On Sunday, residents of 102 illegal flats in Mumbai’s middle-class Campa Cola compound finally ended a three-day battle against demolition and agreed to let civic officials enter their gates. The residents had acquired the flats at discounted rates 25 years ago, as the builders had not yet got the required approvals to build apartment blocks taller than five-storeys.
Residents claim they were ignorant of the illegality of the flats for a long time and, despite a Supreme Court judgement clearly ordering demolition, they have been fighting for their right to allow the buildings to be regularised for the past three years.
But despite all the media attention, Campa Cola is hardly the first project to have its brush with the law in Mumbai’s murky real estate world. It is estimated that 40% of the city's buildings have not obtained occupation certificates from the authorities. Perhaps the most notorious building project in the city in recent years was Adarsh Society in Colaba in South Mumbai, which was ostensibly built for Kargil War widows but in which flats were eventually allocated to a wide variety of politicians and bureaucrats.
Here are some other luxury real estate projects in the city that have been tarred by controversy.
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai
In 1986, the Hiranandani builders signed an agreement with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and the Maharashtra state government under the Powai Area Development Scheme, to develop a 344-acre residential township that would focus on low-cost housing.
In 2009, two decades after Hiranandani had built at least 70 buildings in the township, the MMRDA claimed damages of Rs 1,993 crore, arguing that the builder had sold groups of small flats meant for the poor as large luxury apartments for high-income group buyers. Only 15% of the built-up area was used for affordable housing. The MMRDA later reduced the amount of the claim to Rs 89 crore.
The state government-appointed arbitrator, however, gave the builder a clean chit on the grounds that the MMRDA had chosen not to raise objections for 20 years, while granting completion and occupancy certificates. But Hiranandani was told to forgo the Rs 3 crore it had deposited with the MMRDA in 2008 to continue construction.
Then in July 2012, the state’s Anti Corruption Bureau filed a case against Hiranandani builders and senior IAS officer Thomas Benjamin in the Bombay High Court, alleging criminal conspiracy between the builders and various bureaucrats and politicians in the Rs 30,000 crore land scam case. In January, the Bureau filed a closure report in the case citing lack of evidence against the builder. But the court has demanded an investigation report on a scam that could reveal several instances of bribery and fraud amongst high-level bureaucrats and politicians.
Palais Royale, Parel
An unfinished high-rise on the plot that once housed Shree Ram textile mills in Lower Parel, Palais Royale is slated to have 75 floors of luxury apartments, with 56 already built. It is being developed by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. In 2012, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation sued the developers in the High Court, claiming that they had misused the floor space index (the ratio of a building’s built-up area to its plot size) granted to them for the skyscraper.
According to the National Building Code, any building must have a refuge area – for fire safety and other emergencies – outside the habitable areas of each floor. This refuge area must not be more than 4% of the habitable area, and it is not counted in a building’s floor space index. However, while the habitable area of Palais Royale is 5.8 lakh sq ft, the developers have created an additional 4.2 lakh sq ft of refuge area across all floors – which adds up to 72% of the habitable area.
Although the builders claim this was done for fire safety, the BMC suspects they intend to amalgamate the extra space into the apartments once the construction is complete. In May 2013, the court termed the size of the refuge areas in the building excessive and ordered the BMC to recalculate the FSI granted to the building. The civic body later filed a report stating that refuge area beyond 4% would now be included in the FSI and sections of the building, such as passages connecting to flats, swimming pools and covered areas would not be considered as refuge areas.
Kohinoor Square, Dadar
Another luxury high-rise project on former mill land in central Mumbai, Kohinoor Square is supposed to have two adjacent towers of 52 and 32 floors, one commercial and the other residential. While the taller tower is close to completion, the shorter tower has been stuck at 13 floors of car parking ever since the BMC found that the developers were misusing FSI granted for the parking lot.
