Permissible ground coverage percentage under building rules does not limit the physical area of basements.

The Petitioner, a real estate company, is developing a commercial-cum-residential project, "Sandhya Luxuriya," in Shivpuri.

The Petitioner obtained all statutory approvals, including a building permission dated March 4, 2024, which specifically sanctioned two basement levels (Basement-I: 2,764 sq. m; Basement-II: 2,815 sq. m).

On November 8, 2024, the Respondents issued an impugned notice directing a halt to construction, alleging that the Petitioner exceeded the permissible basement area, which Respondents claimed was capped at 1,566 sq. m (30% of total plot area) based on "ground coverage" norms.

The Petitioner challenged this notice as arbitrary and contrary to the sanctioned plan and statutory rules.

1. Whether the permissible "ground coverage" percentage under the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012, operates as a statutory ceiling on the area of a basement.

2. Whether the Respondents could restrain construction activities that were being carried out in strict accordance with a validly issued and subsisting sanctioned building permission.

The Court primarily applied the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. It interpreted Rule 2(7) (defining "basement"), Rule 2(20) (defining "covered area" or "ground coverage" as the plinth area at ground floor level), and Rule 42 read with Table No. 4 (prescribing planning norms like FAR and ground coverage).

Crucially, the Court relied on Rule 76, which serves as a "complete code" for basement construction, regulating its use, safety, and dimensions, and permits multi-level basements up to three levels without equating basement area to ground coverage.

The Court reasoned that the Respondents' assumption—that basement area must be limited to the 30% permissible ground coverage—is legally unfounded.

Under Rule 2(20), "ground coverage" specifically refers to the footprint at the ground level and does not apply to subterranean structures.

The Court noted that Rule 76, which specifically governs basements, does not prescribe any quantitative restriction limiting the basement area to the ground coverage area; it only prohibits basements from encroaching into the Minimum Open Space (MOS).

Furthermore, the Court observed that the Respondent-Municipal Authority had itself scrutinized the plans and specifically sanctioned basement areas of over 2,700 sq. m in the March 2024 permit. Therefore, the Respondents could not unilaterally reinterpret statutory definitions to penalize a Petitioner for following a permit the authority itself granted, especially when the Petitioner had invested significant funds (Rs. 4.68 crores) based on those approvals.

The Court quashed the impugned notice dated November 8, 2024 (Annexure P/1) and directed the Respondents not to interfere with the construction as long as it adheres to the sanctioned building permission dated March 4, 2024. Permission was reserved for Respondents to take action only in the event of actual future violations of the law or plans.