On Tuesday, petitioner Medha Patkar’s lawyer Y P Singh informed a division bench of Chief Justice Kshitij Vyas and Justice D Y Chandrachud that Atria was not a cessed building and yet it had been built using 2 Floor Space Index (FSI), a provision only given to cessed buildings governed by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act. Singh said that the mall was only eligible for 1.3 FSI. The builder’s counsel, however, told the court that the building was a cessed structure that was exempted from paying cess. To this, Singh said that if that was allowed, residents of every non-cessed building in the city would ask for enhanced FSI.

Patkar’s public interest litigation opposes the Rs 800-crore shopping mall that has been built on 1.8 lakh sq ft of land reserved for housing the dishoused and points to 18 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), DCR and FSI violations.

As per the CRZ notification of February 19, 1991, development in CRZ-II areas should be carried out in accordance with the regulations that are prevalent as on the date of the notification.

But Atria’s construction was sanctioned on the basis of DCR 1991, which came after the CRZ notification. Patkar had contended that in Atria’s case, it was DCR 1989 that should have been applied.

The assistant government pleader for the State indicated that sanction for construction by the state government had proceeded on the erroneous basis that the DCR of 1991 would apply.

At this point, the division bench directed the state government to explain specifically if the sanction was granted erroneously with reference to DCR 1991.

It also directed the State and the BMC to explain the exemptions granted to the developer. The BMC was also directed to explain its policy regarding the Rs 80-crore it took from the developer for housing the dishoused. The matter will come up for hearing in six weeks.

URL- http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=193416