The developer, the Kohinoor Group, is the son of Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi. He bought the 4.8 acre plot in 2005 for Rs 425 crore in association with Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief, Raj Thackeray. Thackeray sold his share four years later. In 2012, the BMC issued a notice to the builders, asking them to demolish the 13 floors of parking because the FSI granted to them only allowed for four parking floors. If the floors were not razed, the builders would have to pay a fine of Rs 30 crore.
In response, the Kohinoor Group chose to go to court against the BMC, and the case is now being fought in the Supreme Court.
Atria Mall, Worli
In 2005, when Worli’s swanky, Rs 800 crore Atria Mall was still under construction, social activist Medha Patkar sued the developers in the High Court, through a public interest litigation, for misusing a plot originally meant to rehabilitate poor citizens who had been dis-housed. The plot was also supposed to house a school, whose area had been shrunk by the mall developers.
In addition, the complaint claimed that the mall also violated the city’s Development Control Rules and had been granted more FSI by the civic body than it should have got. The court eventually ordered the mall owners to pay Rs 80 crore to the BMC for rehabilitation of the poor, to rebuild the school and construct three buildings for municipal staff.
After all this, however, Atria Mall failed to draw crowds and revenue, and has been up for sale since 2013.
Bombay Dyeing, Parel and Wadala
According to the rules for redeveloping central Mumbai’s defunct mill lands, owners are supposed to surrender one-third of the total area to the BMC and another one-third to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, for rehabilitating mill workers who lost their livelihoods after the mills shut down.
Two years ago, two Bombay Dyeing mill properties owned by the Wadia group in Lower Parel and Wadala came under the High Court scanner for not surrendering two-thirds of the plots that the group sought to redevelop. Bombay Dyeing was supposed to surrender more than 52,000 sq m in Wadala and close to 13,000 sq m in Lower Parel, and could face contempt of court if it did not.
In November 2013, the company offered a solution that the court finally approved: it would surrender to the city authorities a total of 66,000 sq m in Wadala alone, and nothing in Lower Parel. Former mill workers and their families were unhappy with the court’s decision, because property in Lower Parel is generally more valuable than property in Wadala.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Residents claim they were ignorant of the illegality of the flats for a long time and, despite a Supreme Court judgement clearly ordering demolition, they have been fighting for their right to allow the buildings to be regularised for the past three years.
But despite all the media attention, Campa Cola is hardly the first project to have its brush with the law in Mumbai’s murky real estate world. It is estimated that 40% of the city's buildings have not obtained occupation certificates from the authorities. Perhaps the most notorious building project in the city in recent years was Adarsh Society in Colaba in South Mumbai, which was ostensibly built for Kargil War widows but in which flats were eventually allocated to a wide variety of politicians and bureaucrats.
Here are some other luxury real estate projects in the city that have been tarred by controversy.
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai
In 1986, the Hiranandani builders signed an agreement with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and the Maharashtra state government under the Powai Area Development Scheme, to develop a 344-acre residential township that would focus on low-cost housing.
In 2009, two decades after Hiranandani had built at least 70 buildings in the township, the MMRDA claimed damages of Rs 1,993 crore, arguing that the builder had sold groups of small flats meant for the poor as large luxury apartments for high-income group buyers. Only 15% of the built-up area was used for affordable housing. The MMRDA later reduced the amount of the claim to Rs 89 crore.
The state government-appointed arbitrator, however, gave the builder a clean chit on the grounds that the MMRDA had chosen not to raise objections for 20 years, while granting completion and occupancy certificates. But Hiranandani was told to forgo the Rs 3 crore it had deposited with the MMRDA in 2008 to continue construction.
Then in July 2012, the state’s Anti Corruption Bureau filed a case against Hiranandani builders and senior IAS officer Thomas Benjamin in the Bombay High Court, alleging criminal conspiracy between the builders and various bureaucrats and politicians in the Rs 30,000 crore land scam case. In January, the Bureau filed a closure report in the case citing lack of evidence against the builder. But the court has demanded an investigation report on a scam that could reveal several instances of bribery and fraud amongst high-level bureaucrats and politicians.
