Latest news with #DCPR2034
Time of India
19-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
CAG: Builders claimed benefits, didn't pass it on to buyers
MUMBAI: Builders misusing development control rules is delaying redevelopment of cessed buildings and depriving residents of their rightful claim to additional area, pointed out the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) in its reports. In March 2003, Mhada's Mumbai building repairs and reconstruction board (MBR&RB) issued a no objection certificate (NOC) for the redevelopment of Raghav Bhuvan and Africa House under the then-prevailing rules, which allowed a floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. Each resident was to be rehabilitated and allotted carpet area equivalent to their previous occupancy, with a minimum of 225 sq ft and a maximum of 753 sqft. In March 2011, DCR rules were amended to permit a higher FSI of 3 for such buildings, with the added condition that the size of the tenements for eligible occupants would be increased accordingly. In March 2016, the developer opted to avail of the benefits of the amended FSI scheme with a revised NOC from Mhada despite the fact that the flats already constructed did not meet the new size criteria. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai In March 2019, MBR&RB issued an NOC allowing the developer to obtain an occupancy certificate (OC) for the sale component from BMC. The audit report said, "Since the size of the tenements had not been increased, the revision in the NOC was irregular and resulted in undue benefit solely to the developer - through the grant of additional built-up area (BUA) of 363.59sqm, valued at Rs 8.61 crore". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched Seeking Alpha Read More Undo It added, "The increase in BUA of the rehabilitation component from 1,516.9sqm to 1,783.1sqm as per the revised NOC was only due to the inclusion of the common passage area in the BUA of the rehabilitation component without any actual increase in the size of the tenements." CAG said to check the implementation of redevelopment cases under Regulation 33(7) of DCR 1991/DCPR 2034, the audit scrutinised projects. "Out of 14 test-checked completed projects, the audit noticed that the developer had claimed benefits without providing due benefit to tenants as discussed (in the Raghav Bhuvan and Africa House case)," the report said. A tenant of one of the rehabilitated buildings said, "We were unaware of the details and were not given any additional area. In fact, the building got OC in March 2021 but still the society is not formed, which is illegal. We are facing several difficulties; our lift is not functioning since the past 24 days. No one is there to resolve the issue."
Hindustan Times
25-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
BMC issues public notice on special provision for ‘iconic buildings'
MUMBAI: The state government's move to create 'iconic buildings' in space-starved Mumbai is beginning to take shape. Amid concerns that these structures could lead to an FSI windfall for developers, the civic administration has issued a notice inviting objections and suggestions from the public on a special provision introduced by the state in the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. BMC headquarters (Hindustan Times) The special provision, under Regulation 33(27), allows for the creation of structures of 'architectural excellence'. It defines what an iconic building is and the eligibility criteria for developers to construct such a structure. The objections and suggestions have been invited by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) as it will be the primary planning authority for such proposals in Mumbai. Under the proposed new regulation, iconic buildings are those that display exceptional uniqueness in shape, size, aesthetic appeal, architectural or structural design, urban integration, or conceptual and thematic innovation. HT was the first to report on iconic buildings on October 1, 2022. To qualify to submit a proposal under this regulation, the builder should have developed at least 1 million square metres of built-up area in previously completed projects, or should have recorded an annual turnover of not less than ₹ 5,000 crore in any one of the last three financial years. In exceptional cases, if a proposal is submitted by a renowned architect who has previously designed and delivered a globally recognised iconic building, the selection committee may consider relaxing these eligibility norms. The notice states that the permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) will be in accordance with the provisions of DCPR 2034. However, subject to committee recommendation, the state may grant additional FSI upon payment of a premium that will be divided between the BMC and the state government in a two-thirds to one-third ratio, respectively. Moreover, architectural or elevational elements that contribute to the building's iconic nature but are non-habitable in nature may be considered for exemption from FSI calculation, with no premium levied, subject to government approval following committee scrutiny. Each proposal will be evaluated by a specially constituted committee led by the municipal commissioner. 'The committee will comprise distinguished individuals from various fields, including global architecture, visual arts, business and urban planning. The municipal commissioner will also appoint two more experts from the academic or professional domains of architecture and urban design. Only five proposals can be recommended each year, and these will be announced officially on significant national days such as January 26, May 1, or August 15,' the notice states. The project must be located on an independent plot and at least 40% of its space must be accessible to the public, either for free or through tickets or bookings. The developer will be responsible for the lifelong upkeep and maintenance of the building or premises. All statutory regulations concerning environmental clearance, heritage conservation, coastal zone regulation, aviation, and archaeology must be complied with by the developer. The concept of iconic buildings is already raising eyebrows. 'The definition of 'iconic building' in the regulation is vague and open-ended. Contrary to the commonly understood meaning of iconic structures as culturally or historically significant landmarks, the regulation appears designed to benefit a select few developers,' said advocate Godfrey Pimenta from Watchdog Foundation. Pimenta told HT, 'The eligibility conditions requiring a minimum of 1 million sq m built-up area or ₹ 5,000 crore turnover effectively restricts access to a handful of large developers. Furthermore, the state government would be an unchecked authority to grant additional FSI at 50% of ASR land rates, with no upper cap, raising concerns of arbitrary and preferential treatment,' he said.
