Since my last post, many readers called me to ask about future of the projects where they have bought the flats. What are the consequences of not having environment clearance?. Some of them said builder has assured them of obtaining Environment clearance (EC) within a month or two, some said builder is going to apply afresh for EC, some builders even went on to say "we don’t need EC, everything is managed".
Interestingly none of flat purchasers dared to ask builder why did he lie? Why they started construction and sold the flats prior to EC, When prior EC was necessary?, Why State Environment Assessment Authority ( SEAC ) recommended rejection of EC or action against them?. Why criminal cases have been filed against them? What will happen to my flat or money if the EC is completely rejected?
The futures of such projects depend entirely on type of violation. The cases where
there are chances of correction and compliance of environment norms those may
considered for EC after necessary legal action on project proponent. For this
to happen project proponent has to apply afresh for EC. But for the projects where
irregularities or violations are beyond repairable conditions, future such projects
are in dark.
For
example if the builder has constructed more than allowed height limits of
environment norms then after correction i.e after demolishing the illegal part
of project and after facing legal action it may get EC. But this is not as easy
as it looks. So many builders have already sold the illegal part of the project
hence the buyers of such part may land in trouble.
In
so many projects irregularities committed by project proponent are beyond
corrective measures and provisions of law cannot be disregarded and ignored
merely because what was done, was being done or on the grounds of fate accompli.
The
flat purchasers who have been cheated by the builders may also try one other
option i.e. if he/she is sure that environment norms for which notice have been
sent are beyond corrective measures or scope of making project legal is impossible.
Then they should file police complaint; try consumer court or criminal cases
against builders.
One thing is clear that there is nexus between builders, politicians, bureaucrats,banks behind such illegalities. But I don’t understand why the property buyers
don’t consult some expert in this field before spending their hard earned
money.
So for future of the projects that have been rejected EC or to whom notices of violation of environment norms have been sent, one has to look at the nature of the violations. Reproduced below is the list of the projects to which EC has been rejected and reasons of such rejection. For other projects to whom notices have been sent for violation of EC norms one has to ask for the copy of the notice and see whether there are chances of correction or not.
M/s.
Eiffel Developers and Realtors Ltd ‘Eiffel City’ at Chakan, Taluka-Khed,
Dist.-Pune,
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made and documents submitted by
the proponent. The case was
discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues
related to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology and
biodiversity and social aspects were discussed.
During the appraisal, the PP
admitted that 80% of the construction work has already been
completed inspite of knowing the
fact that it is mandatory to obtain prior EC for construction
project involving 20000 m2 build
up area or more. The PP also admitted that the revised plan was approved in
2010 and most of the construction work was carried out during 2011. The
Committee noted that the PP / Consultant had not submitted the above said fact
in the documents submitted, including Form-I, but revealed it only during the
presentation. Environment Department may look into matter for the aforesaid
violation and take necessary action for the misrepresentation of the data and
violation.
.
It was also noted that the PP has
not obtained the consent for water supply from a
competent authority and no sewerage
facility is available catering to the project. The right of way to the plot is
12 m, whereas the height of the building is 36 m, which does not comply with
the MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012. The ground coverage is very high (63%) As most
of the prerequisites are not met, SEAC decided to recommend rejection of the
proposal for prior
Environmental Clearance
M/s.
Karia Realty “Konark Meadows” at Gat No. – 1185/A, Plot No. – 3, Near
Wagheshwar Temple, Behind Moze College, Wagholi, Pune
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made and documents submitted by
the proponent. All issues related
to environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology and
biodiversity and social aspects
were discussed.
PP stated that the construction
work has already been initiated and Buildings A, B C and D
have been built. PP stated that
he has handed over the amenity space to the Collector in lieu of which
additional FSI is claimed and the total built up area now exceeds 20,000 m2 and
hence applied for EC.
