23. 27th February 2013 – The Supreme Court upholds Chief Minister’s order dated 4/6/10 and directs the BMC to take action as per the demolition notices. The order stipulates a virtual embargo directing all Govt, State and Corporation employees not to interfere in the implementation of the demolition notices.
24. 2nd May 2013 – Residents get a 5-month stay till 2ndOctober 2013.
25. 11th Sept 2013 – Residents approach the court on the grounds that the as per the CM’s order that the SC has held final, there is only violation of 1774 sq.mt. The SC gives permission to approach BMC for relief. BMC refuses to entertain their application for regularization u/s 53(3) of the MRTP Act based on the virtual embargo mentioned in the Supreme Court order dated 27/2/13 and not on merit of the application.
26. 1st October 2013 – Residents go back to the SC asking for clarification of the 11/09/13 order. The Judges says it is too late in the date to raise these issues and does not give any clarity on their 11/9/13 order. However the residents manage to get another stay for 41 days till the 11th of November, 2013
27. 13th November 2013 – Supreme Court suo moto grants a stay till 31st May 2014. During the hearing the Attorney General offers to give a permanent solution. The bench asks the Attorney General to give his solution on 19/11/13.
28. 19th November 2013 – unfortunately, the Attorney General informs the court that he has NO solution. This is despite the residents verbally conveying to the corporation 3 options for a solution.
29. On 14/12/13 the 6 societies jointly file an application for recall of the SC order dt 27/2/13 and the Campa Cola Association file an application for recall of the SC order dt 1/10/13. The applications are made based on certain internal BMC documents recently found that change the complexion of the case. Having originated from 2 different SLP's both the applications are listed in 2 different courts. The first application is questioned by the judge, on the grounds that the review is already dismissed and hence a curative is the only option. However, a date to decide the same is set as 20/1/14.The 2nd application is questioned on the grounds that a review should be filed and that a recall application is not the correct route. In this case the date for the next hearing is set as 6/1/14.
30. On the hearing of 6/01/14, the AG requests for both the cases to be tagged along with the pending application to be heard on 20/1/14 since that is the original order and the 1/10/13 order was an off shoot of the main order. The request is granted and matter adjourned to 20/01/14.
31. On 20/01/14 the Court gives the residents 2 weeks to submit a solution.
32. On 03/02/14 additional 4 weeks granted to reach an amicable solution. Matter adjourned to 3/3/14.
33. On 02/03/14, a day, before the hearing BMC’s AOR sends a letter to the Residents’ AOR that proposals submitted by the residents cannot be considered since the residents do not have title to the property.
34. On 03/03/14 the AG not available. Hence case adjourned to 10/03/14.
35. On 08/03/14 residents inform the corporation vide a letter that they are in possession of the title to the property.
36. On 10/03/14 the residents submit a deeemed conveyance duly executed in favour of the six societies.The corporations seeks 4 weeks to study the title. The matter adjourned till 15/04/14.
37. On 15/04/14 during this hearing the BMC turned around and said that they are not part of the proposed solution in FORM and SUBSTANCE and left the residents high and dry after taking them down a garden path for almost 4 months with the belief that they were willing to reach an amicable solution. The matter was adjourned to 07/05/14 on the request of the counsel representing the residents.
== Major Issues Highlighted ==
While it is just one complex in Mumbai, it highlighted a number of prevalent problems existing with the Indian System:<br />
1) A Builder Authority Nexus - Builders continually flout norms in India, and the concerned authorities turn a blind eye during construction, but then suddenly wake up after the builder has made his money and exited the scene.
2) There are 56332 other buildings in the Mumbai area alone which break similar rules, according an Affidavit submitted by the BMC to the Supreme Court of India. Will the other buildings suffer a similar fate?
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{coord missing|Maharashtra}}
[[Category:Buildings and structures in Mumbai]]
| 