India Today
20-06-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Judiciary shouldn't override public policy: Court backs slum rehab on open land
The Bombay High Court has refused to strike down a provision under the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, which allows the use of public open spaces for slum redevelopment projects. The court said that decisions related to urban planning should be left to the authorities and not the judiciary unless there is a clear violation of legal or constitutional bench of Justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sunderasan delivered the verdict while hearing a petition filed by an alliance of NGOs in 2002. The petition challenged the use of open spaces, meant for parks, gardens, and playgrounds, for slum rehabilitation schemes. The petitioners argued that the policy went against the principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, which protects public assets from private court examined regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the DCPR 2034, which permits reserved open spaces above 500 square metres to be used for slum redevelopment. The policy requires that at least 35 per cent of the ground area be left vacant and continue to serve public purposes. The bench said, "The regulation shows a sincere attempt to balance two competing rights, exactly as the Constitution requires. It supports a vision of environmental well-being that also respects human dignity, and promotes a model of urban growth that includes the poor, rather than pushing them to the city's margins."advertisementIt also said that courts must respect the limits of judicial review. "This does not mean that courts have no role. As constitutional protectors, courts must step in where a policy violates the law, infringes fundamental rights, or is arbitrary and unfair," the bench added."But, even while doing so, the court must remain within the boundaries of judicial review and avoid functioning as a policymaking authority, particularly when the government has followed due process and attempted to balance competing interests in an open and fair manner," the court further the High Court had passed an ad-interim order restraining the government from approving any new slum rehabilitation schemes on such lands without court permission. The interim order remained in effect for nearly two decades, during which time several developers and housing societies had to approach the court to seek Watch IN THIS STORY#Mumbai
Hindustan Times
20-06-2025
- General
- Hindustan Times
HC upholds in-situ rehab of slum dwellers on 65% of encroached open spaces
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday upheld the validity of a clause in Mumbai's development plan that permits 65% of encroached land reserved for public open spaces to be utilised for in-situ rehabilitation of slum dwellers occupying the land. A bench of justices Amit Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to strictly ensure that the remaining 35% of the reserved land remains available as public open space. The bench was ruling on a petition filed in 2002 by NAGAR, a Mumbai-based nonprofit that had challenged Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. The regulation allowed the use of 65% of encroached public open spaces that are not otherwise buildable and measure over 500 square metres in area for the in-situ rehabilitation of the encroachers via a slum rehabilitation scheme. The remaining 35% area is to be retained as public open space, according to the regulation. Refusing to interfere with the regulation, the bench said, 'It is a balanced policy that aims to recover a part of the land while also ensuring humane rehabilitation. This approach is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional.' The bench added that the regulation reflects a practical solution to a difficult and long-standing issue between encroachments and the need for preserving public open spaces to protect the fundamental right of citizens to a healthy environment. Although the regulation reduces the reserved open space existing on paper, it ensures that at least 35% of the encroached land is freed and developed as a public amenity, the judges said. At the same time, it provides better housing and infrastructure to slum dwellers, they added. 'This approach does not destroy environmental values. It tries to recover some environmental benefit from already encroached lands, while also recognising the housing rights of the urban poor,' the bench said. What petitioners said NAGAR's petition, filed through its trustees Neera Punj and Nayana Kathpalia, challenged a notification issued by the state urban development department in 1992 and Regulation 17(3)(D)(2) of DCPR 2034. The petitioners contended that the notification and the regulation, in effect, legalised the diversion of 65% of the land for construction. This significantly diluted the purpose of the land's reservation and stripped the city of its much-needed green and open spaces, they said. According to the petitioners, the regulation went directly against the principles of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine, which asserts that public assets such as parks and open spaces should be preserved for collective enjoyment of the community and should not be sacrificed to accommodate encroachments or private development, even under the banner of welfare schemes. The petitioners also highlighted that the definition of a 'protected occupier' under the Slum Act has undergone considerable changes over the years. A larger pool of slum dwellers on encroached land can now get in-situ rehabilitation, they said, as the original cut-off date for determining eligibility has been extended from January 1, 1976, to January 1, 2011. This has, in turn, increased the burden on scarce urban land, including