The Committee noted that the
current approach road is 5 m wide and there is a proposed
DP road of 18 m width. The
maximum height of the building is 37.25 m, therefore, the project cannot be
considered in light of MoEF OM dated 7.02.2012, until the DP road of 18 m width
is constructed. The PP has not obtained the consents for water supply and
drainage facility from competent authorities. In view of the nonavailability of
the major prerequisites, SEAC decided to recommend rejection of the proposal
for Environmental Clearance
M/s
Rohinton Mehta Constructions. "Solacia" located at Gat No. 2188A
(old)/Gat No. 1185A (New), Plot No. 1,4,5,6,7A,7B,8 and 9A, Behind Rambhau Moze
Engineering College, BAIF Road, Pune – 40
As per decision in the 54th
meeting of SEAC, Sub Committee visited the site on 20th
August, 2012. Observations made
during the site visit were deliberated. It is noted that the Phase I of the
project is completed and occupied partly.
In Phase II, 4 buildings have
been completed and occupied. These buildings were
constructed by another developer
from whom it has taken over by the present proponent and
expansion work planned on a
larger plot subsequently acquired. Two buildings are in progress, out of which
one is nearly completed and one is at stilt level. For Phase III, one building
is nearly completed and other building is not yet completed. This is a
violation of EIA Notificaiton, 2006.
The Environment Department may
look into the violation and take appropriate action for the
violation. It is noted that-
1. 15m wide DP road serving as
access to the project is constructed jointly with all near by
developers. As per MoEF OM dated
7th Feb, 2012, the maximum height of the building
should not exceed 15m,
considering the width of access road. However, about 36m tall
buildings have been constructed.
2. The entire plot area in the
campus is almost paved and hardly any space is left for
plantation.
3. Basement constructed below
Phase-I row houses has inadequate natural lighting and
ventilation and access/ exist
ramps.
4. No RWH work is done.
5. No hydrants or refuge areas
were seen and measures provided for fire protection are not
clear.
6. The water supply and drainage
scheme is still at a very preliminary stage and may not
materialise in the near future.
Presently water is being supplied through bore wells or
tankers.
7. The treated effluent from STP
has no sustainable method of disposal. PP was not able to
provide satisfactory details
regarding treated STP waste water disposal.
8. No reliable arrangement exists
for solid waste disposal
9. Provision of amenities were
not seen
Considering the existing
violations and inadequate compliances, this expansion project, as
submitted cannot be recommended
for EC and hence SEAC decided to reject the proposal.
M/s.Smart
Value Homes Limited S. No. 279…. 344 of village Kathivali,
Tal.
Shahapur, Dist. Thane
The project proponent presented
the proposal before the committee and the case was discussed on the basis of
the presentation made by the proponent. It was observed that PP has not yet
complied with the following conditions of EC letter for the Phase 1 issued on
21st October, 2011:
(i) There shall be no discharge
of surplus treated effluent to any nala, stream or any other water body outside
the project. The surplus effluent (after meeting the requirement for flushing
etc.) should be used for taking up gardening and horticultural developments on
the balance area of about 10 hectares.
(ii) PP shall lay a pipeline for
carrying the surplus water to appropriate site as discussed in SEAC & SEIAA
Meetings.
PP now proposed that he would
construct a pond of an area 6000 cmd to store and periodically dispose of 397
cmd of surplus treated water during wet seasons. PP also proposed that excess
treated water to be utilized for nearby submerged paddy fields and nursery.
Considering the total population of around 12,000 populations in the proposed
township the proposed external arrangements are not sustainable.
Decision:
SEAC decided to recommend the
proposal of Phase II for rejection of Environmental Clearance.
M/s Parmar Indus Associates “Vista Luxuria” at
S No. 162, Majri, Pune
The case was discussed on the basis of the
presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to environment,
including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social aspects were
discussed.
PP informed that construction was
initiated at the site with a total BUA of 14245.2 sq.m and
completed with the approval of
local authority. It is noted that three buildings with height of 30 m with a
right of way of 9 m (as per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum height
allowed is 15m) has been completed and foundation work of other proposed
buildings is also almost completed. It appears to be a violation of EIA
Notification, 2006. Environment
Department may look into the
matter and take an appropriate action.
SEAC noted that-
1. The current right of way is
9m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the
proposed maximum height of the building is 36m.
