Hiranandani to submit plans for low-cost homes

Real estate developer Niranjan Hiranandani will submit plans within two weeks to begin construction of affordable houses of 40 and 80sq m areas in his Powai township.

After the Supreme Court declined to dilute the February ruling of the Bombay high court or stay the order that banned him from undertaking any construction till he provides affordable housing, the developer was before the HC on Thursday.

His lawyers, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, Dinyar Madon along with Parimal Shroff, showed maps to point out the open space position on which the developer would now build the houses.

His contention was that the court must take into account the 15% commercial construction permitted under DCR while calculating the area on which these tenements are to be constructed. He claimed he ought to build them on a reduced land size.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Mohit Shah asked the builder to first begin construction of the houses as directed. The court posted the matter to the third week of June for a progress report and did not consider the builder's argument on commercial construction.

The HC, on February 22, passed its order which stopped the developer from going on with his lavish constructions. The judgment was on a PILfiled by activists who said that the developer had flouted a 1986 tripartite agreement with the state and MMRDA which allowed him to develop 230 acres in Powai and construct affordable houses and hand over partto the state.

The HC held that the developer flouted the agreement and the SC orally expressed its displeasure. "That place was meant for below middle class people. You built palaces for those who can afford Bentleys," it said.

In 1986, the state passed an award determining the compensation at the rate of Re 1 per hectare for lands acquired from landholders. In return, the developer was to construct affordable flats.

The HC directed the Hiranandanis to construct 3,100 affordable houses (1,593 flats of 80 sq m and 1,511 flats of 40 sq m). Around 450 of these apartments, the court said, have to be offered to the state at a rate of Rs 135 per sq ft. Once these instructions have been complied with, the developer would have to take permission to embark on further construction.

High court curbs Hiranandani Construction from further development in Powai

The court was hearing public interest litigations filed by social activist Medha Patkar and city residents Kamlakar Satve and Rajendra Thakkar seeking resumption of 230 acres of land of Powai and Tirandaz villages, taken over by MMRDA for planned development under PADS.

The main purpose of the scheme was to provide good quality affordable housing to the middle class population. The petitioners alleged there was complete breach of a tripartite agreement executed between the state government, MMRDA and the Hiranandani Group, as power of attorney holders of the original landholders on November 19, 1986.

 According to the agreement, the developer was to construct tenements admeasuring 40 square metres only in equal proportion on the land available for construction, and hand over 15 per cent of the constructed area to state government at Rs135 per square feet.

However, the petitioners alleged, the developer blatantly breached both these conditions and the officers of the MMRDA and state government turned a Nelson’s eye towards the violations. The petitioners alleged the negligence on part of the government officials was of criminal nature and, had, therefore sought their prosecution.

Though the court has granted the petitioners liberty to lodge criminal complaints against the concerned persons, the judges have refused to direct the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings as prayed for.

The court has now posted the matter for further hearing next month, when further orders are likely to be passed on the issue. 

Hc jolt for Hiranandani Construction in Powai

“The development shall not put any further construction whatsoever in the remainder of the plot before specifying vacant land and buildings that can be constructed,” the HC said in its order running into more than 30 pages.

The court said that the developer would be entitled to commence any further construction only after obtaining specific permission from the court. The HC observed that the very purpose of the tripartite agreement was to construct smaller flats for affordable housing.

“The developer as well as the flat purchasers appear to have thrown this essential requirement to the winds,” the court observed. “Consequently, the land was leased upon a pittance of Rs1 per hectare came to be developed as a goldmine realising from such investment millions of rupees worth of real estate.”

The developer has been directed to construct 1,511 flats of 40 square metres and 1,593 flats of 80 square metres without amalgamating any flats. “No two flats shall be sold to the same person or two members of the same family,” the court ordered.