reserved open spaces, the petitioners argued. The petition further pointed out that even the basic safeguard in the 1992 notification—that at least 25% of the reserved open space must be encroached upon to trigger a slum rehabilitation scheme on it—was entirely removed in the new regulation. This opened up even slightly encroached parks, gardens, and playgrounds for slum rehabilitation, thereby completely defeating the purpose of reservation under the development plan, it said. The petition argued that open spaces are critical for the livability and ecological balance of the city. It added that there is no reason why the relocation policy adopted for infrastructure projects such as railways, roads, or metro corridors, which require the land to be cleared, should not be applied to slum dwellers on public open spaces, which are as essential for the well-being of citizens. What court ruled The high court found no 'clear legal or constitutional defect' in the policy and 'no procedural irregularity or legal flaw' in the procedure. However, it added that a proper balance between the two facets of the right to life—right to healthy environment and right to shelter and a dignified life—would be achieved only if the remaining 35% of these lands are strictly maintained as public open spaces. To achieve this balance, the court directed that the remaining 35% open space must be clearly demarcated in the final approved layout plan of the slum scheme. The plan should also reflect the precise location and dimensions of the open space, which cannot be subsequently modified or shifted, it said. The bench restrained the SRA from granting approval to any slum rehabilitation proposal unless this requirement is 'visibly and verifiably' complied with. The court added that slum rehabilitation schemes on public open spaces should be approved only if the encroachment existed prior to the date of reservation, and the collector issues a certificate that alternate land to rehabilitate the slum dwellers is not available. The BMC was directed to prepare a ward-wise action plan listing all reserved open spaces, complete GIS-based mapping and geo-tagging of all these plots in four months, and upload the data on its website, along with the plots' current usage status. The court also directed the state government to review the policy to evaluate whether the 35:65 ratio serves the goals of sustainable development and come up with a new policy framework, if necessary.
Hindustan Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
State waives stamp duty of ₹264 crore on three projects, including Dharavi Rehab
MUMBAI: The state cabinet on Tuesday gave its assent to three stamp duty waiver proposals collectively worth ₹264.25 crore. One of these is the Gautam Adani-led Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) while the other two are the Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU) in Goregaon and the Raigad Pen Growth Centre in Pen. The approvals were given despite the opposition of the finance department to two of the three proposals. The MNLU waiver will cost the exchequer ₹186.02 crore while the waiver to the Raigad Pen Growth Centre will set it back by ₹33.25 crore. The DRP plot—a 47.5-acre piece of land at Matunga belonging to the Railways—which is to be leased for 99 years, is valued at ₹1,000 crore, and would have got the government ₹45 crore in stamp duty. HT had reported about this stamp duty waiver on June 10. 'The stamp duty on the other land parcels given on leasehold and ownership to the Adani Realty-led DRP, has already been waived by an order issued in September 2019,' said a Mantralaya official. 'Tuesday's decision was for a waiver on the Railways land given on leasehold. The DRP has been announced as a vital project by the state government and thus is eligible for such benefits. The finance department has, however, opposed the waiver.' The MNLU plot is 1,41,640 square metres valued at ₹3,100 crore. The university has been earmarked as an important special purpose project in DCPR 2034 and is expected to impart law education to students from all strata of society. The finance department has assented to only this proposal out of the three. 'The Chief Justice of India is going to lay the foundation stone of the university. Since he is unlikely to assent to the function unless the legal formalities related to the transfer of the land are complete, the state government has decided to expedite the process,' said an official from the law and judiciary department. The Raigad Pen Growth Centre (RPGC) is a joint project involving MMRDA and RPGC. The project involves 1,217.71 acres of land registered under a special purpose vehicle. 'The stamp duty was ₹66.55 crore, of which the state government has waived 50% or ₹33.25 crore,' said a senior revenue official. This waiver proposal too was opposed by the finance department. The RPGC-MMRDA project aims to develop a planned township, including fintech firms, educational and healthcare facilities, entertainment parks, affordable housing, retail and construction, generating significant local employment. Being the first major public-private partnership project of its kind, it is expected to attract foreign investment and generate tax revenue. Speaking about the MNLU campus, a senior official from the state revenue department said that the state government allocated a 35-acre plot for it at Goregaon's Pahadi village in June 2023. 'To get possession of the property, the MNLU administration was supposed to pay ₹186.02 crore, which has been waived by the state government,' he said. The MNLU plot has been at the centre of a controversy for the change effected in its reservation status. It was previously reserved as a 'natural area' and then changed to 'residential area' in the Development Plan, paving the way for setting up the MNLU campus.
