Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034: HC seeks state, BMC’s response to PIL alleging tweaking of Floor Space Index concept

Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik were hearing a plea filed by advocates Isha Singh and Abha Singh, who alleged conflict in the definitions of FSI. They claimed that due to the same, in Mumbai, two-storey buildings are being replaced by 30-storey buildings in violation of the Town Planning Regulations and the National Building Code of India.

Advocate Aditya Pratap, representing the Singhs, sought that the tweaked definition of FSI as mentioned in DCPR 2034 – framed by BMC as a planning authority under the MRTP Act – be declared null and void.

He submitted that while the Act, which is a parent law, defines FSI as total area on all floors, including the built-up area divided by area of the plot, the DCPR prepared by subordinate officers under the Act defines the FSI differently. Here, built-up areas exempted from FSI are not counted in FSI, leading to violations by builders.

“Subordinate officers cannot change a legal definition of FSI, as has been mandated in the Act of a state legislature. It is because of such a change in the definition of the FSI, that in small plots in Mumbai, massive buildings are being constructed. It is for this reason that… two-floor buildings are being demolished and replaced by buildings of the height of about 30 floors,” Pratap added.

Additional Government Pleader Milind More said that BMC was a planning authority and it can be made as respondent in the PIL, which the HC agreed. The HC then sought reply from the state and BMC by August 11, and asked the petitioners to file rejoinder to the same, if any, by August 17.