High Court Upholds Legality of 15-Storey Building in Gamdevi Heritage Precinct

In a significant ruling for urban redevelopment within heritage zones, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a 17-year-old public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the construction of a 15-storey high-rise in the heritage-rich Gamdevi precinct, Malabar Hill. The court upheld the legality of redevelopment provisions under the Development Control Regulations (DCR), 1991, which allow for taller buildings in Grade-III heritage areas with special permissions.
 

Background of the Dispute

The PIL was filed in 2007 by the Gamdevi Residents’ Association, objecting to the redevelopment of Saraswati House, a cessed, ground-plus-two-storey building. The site falls within the Gamdevi Heritage Precinct, a culturally significant zone that includes landmarks like Mani Bhavan, where Mahatma Gandhi frequently stayed during his visits to Mumbai between 1917 and 1934.

According to the petitioners, the redevelopment project violated key heritage and development regulations. Their primary contention was that the building’s height—rising to over 24 meters—was inconsistent with skyline restrictions typically enforced within heritage zones.

They alleged that the executive engineer overseeing the redevelopment falsified tenant data by claiming six families occupied the building, when in reality, there were only three. This, they argued, was done to illegitimately gain additional Floor Space Index (FSI), which governs the total built-up area allowed on a plot.
 

The Redevelopment Approval

The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in 2002, approving the redevelopment plan. Following this, the old structure was razed, and a 15-storey building was constructed, including a basement and stilts.

Petitioners contended that the redevelopment violated Regulation 67(7) of the Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay (1995), which mandates that high-rises in heritage precincts should not disturb the existing skyline or diminish the architectural character of the area. Furthermore, they insisted that permission from the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) and special approval from the Municipal Commissioner were essential prerequisites that were allegedly bypassed.
 

Court’s Observation and Verdict

However, the division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne found no merit in the PIL. The judges noted that a 1999 amendment to Regulation 67 permitted redevelopment in Grade-III heritage precincts even if the building height exceeds 24 meters, provided that special permission is obtained from the Municipal Commissioner.

The court accepted the argument presented by advocate Oorja Dhond, representing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), who stated that all required permissions were obtained in accordance with the amended DCR. The HCC had reviewed the plans and specifically noted that their separate NOC was not necessary in this instance.

“All permissions have been issued strictly in conformity with the DCR, and there is no illegality,” said Dhond. She emphasized that the HCC had not objected and that the commissioner had granted the required special permission.

In contrast, senior advocate Zubin Behramkamdin, representing the petitioners, maintained that the construction undermined the area's heritage value and breached statutory guidelines. He warned that the development set a dangerous precedent for unchecked vertical expansion in historically sensitive neighborhoods.
 

Significance of the Judgment

The judgment is likely to influence future redevelopment projects in heritage precincts, particularly Grade-III zones, where regulatory flexibility allows for modern infrastructure within a traditional urban fabric. The court’s interpretation clarifies that redevelopment is permissible if authorities follow due process and acquire all necessary approvals under the amended regulations.

The court also reaffirmed the importance of municipal discretion in urban planning, especially where the balance between preservation and progress must be maintained. In this case, the Gamdevi redevelopment was seen as compliant, not just legally, but also administratively and procedurally.
 

Looking Ahead

While this verdict brings closure to a prolonged legal battle, it also reopens larger questions about how cities like Mumbai should evolve while protecting their historical identity. Urban experts note that while redevelopment is essential in a city facing acute housing and infrastructure pressure, transparency, oversight, and community involvement must remain cornerstones of any heritage-related decision.

The Gamdevi Residents’ Association has not indicated whether it will challenge the verdict further. For now, the High Court’s decision paves the way for similar projects that blend modern urban living with heritage-sensitive planning, as long as they adhere to the existing framework of approvals and regulations.