The direction came in the wake of allegations in the PIL that in order to overcome some development conditions, the developer had constructed amalgamated flats or sold adjoining flats to different members of the family.  The PIL further alleged that the flats were converted for commercial use, thereby breaching the terms of the agreement and conditions imposed under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

Another condition set by the HC for further construction is that the developer shall sell to thje state government 15% of the total FSI consumed in plot in form of constructed tenements at Rs 135 per square feet.

HC Halts Development in Powai Complex

The Bombay high court on Wednesday passed an order restricting Hiranandani Developers from developing Powai’s plush Hiranandani complex any further without the prior sanction of the court. The HC has also asked the developer not to amalgamate smaller 40 sq m and 80 sq m flats into bigger flats while constructing the required number of flats for economically weaker sections without the HC’s nod.

The court also asked the MMRDA, the petitioners and the developer to prepare a statement of all the buildings and structures developed by Hiranandani under the Powai area development scheme (ADS), along with their names and descriptions of the flats within four weeks. The MMRDA has also been asked to prepare a plan showing the vacant plots in where buildings can be constructed. The order came one petitions and PILs filed by activists Rajendra Thacker and Medha Patkar since 2008. The petitioners had alleged that Hiranandani Developers, which had entered into a tripartite agreement with the MMRDA and state, did not abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement.

According to the agreement signed on November 19, 1986 regarding 230 acres of land in Powai and Tirandaz villages, Hiranandani would develop an area of 7,38,605.29 to build flats admeasuring 40 sq m and 80 sq m lower-income groups and was to give 15% of the flats to government employees. The petitioner pointed out that the developer amalgamated smaller flats to rich buyers paying hard cash.

In its order, the HC has not only asked the developer not to amalgamate flats while building 1,511 flats admeasuring 40 sq m and 1,593 flats of 80 sq m, but also asked Hiranandani to give 15% of the flats that will be developed henceforth to government servants, all of which the government will distribute with transparency.

Significantly, the HC has given petitioners the permission to file any criminal complaint if they have a suspicion that the terms of the tripartite agreement were being breached. The court also allowed the MMRDA to move the appropriate forum for any compensation it might think is due from the developer. 

Hiranandani Group power plant halted after Supreme Court stay

The Supreme Court of India has ordered a stay on the continued construction of Hiranandani Group’s Rs 12,000 crore power project near Pune. The construction power house is creating a 2,500 MW gas-based power plant at Navlakh Umbre village in Maval taluka on the outskirts of Pune, however allegedly only gained permission for a 355 MW construction.

After being notified of a petition which alleged that due process was not followed when gaining an environmental clearance certificate for the project. The Supreme Court stated that the clearance was awarded “in compliance with the peremptory direction of the Bombay High Court”.

The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) had witnessed that the Hindustan Electricity Generation Co. Pvt. Ltd., which is a Hiranandani-group subsidiary, had began work on a large-scale activity at the project site before gaining official clearance by the agency and requested from the company a written assurance that such blatant violations would not be repeated.

In February, Hindustan Electricity Generation Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition at the High Court against the SEIAA’s demand on the grounds that it already possessed clearance before work began and had committed no offence. The High Court then asked the company’s representatives to provide a letter claiming that it had not committed any violation and directed the SEIAA to give the clearance certificate to the company.

A petition was filed by Sultan Singh on behalf of the sangh, also referred to a central government notification under the Environment (Protection) Act which states environmental authorities are only entitled to give clearance to Power Projects under 500 MW. For projects above 500 MW, such as the 2,500 MW project currently being built, the company would need clearance directly from the central environmental ministry. This would prevent any work from being undertaken at the project site without securing an environmental clearance from the relevant authority.

The Sangh in its petition said that "The error on the part of the high court and the faulty clearance granted thereon by the SEIAA becomes more palpable in light of the fact that various social and environmental concerns of the petitioner and other residents of the affected villages as well as various procedural and legal objections in the processing of the company's request were given a go by by the authority while adjudicating the same.”