Bombay High Court Issues Notice On PIL Challenging Definition Of FSI In Development Control & Promotion Regulation

"There has been unabated and reckless construction leading to a complete collapse of town planning Regulations due to the conflict of definitions of FSI in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (MRTP Act), which is the principal enactment, and DCPR which is the administrative regulation made under it", the plea states.

It adds that because of such change in the definition of the FSI, that in Mumbai, in small plots massive buildings are being constructed. It is for this reason that where there were 2 floor buildings, they are being demolished and replaced by buildings of the height of about 30 floors.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta found substance in the petition and said "we would necessarily be tasked to decide whether the stream can rise above its source."

While the Act defines FSI based on aggregate Built-up Area (BUA) without any condition, the DCPR has added words to the statute by exempting huge BUA from FSI computation.

"In this way a mammoth quantum of construction has got added by tweaking the law," the PIL states.

The PIL contends that no city which has a rational Development Plan, can permit constructed area of residential and commercial plots increase 10 to 15 times, without increasing the commensurate facilities in the Development Plan, such as gardens, trees, roads, hospitals, schools etc., in the same proportion.

The PIL seeks to modify the definition of FSI as it appears in the DCPR so that every type of built-up area be considered while computing the FSI.

Moreover, the additional FSI which is over and above the base FSI ought not be more than 20%, which is the maximum prescribed under The National Building Code of India.

Finally, the plea seeks all construction which are yet to reach the plinth level and all future construction to conform with changes in the DCPR.

In the interim, all further approvals of building plans, including approval of fresh and amended plans should be stayed, the PIL filed by Advocates Isha Singh and Abha Singh says. The PIL is filed through advocate Aditya Pratap Singh.

During the hearing, the court directed MCGM to be added as a party to the PIL after the government pleader said the civic body was the planning authority of the DCPR 2034.

The court directed reply affidavits to be filed by August 11 and listed the matter for further hearing on August 17, 2022.