https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275261 DCR 23 was interpreted as requiring a mandatory minimum recreational open space at ground level, and DCR 38(34)(iv) was treated only as an additional facility permitting podium recreation without overriding that minimum. The result is that podium recreational space cannot replace the required open-to-sky open space. The second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) was found inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21 because the reduced fire-access setback for certain redevelopment plots did not ensure adequate fire-engine access and maneuverability. The provision was therefore held bad in law, with the stated alternative access conditions remaining relevant where applicable. en-us Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275261 DCR 23 was interpreted as requiring a mandatory minimum recreational open space at ground level, and DCR 38(34)(iv) was treated only as an additional facility permitting podium recreation without overriding that minimum. The result is that podium recreational space cannot replace the required open-to-sky open space. The second proviso to DCR 43(1)(A) was found inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21 because the reduced fire-access setback for certain redevelopment plots did not ensure adequate fire-engine access and maneuverability. The provision was therefore held bad in law, with the stated alternative access conditions remaining relevant where applicable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275261