Municipal corp's plan revisions deemed illegal

The judge ruled that the disclosures in the original plan would remain valid and declared the subsequent eight revisions illegal

Seven buildings constructed by Seth Developers formed seven societies without the builder’s cooperation, leading to several grievances among the residents. Despite original plans allowing for seven buildings with 601 parking slots, only 146 were provided. Additionally, there was inadequate space for the movement of a fire brigade. This shortage of open space was attributed to changes in the layout to construct two additional buildings.

The societies approached the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) to stop the construction. When no action was taken, they filed a civil suit against Seth Developers, TMC, and 11 flat purchasers who had booked flats in the additional buildings. The societies sought a stay on the construction of the additional buildings, amending of the sanctioned plans, and asked for prohibition of any deviation from the original layout.

The builder defended the case, claiming that the project had nine buildings since inception and that he had the right to utilise the increase in available Floor Space Index (FSI) by altering the layout, for which consent had been obtained in the agreement.

TMC supported the builder, arguing that plan amendments were permissible for the use of the additional FSI that became available at a later date.

The 11 flat purchasers questioned the civil court’s jurisdiction, asserting that the dispute would be maintainable only before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera). They also argued that the situation was irreversible since the additional buildings were nearly complete.

The civil judge refused to grant an injunction to stop further construction, prompting the societies to appeal.

In his order on May 22, 2024, District Judge G.G. Bhansali observed that the original sanctioned plans provided for seven buildings. The eighth building had only one floor, and there was no reference to the proposed ninth building with 32 floors. The judge referred to a government notification issued on November 23, 2007, stating that even if a plot is not conveyed to the society, the benefit of any additional FSI would not be granted to the builder but to the society. The judge observed various lapses by TMC in approving plan amendments to favour the builder with additional FSI which became available subsequently.

The court emphasised that the legislative mandate requires a promoter to provide detailed information about the land and amenities and make a full disclosure about the FSI. Buyers are also entitled to know the number of other purchasers with whom they would share the amenities. The judge held that this right cannot be taken away by obtaining blanket consent to amend plans.

The judge noted that the plans had been revised eight times and ruled that the disclosures in the original plan would remain valid while the subsequent revisions were illegal. He also pointed out that once the minimum number of members required to form a society were available, the formation should occur within four months, a requirement the builder had breached.

Consequently, the appellate court temporarily restrained the builder from further construction and directed the Corporation not to sanction any amendments until the disposal of the suit.

The court also instructed the chief secretary of the Maharashtra state government to conduct an inquiry and take action against the officials who had approved changes in the layout to help the developer reap the benefit of additional FSI.

Although this is a civil court judgment, the same legal provisions would apply to consumer disputes.

The writer is a consumer activist