v

Monday, December 8, 2014

what is the future of the projects that have violated environment norms ?

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