The Bombay High Court has issued a significant judgment directing the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to process permissions for the redevelopment of a property near the INS Trata naval missile battery base in Worli, Mumbai, without the need for prior approval from naval authorities. The court's decision emphasized that a structure of the same height and location should not pose a security threat merely by undergoing reconstruction. The ruling has far-reaching implications, as it quashed defence ministry circulars and established the importance of adhering to established legal procedures when imposing construction restrictions near defence installations, striking a balance between security and property rights.
In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to process permissions for the redevelopment of a three-storey property near the INS Trata naval missile battery base in Worli, Mumbai. This decision came with the caveat that no prior approval from the naval authorities was required. The court's ruling rested on the principle that a structure with the same height, in the same location, should not suddenly transform into a security hazard merely by being reconstructed.
The case was brought before the court by Dolby Builders and Girish Agarwal, the founder-director of the Dainik Bhaskar group. Agarwal's plans to redevelop the Worli property into a family residence had faced hurdles, primarily due to the insistence on obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the naval authorities.
The High Court's judgment carries significant implications as it quashed four defence ministry circulars from 2011, 2015, and 2022, and declined the Centre's request for a stay on its decision. The 2011 circular had mandated an NOC for constructing buildings, particularly for structures within 100-500 meters of defence installations.
While the High Court recognized the paramount importance of safeguarding defence installations and acknowledged the expertise of defence authorities, it emphasized that Agarwal's proposed building would maintain the same height as the original structure, dating back to 1938 or 1940, long before INS Trata's commissioning in 1992.
During the legal proceedings, the builder and Agarwal, represented by senior counsel Milind Sathe and advocate Saket Mone, contended that the circulars did not necessitate prior approval for redevelopment, yet the BMC was demanding a defence NOC. The naval authorities had declined to grant the NOC, citing the defence ministry circular, asserting that the reconstructed structure could pose a security threat due to its "direct line of sight to the operational infrastructure" of the naval unit.
Sathe challenged the arbitrary rejection and questioned the constitutional validity of the circulars. The High Court concurred with Sathe, asserting that any restrictions on construction near defence establishments should align with procedures established under the comprehensive Works of Defence Act, 1903. The court emphasized that property rights should not be infringed upon merely through executive fiat or arbitrary decisions.
The High Court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented by senior officers of the Western Naval Command, including a confidential note, and found no compelling material to support the claim that the proposed building, with the same height as its predecessor, would drastically alter the security hazard perception.
In essence, the court's ruling underscores the importance of adhering to established legal procedures when imposing restrictions on construction in the vicinity of defence installations. It reaffirms the principle that reconstructing a building to its original specifications should not automatically trigger heightened security concerns. This decision is expected to have significant implications for future construction and redevelopment projects near defence establishments, striking a balance between security interests and property rights.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
