Hello all,
Hello all,
This is yet another figure
Thanqx.Jagdeep>>>State owns the plot
T he civic property assessment department records show the state as the owner of the land (CTS No 462) which houses Adarsh cooperative housing society. Civic officials said the society has been shown as a leasee of the 2,716 sq-m plot. TNN>>>Exactly, we need to know the following01 Actual area of plot02 Built up area permissible03 Actual area as built up, carpet areas of each flat, and all areas allowed / permitted free of FAR / FSI, etc04 Mandatory open spaces, recreation, green, garden, road05 Parking spaces required, provided06 Other mandatory requirementsThanqx.Jagdeep>>>
One thing missing is the built up area.According to The Times of India, the plot area is 6490 sqm<<<The 31-storey building in Colaba, built on a 6,490 sq mt plot in the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) II, was originally meant to be a six-storey structure to house Kargil war heroes and widows. The CRZ II norms put several restrictions on vertical development.>>>With 1 FAR / FSI, 6490 sqm can be built.The flats are are 60 sqm and 90 sqm, meaning 150 sqm.Means around 40 to 45 flats.The building has 103 flats.Kindly excuse if I am wrong.Thanqx.Jagdeep>>>
Today's special at China Garden -- High Drama
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE
MUMBAI, August 4: The Bombay High Court today upheld the decision and actions of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in rejecting the applications made by China Garden to regularise illegal portions of the restaurnat, holding that ``the application had to fail''.
A division bench comprising Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna found no ``reason why the corporation should be stopped from implementing its notice (for demolition) of 1985''. It also refused to stay the demolition.
China Garden, however, moved the Supreme Court post-haste and obtained a stay on the demolition till August 23 (Box 1)
The court also directed that the restaurant pay Rs 10,000 as costs to the three respondents, the municipal corporation, the state and the Union of India.
It also rejected fervent appeals by counsel for China Garden, senior advocate Goolam Vahanvati to stay the order till the party could approach the Supreme Court. ``This is a case where, for reasons not difficult to unravel, an admittedlyand blatantly illegal structure has stood for the past 14 years. Our conscience does not permit that it is carried forward any more,'' stated Justice Srikrishna.
Vahanvati then forwarded another plea that the restaurant will voluntarily keep its shutters down till the order of the high court was obtained. BMC counsel, K K Singhvi, however objected, saying it would be a mockery of justice. Vahanvati argued that Justice Srikrishna had in the earlier, `Girish Vyas' case stayed the demolition of the highrise building in Pune.
``Neither reason appeals to us,'' said Justice Srikrishna, clarifying that ``with regard to the Girish Vyas case, the structure had a large number of tenements occupied by tenants. It would have been unjust for the stay not to be granted. As far as the petitioners here are concerned, there are no such considerations''.
The denouement for the high-profile Chinese restaurant owned by Nelson Wang at Kemps Corner began after the division bench began to dictate the order on Tuesdayafternoon. Starting with a shloka from the Mahabharata wherein Sanjay tells Dhritarashtra that there was no cause for despondency ``despite the fact that veterans like Bhishma, Drona had retired from war'' Justice Srikrishna stated: ``The same sentiments were expressed by Alexander Pope when he said that `hope springs eternal in the human breast''. The petition is a paradigm of this saying''.
China Garden has been fighting a stiff battle trying to save itself from demolition since 1985 (Box 2). This is the second round of litigation started by the restaurant and this time around while it was an admitted fact that the restaurant had extended its structure illegally, its counsels had argued that the eaterie could be regularised by the use of heritage TDR (Transfer of Development Rights), since the area at Kemps Corner is a heritage precinct. It had challenged the rejection of its applications by the BMC.
It had, however, been the case of the civic body that the coastal zone as notified by theCentre in 1991, amendments of 1995 and a recent letter of 1998, whereby it was clarified that heritage TRD could not be used in the coastal zones, flew in the face of the restaurant's applications.
A final order was issued by the BMC when in a letter of July 3, it had asked the restaurant to demolish the illegal portions itself by July 19. Instead, China Garden moved the Bombay High Court.
All the contentions of the BMC were, however, upheld by the bench. ``The respondents (corporation) are justified in rejecting the proposal of May 21, 1998, on the ground of the CRZ regulations,'' said the order. It held that the use of Rule 67 of the Development Control Regulations that dictates the use of heritage TDR for structures was rightly applied in this case.
``We have also noticed that the petitioners have not paid for the TDR purchased, but have only entered into an agreement to do so, towards which only part payments have been made,'' the court noted. The bench also wondered whether TDR purchased from aplot reserved for recreational purposes could be used for such purposes.
``In our view, the respondents have correctly applied the law both in the use of the DCR 67 when read in the light of the instructions on the development rules in the CRZ areas. We find no irrational behaviour or pervasity in the decision of the corporation to reject the proposal of May 21, 1998. We find that the application must fail. Hence, we find no reason why the corporation must be stopped from implementing the notice of 1985,'' stated the bench.
SC stays demolition
China Garden was able to obtain a stay from the Supreme Court at around 1.30 pm today, immediately after the Bombay High Court rejected its petition in Mumbai. A division bench of Justice S B Majmudar and Justice U C Banerji stayed demolition of the restaurant till August 23, when the matter is scheduled to come up for admission before the regular bench of the apex court.
While the eaterie did not have any high court order to back its plea, it was able tomove a Special Leave Petition (SLP) kept ready for the eventuality.
Chronology of litigation
Copyright © 1999 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
This story was printed from Net Express located at http://www.expressindia.com. Net Express provides a portal to India, with news from The Indian Express and The Financial Express along with sites on travel and tourism, the entertainment industry, the power sector, the environment and much more.
------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment