The Bombay High Court at Goa quashed the Technical Clearance Order (TCO) granted to Isprava Luxury Realty Two LLP for the construction of 18 villas. The Court found that the development violated the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, as the property lacked the required 6-meter wide road access. This decision reinforces the necessity of strict adherence to development regulations, particularly concerning infrastructure requirements like road access.

1. Introduction

This judgment deals with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. Nubert X. Fernandes against various state entities and private developers, challenging the legality of a Technical Clearance Order (TCO) and subsequent construction license for a real estate project in Goa.

2. Issues Raised

• Violation of Road Width Requirement: The petitioner argued that the TCO violated Regulation 6A.4 of the Goa Land Development and Building Construction Regulations, 2010, as the property did not have the required 6-meter wide road access.
• Conflict Between Regulations: The petitioner also raised concerns about the application of Regulation 12.6(c), which requires an 8-meter wide road for plots of a certain size, suggesting that this should prevail over the 6-meter requirement.

3. Background

The case centers around a real estate project where the respondent, Isprava Luxury Realty Two LLP, received clearance for constructing 18 villas. The petitioner contested the clearance, arguing that the access road to the property varied between 4 to 6 meters, contrary to regulatory requirements.

4. Court's Findings

• Misrepresentation of Road Width: The Court found that the respondent had misrepresented the width of the access road in their application, which led to the granting of the TCO.
• Non-compliance with Regulations: The Court concluded that the road access did not meet the required 6-meter width and that the development could not be allowed to proceed under the current conditions.
• Site Inspection Report: A site inspection confirmed that the road width was less than 6 meters for a significant stretch, contradicting the clearance conditions.

5. Judgment

The Bombay High Court quashed the TCO and construction license, citing non-compliance with the mandatory infrastructure requirements under the relevant regulations. The Court emphasized the importance of actual road width at the time of project completion, not just at the time of approval.

6. Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to development regulations and serves as a reminder to developers and authorities alike about the critical role of infrastructure compliance in real estate projects.