Content deleted Content added
→History: corrected link url now in archive |
Sethiakaran (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: gettingstarted edit |
||
Line 7:
In the 1980s, three builders constructed seven buildings on a plot that was previously used by a factory owned by Pure Drinks. Despite having the permission to build only six floors, the builders continued to construct the seventh floor and eventually built up to seventeen and twenty floors respectively.<ref name="Mumbai Boss">{{cite news|last=Dutta|first=Pronoti|title=Lessons From The Campa Cola Case|url=http://mumbaiboss.com/2013/05/06/lessons-from-the-campa-cola-case/|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Mumbai Boss|date=13 November 2013}}</ref>
The society was first reported about when its residents approached [[Bombay High Court]] for water connections in 1999. Despite being constructed in between 1981 and 1989, the society residents relied on tankers for water supply.<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> One of the builders, B.K Gupta was reported saying that it was understood that builders would exceed the permissible height and that the [[Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation]] (BMC) would regularize the extra floors after charging penalties.<ref name="Mumbai Boss" /> In 2005, the Bombay high court ordered BMC to initiate a time-bound process to demolish all floors above the fifth, which were illegal.<ref name=HT2>{{cite news|last=Purohit|first=Kunal|title=As chaos and confusion reigned in Mumbai's Campa Cola,politicians thrived|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/As-chaos-and-confusion-reigned-in-Mumbai-s-Campa-Cola-politicians-thrived/Article1-1150539.aspx|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Hindustan Times|date=13 November 2013}}</ref> In February 2013, the [[Supreme Court of India]] gave the verdict that: “Although the members of the housing societies knew that the construction had been raised in violation of the sanctioned plan and permission for occupation of the buildings had not been issued by the competent authority, a large number of them occupied the illegally constructed buildings.” <ref name=IE>{{cite news|last=Patwa|first=Sharvari|title=Campa Cola architect says buyers too knew it was all illegal|url=http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/campa-cola-architect-says-buyers-too-knew-it-was-all-illegal/1193685/|accessdate=13 November 2013|newspaper=Indian Express|date=12 November 2013}}</ref>
== 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.
==References==
| |||