2006 (5) TMI 566 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Preservation of heritage structures within textile mills in Mumbai.
2. Applicability of Development Control Regulation (D.C. Regulation) 67.
3. Permissions for demolition and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act.
4. Validity of prior permissions and approvals under D.C. Regulation 58 and BIFR schemes.
5. Interim orders and injunctions concerning demolition activities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Preservation of Heritage Structures within Textile Mills in Mumbai:
The petitioners, a charitable trust and two individuals, sought to protect and preserve heritage structures within textile mills in Mumbai. They invoked Regulation 67 of the Development Control Regulations (D.C. Regulation) framed for the city of Mumbai. The petitioners emphasized the historical, aesthetic, architectural, and cultural values of these structures, arguing that they should not be demolished.

2. Applicability of Development Control Regulation (D.C. Regulation) 67:
D.C. Regulation 67 provides for the conservation of listed buildings and heritage precincts. It mandates that no development, redevelopment, or demolition of such structures can occur without the prior written permission of the Commissioner, who must act on the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC). The regulation also specifies the grading of heritage buildings into Grade I, II, and III, with varying levels of restrictions on alterations.

3. Permissions for Demolition and Development under the MRTP Act:
Section 46 of the MRTP Act requires the Planning Authority to consider any draft or final development plans or proposals before granting development permissions. The petitioners argued that the published heritage list should be considered under Section 46, preventing demolition until a final decision is made. The respondents, particularly NTC, contended that permissions granted under D.C. Regulation 58 for redevelopment should not be hindered by the heritage listing process.

4. Validity of Prior Permissions and Approvals under D.C. Regulation 58 and BIFR Schemes:
NTC had received permissions for redevelopment under D.C. Regulation 58, which were upheld by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the Supreme Court. The approvals included conditions for demolishing structures to facilitate redevelopment and compensating retrenched workers. The court noted that these prior permissions, granted in 2004, could not be invalidated by the heritage listing process initiated in 2006.

5. Interim Orders and Injunctions Concerning Demolition Activities:
The court had previously issued interim orders restraining the demolition of certain heritage structures. NTC and other respondents sought to vacate these orders, arguing that the demolition was essential for implementing the approved redevelopment schemes. The court allowed NTC to proceed with demolitions permitted under the 2004 layout approval but maintained an interim injunction on demolishing other structures until the heritage listing process was completed.

Conclusion:
The court directed that the objections to the heritage listing be considered promptly, with a final decision to be made by the State Government within a specified timeframe. It allowed NTC to continue with demolitions approved under prior permissions but restrained other mills from demolishing listed structures without following due process. The court emphasized the need for a balance between heritage preservation and redevelopment, ensuring that all legal procedures were followed.