The Bombay High Court rejected a petition by Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt Ltd and mandated that the developer finish eight unfinished structures in the Mira-Bhayandar area, in a landmark ruling intended to preserve public interest and accountability in urban development. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) will receive these buildings, which include around 3,000 residential and commercial units, under an earlier rental housing program (RHS) that had greatly benefited the builder.
The developer had contested a March 2022 decision by the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (MBMC) that denied its request to shift the project under the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR). Neelkamal had originally undertaken the project in 2008 under the state’s rental housing scheme, which granted an increased floor space index (FSI) of 4. In return, the developer was to construct eight buildings on 25% of the land and transfer them to MMRDA at no cost. The remaining 75% was to be used for free-sale buildings using the remaining 3 FSI.
While the builder successfully constructed and sold 26 free-sale buildings — allegedly for substantial profits — the eight rental housing buildings remained incomplete. The division bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, in a verdict dated April 7 and made public this week, found that the developer had defaulted on his legal and moral obligations. The Court observed that the 4 FSI granted was conditional upon delivering the promised rental housing component — small 155 sq ft flats meant for the homeless.
The developer, represented by senior counsel Girish Godbole, argued that the eight buildings had been constructed but that the rental housing scheme had been scrapped in 2014 and replaced with an affordable housing scheme. Hence, he sought permission to transition the ongoing project to the new development rules. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the scheme’s benefits had already been reaped, and obligations must be fulfilled regardless of policy changes.
The MBMC, represented by advocate N R Bubna, stated that while the developer completed the free-sale buildings, he deliberately left the mandatory rental buildings unfinished. Meanwhile, the state government, through advocate Y D Patil, argued that any construction made under the 4 FSI would be considered unauthorised unless the developer honours his commitment to hand over the designated buildings to the MMRDA.
The Court came to the conclusion that Neelkamal Realtors had violated the basic requirement of turning over the rental housing stock to the state government while abusing the terms of the now-defunct RHS. It highlighted that the developer cannot use policy transition as an excuse to avoid contractual responsibilities. In his ruling, Justice Dangre emphasised that the builder took advantage of the extra FSI intended for public good but did not fulfil the associated obligations.
Source: The Times Of India
