The Indian Express 18.12.2013
HC to BMC: Bear maintenance cost of shaky heritage buildings
THE Bombay High Court Tuesday suggested that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) should bear the maintenance cost of dilapidated buildings in heritage precincts of the city.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Federation of Churchgate Residents (FCR) that sought the demolition of a 14-storey residential tower under construction by Vasant Sagar Properties (VSP), claiming that it is a threat to the heritage precinct of Marine Drive.
Advocate general D J Khambata told the court that those living in heritage structures should be given incentives to maintain the structures. Khambata, however, clarified that he had expressed his personal view and the state government has not considered the issue so far.
Making his submissions in favour of conservation of the heritage precinct, Khambata said that Mumbai had a large number of Art Deco structures and it is second only to Miami. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha inquired whether the buildings near the Oval Maidan also formed a part of the heritage precinct. "Some of the buildings are dilapidated. The corporation should spend for their maintenance," Chief Justice Shah remarked.
Concurring with the court, Khambata said that residents of such buildings should be given tax exemptions. "They should be made to feel proud of living in heritage structures. There are no incentives for the owners to beautify these structures. That should be done," Khambata said.
To encourage private owners and tenants to conserve and maintain heritage structures, the BMC's Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (MHCC) had, in August, recommended that the state government extend financial incentives, such as tax benefits and concessional interest rate on loans, to such properties. Besides, trusts and charitable institutions donating money to such properties should be allowed income tax deduction, the committee has said.
The VSP had contended that as per a Government Resolution of September 4, 2009, special permission is required from the Municipal Commissioner (MC) for reconstruction of old buildings under Regulation 33 (6) of the DCR. Under 33 (6), permission from the heritage committee is not required as the MC can grant permission for buildings higher than 24 m.
FCR's counsel Aspi Chinoy, however, argued that the entire skyline from Nariman Point to Girgaum Chowpatty comprised of buildings upto 24 m high, and an over 50 m highrise would be "completely destructive to the heritage precinct".
The BMC's counsel V A Thorat said that there was nothing arbitrary about the discretion exercised by the MC in granting the sanction for construction of the building, as it was within his powers. He also said that the state government had not yet defined the boundaries of the heritage precinct. The court has reserved its judgment in the case.
