HC verdict awaited on Civil Lines high-rise near Defence bldg

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Wednesday closed for order a petition filed by the Kamptee Station Headquarters commander, which sought the demolition of few floors of the Kukreja Infinity building, the tallest structure in Nagpur's Civil Lines area. The petition was based on concerns regarding security violations due to the building's close proximity to a defence establishment.
According to the petitioner, the 28-storey high-rise, developed by Kukreja Infrastructure, stands only 76 meters from the perimeter of a defence facility, breaching the mandatory 100-meter safety limit set by defence guidelines.The building, located on Plot No. 02, Mouza Sitabuldi, is considered a potential security risk to nearby defence operations.
The Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) asserted that all necessary approvals were granted in accordance with regulations. However, the petitioner questioned the rapid issuance of the occupancy certificate within five months, despite multiple objections raised by defence authorities.
Supporting the petition, the Kamptee Cantonment Board referred to the central government's 2015 "Shadow and Shield" policy, which limits the construction of buildings taller than eight storeys near sensitive defence areas. The board also argued that the required no-objection certificate (NOC) from the defense establishment was not obtained prior to the construction of the high-rise.
In a hearing before Justices Bharti Dangre and Abhay Mantri on Tuesday, the Kamptee Cantonment Board submitted an affidavit countering the NMC's position. The board stated that it had provided Google Maps to the District Collector's office in 2016, illustrating the defence facility's proximity to the building.
Furthermore, the board had been consistently communicating with NMC since March 2023, raising numerous objections concerning the building's height and location. Despite these concerns, the NMC issued the occupancy certificate, deviating from the standard procedure of granting a temporary certificate before a permanent one, the board argued.
The petitioner contended that the NMC's rapid issuance of the certificate disregarded their objections and posed a threat to the defence establishment.