Palais Royale, Parel
Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
An unfinished high-rise on the plot that once housed Shree Ram textile mills in Lower Parel, Palais Royale is slated to have 75 floors of luxury apartments, with 56 already built. It is being developed by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. In 2012, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation sued the developers in the High Court, claiming that they had misused the floor space index (the ratio of a building’s built-up area to its plot size) granted to them for the skyscraper.
According to the National Building Code, any building must have a refuge area – for fire safety and other emergencies – outside the habitable areas of each floor. This refuge area must not be more than 4% of the habitable area, and it is not counted in a building’s floor space index. However, while the habitable area of Palais Royale is 5.8 lakh sq ft, the developers have created an additional 4.2 lakh sq ft of refuge area across all floors – which adds up to 72% of the habitable area.
Although the builders claim this was done for fire safety, the BMC suspects they intend to amalgamate the extra space into the apartments once the construction is complete. In May 2013, the court termed the size of the refuge areas in the building excessive and ordered the BMC to recalculate the FSI granted to the building. The civic body later filed a report stating that refuge area beyond 4% would now be included in the FSI and sections of the building, such as passages connecting to flats, swimming pools and covered areas would not be considered as refuge areas.
Kohinoor Square, Dadar
Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Another luxury high-rise project on former mill land in central Mumbai, Kohinoor Square is supposed to have two adjacent towers of 52 and 32 floors, one commercial and the other residential. While the taller tower is close to completion, the shorter tower has been stuck at 13 floors of car parking ever since the BMC found that the developers were misusing FSI granted for the parking lot.
The developer, the Kohinoor Group, is the son of Shiv Sena leader Manohar Joshi. He bought the 4.8 acre plot in 2005 for Rs 425 crore in association with Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief, Raj Thackeray. Thackeray sold his share four years later. In 2012, the BMC issued a notice to the builders, asking them to demolish the 13 floors of parking because the FSI granted to them only allowed for four parking floors. If the floors were not razed, the builders would have to pay a fine of Rs 30 crore.
In response, the Kohinoor Group chose to go to court against the BMC, and the case is now being fought in the Supreme Court.
Atria Mall, Worli
Credit: Wikimedia Commons.
In 2005, when Worli’s swanky, Rs 800 crore Atria Mall was still under construction, social activist Medha Patkar sued the developers in the High Court, through a public interest litigation, for misusing a plot originally meant to rehabilitate poor citizens who had been dis-housed. The plot was also supposed to house a school, whose area had been shrunk by the mall developers.
In addition, the complaint claimed that the mall also violated the city’s Development Control Rules and had been granted more FSI by the civic body than it should have got. The court eventually ordered the mall owners to pay Rs 80 crore to the BMC for rehabilitation of the poor, to rebuild the school and construct three buildings for municipal staff.
After all this, however, Atria Mall failed to draw crowds and revenue, and has been up for sale since 2013.
Bombay Dyeing, Parel and Wadala
According to the rules for redeveloping central Mumbai’s defunct mill lands, owners are supposed to surrender one-third of the total area to the BMC and another one-third to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, for rehabilitating mill workers who lost their livelihoods after the mills shut down.
Two years ago, two Bombay Dyeing mill properties owned by the Wadia group in Lower Parel and Wadala came under the High Court scanner for not surrendering two-thirds of the plots that the group sought to redevelop. Bombay Dyeing was supposed to surrender more than 52,000 sq m in Wadala and close to 13,000 sq m in Lower Parel, and could face contempt of court if it did not.
In November 2013, the company offered a solution that the court finally approved: it would surrender to the city authorities a total of 66,000 sq m in Wadala alone, and nothing in Lower Parel. Former mill workers and their families were unhappy with the court’s decision, because property in Lower Parel is generally more valuable than property in Wadala.