Bombay HC Refuses To Quash Occupancy Certificate Granted To Navi Mumbai Housing Society Despite 2-Staircase Norm Violation

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to interfere with the occupancy certificate granted to a Navi Mumbai housing society, despite allegations of illegal construction and non-compliance with mandatory fire safety norms, including requirement for two staircases in buildings of height more than 15 mtrs.

The court held that the requirement for two staircases came into effect only from May 1, 2011, and applied only to buildings for which commencement certificates had not yet been issued. Since the original permission for this building was granted in 2006, the rule was not applicable retrospectively.

The HC disposed of the PIL by Sandeep Thakur, 70, sought to quash the occupancy and commencement certificates issued by CIDCO to Nav Panvel Co-operative Housing Society at Sector 7, Kharghar.

Thakur alleged that the society had constructed 16 floors — including partial 14th and full 15th and 16th floors — without prior permission and in violation of fire safety norms requiring two staircases in buildings above 15 metres, as mandated by the National Building Code (NBC) and CIDCO’s own General Development Control Regulations (GDCR).

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice MS Karnik noted that CIDCO had initially granted development permission in 2006 for a G+14 building with one staircase. The society sought additional FSI from 1.00 to 1.50 in 2008, and although additional construction was carried out without permission, CIDCO later regularised it under its 2013 and 2014 board resolutions, which allowed for penalty-based regularisation of unauthorised but GDCR-compliant constructions.

CIDCO eventually issued an amended commencement certificate in April 2017 and granted occupancy in October 2017 after ensuring firefighting systems were in place, including sprinklers on the upper floors. A fire NOC was issued considering the practical limitations of adding a second staircase.

The judges said that the decision to regularise the construction after imposing penalty was taken after due consideration and could not be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. They also directed CIDCO to take action against any building constructed in violation of the 2011 board resolution if a complaint is made.

CIDCO clarified that it now follows the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) issued in 2020, which mandate compliance with updated fire safety and staircase norms.

news