Navi Mumbai redevelopment projects may provide recreational open space on podiums, Bombay High Court rules while rejecting PIL for ground-level space

The petitioner filed a public interest petition under Article 226 seeking to set aside development permissions granted to Respondent Nos. 3–7 for redevelopment projects in Navi Mumbai.

He contended that Regulation 10.10.2(3)(vi) of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (UDCPR) required the prescribed recreational open space (ROS) to be provided on the ground, open to sky, over and above any podium garden; instead, NMMC had permitted the societies to provide ROS at podium level by granting relaxations under Regulation 2.4.

The societies relied on redevelopment constraints, including height limits, road setbacks, rehabilitation requirements and parking obligations, and submitted that the permissions and relaxations were justified.

The petitioner also alleged that podium-level ROS would increase reliance on public open spaces.

The Court considered the UDCPR provisions and the parties’ submissions.

1. Whether Regulation 10.10.2(3)(vi) requires the prescribed ROS to be provided at ground level, clearly open to sky, and over and above a podium garden, or permits ROS to be provided on a podium.

2. Whether Regulation 10.10.2’s non obstante clause excludes the application of Regulations 2.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.7 and 9.13 of the UDCPR.

3. Whether NMMC’s case-specific relaxations and the resulting development permissions were shown to be arbitrary or perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 226.

The Court applied UDCPR Regulation 10.10.2(3)(vi), which prescribes compulsory ROS for specified CIDCO/NMMC redevelopment plots; Regulation 3.4.1(iii), which permits ROS on a podium, including up to 100% where a 1.5-metre tree-planting strip is provided; Regulation 9.13, which permits ROS on a podium subject to Regulation 3.4.1(iii); Regulation 3.4.7, concerning structures permitted in open spaces; and Regulation 1.3(103), defining a podium to include recreational open space.

Regulation 2.4 permits relaxation of prescribed dimensions or provisions in cases of clearly demonstrable hardship, provided health, safety, fire safety, structural safety and public safety are not compromised.

A non obstante clause ordinarily gives the provision overriding effect in the event of conflict, but should be construed harmoniously with other provisions; the Court relied on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, (2025) 2 SCC 49, discussing the principles in Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, (1952) 2 SCC 237.

The Court also held that limitations such as “mother earth” or “natural ground” cannot be read into the UDCPR’s ROS provisions where the text does not provide for them.

Reading Regulations 10.10.2(3)(vi), 3.4.1(iii), 3.4.7 and 9.13 together with the definition of “podium,” the Court held that ROS may be provided at podium level if it is open to sky and the applicable podium-garden requirements are met; the regulations do not require ROS to be on natural ground or “mother earth”.

The non obstante clause in Chapter 10 did not displace the general UDCPR provisions in the absence of conflict, and Regulation 2.4 remained applicable.

The petitioner produced no material showing that the stated redevelopment constraints were false or that NMMC’s exercise of discretion was perverse; nor did he substantiate the asserted effect on public open spaces.

The Court also noted that Regulation 10.10.2(3)(vi) referred to condominium/plot areas, whereas Respondent Nos. 3–7 were cooperative housing societies.

It dismissed the PIL for want of merit and disposed of the interim application as no longer surviving.