2. Consent for water and drainage
from competent authority are not yet obtained.Considering this, SEAC is
constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environment
clearance to the proposal.
M/s.
Sia Developers “Vermont” residential Project Gat No. 1204 (2138), 1205 (2139),
1206 (2140), 1208 (2194), opp wagheshware Temple, BAIF road, college, Wagholi,
tal Haveli, Dist Pune
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to
environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social
aspects were discussed.
PP informed that construction was
initiated at the site as per NA approval with FSI 12797 sq.m and total BUA
19,900 sq.m including Non-FSI area. This is a violation of EIA Notification,
2006. Environment Department may look into the matter and take an appropriate
action.
SEAC noted that-
1. The current right of way is
12m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 2012, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the
proposed (and also the existing building) maximum height
is 39m.
2. Proposed FSI 0.9 is not yet
approved.
3. Consent for water and drainage
from competent authority are not yet obtained. Considering this, SEAC is
constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environmental clearance to the
proposal.
M/s. Tricon Builders, Residential Building on
plot bearing Sr. No. 19/1 to 4 & 19/5/1 & 19/5/2, at post Pisoli, Tal
Haveli, Dist. Pune
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made by the proponent. All issues related to
environment, including air, water, land, soil, ecology, biodiversity and social
aspects were discussed. PP informed that construction was initiated at the site
as per NA approval with a total BUA 19,878 sq.m including Non-FSI area. This is
a violation of EIA Notification, 2006.
Environment Department may look
into the violation and take appropriate action.
SEAC noted that-
1. The current right of way is
9m. As per MoEF OM dated 7th February 201, the maximum
height allowed is 15m but the
proposed maximum height of the building (including the
completed ones) is 30m.
2. Proposed FSI of 0.9 is not yet
approved.
3. Consent for water and drainage
from competent authority has not yet been obtained.
Considering this, SEAC is
constrained to recommend the rejection of prior environmental
clearance to the proposal
M/s. Kumar Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. “PALMCREST” (Residential Project) at Village
– Pisoli, Taluka – Haveli, Pune
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made by the proponent. The
project is located at Pisoli
Village, Taluka – Haveli, Pune and situation regarding water supply and
drainage are similar as per Item No. 23. ( Advika Constructions)
The PP has started the
construction. On this PP informed that he was plan Phase I having
BUA less than 20,000 sq. m.
Environment Department may look into the said matter and take
necessary action.
The proposed project is an
expansion of existing project which is not reflected in form I.
It is noted that existing
approach road is 9 m wide and position regarding widening of road is not clear.
Hence, the PP need to restrict the height as per MoEF OM dated 7th Feb, 2012.
On this observation, Committee
decided to recommend the project as proposed for
Rejection
M/s.
Advika Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Advika - Residential Project at Pisoli, Tal. –
Haveli , Dist. Pune
The case was discussed on the
basis of the presentation made by the proponent. It is noted
that the project proponent has
nearly completed the construction work of 2 buildings without
obtaining the prior environmental
clearance. Environment Department may look into the said
violation and take necessary
action.
It is noted that existing
approach road is 9 m wide and availability of 15m wide access road in future is
not clear. Hence, the PP need to restrict the height as per MoEF OM dated 7th
Feb, 2012.
Position regarding water supply
and drainage is not clear and submitted water balance was
incorrect. There is also
discrepancy in the submitted figures i.e. number of buildings, ground
coverage area, etc. The PP has
also not furnished the data of subsoil condition for the preparation of RWH
scheme.
On this observation, Committee
decided to recommend the project as proposed for rejection.
Related Stories
Subscribe for Free
To receive free emails or free RSS feeds, please, subscribe
to Vijay Kumbhar's Exclusive News & Analysis
RTI KATTA is a platform to empower oneself through
discussions amongst each other to solve their problems by using Right to Information
act, Every Sunday at Chittaranjan Watika, Model Colony,Shivaji nagar, Pune,
between 9.30 to 10.30 A.M.
RTI Resource Person, RTI Columnist
Phone – 9923299199
Email – kvijay14@gmail.com
Website – http://surajya.org
Facebook -
No comments:
Post a Comment