Following Supreme Court orders, Supertech's twin towers in Noida, near New Delhi, were demolished with explosives on August 28.
Digital Desk: The Bombay High Court remarked on Tuesday that a developer who refuses to stop construction of a building adjacent to a playground plot despite a stay from the Supreme Court and the High Court would face a fate similar to Supertech's illegal twin towers in Noida, which were demolished.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M. S. Karnik remarked while hearing public interest litigation (PIL) that claimed the real estate developer was encroaching on land reserved for a playground in Mumbai's Khar suburb.
Last week, the court-appointed an architect to visit the site where the developer has continued with construction despite a 1995 Supreme Court order and submit a report detailing the extent of construction.
The bench was informed on Tuesday that the architect's report had been submitted, and the matter was adjourned for further hearing on September 20.
However, the developer's attorney urged the court to lift the construction halt until the land demarcation was completed.
Chief Justice Datta refused, stating, "Let us now wait. You might meet the same fate as Supertech. "
Following Supreme Court orders, Supertech's twin towers in Noida, near New Delhi, were demolished with explosives on August 28. It was claimed that the twin towers, Apex (32 storeys) and Ceyane (29 storeys), were constructed illegally.
The demolition cost about 20 crores and was paid for by the real estate company.
Last week, the High Court slammed the Mumbai developer for continuing with the construction despite a Supreme Court order in 1995 directing that no construction be carried out on the 6,000 square metre plot reserved for a playground under the 1992 development plan.
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), a government organization in Maharashtra that had given Integrated Realty Project permission to develop the adjacent plot, claimed that the plot's boundaries had changed and that the size of the proposed playground had been reduced from 6,000 square metres to 5,255 square metres.
The court had decided last week that they needed to determine the precise extent of vacant land available for the playground in light of the rival claims.
Continue Reading
