Bombay High Court
Sun Empire Housing Co-Op. Ltd. ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation And ... on 5 December, 2016
Bench: Ranjit More
WP 2338.15(group)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2015
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
(A Co-operative Housing Society, having its ]
Registered Office at : Survey No.7(Part) and ]
9(Part), Vadgaon Budruk, Pune - 411 051. ]
Through the Secretary ]
Shri Ajit Arun Kolhatkar, ]
Age 44 years, Occ-Business, ]
R/at-C-3/304, ]
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
Survey No.7(Part) and 9(Part), ]
Vadgaon Budruk, Pune - 411 051. ]....Petitioner
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
ig ]
2. The Secretary, ]
Urban Development Department, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ]
3. Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
4. Municipal Commissioner, ]
Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
5. Shri Naresh Ramchandra Mittal, ]
Adult Occ- Business, ]
Residing at :- A-4, Yashodeep, ]
Rambaug Colony, Lokmanya Nagar, ]
Navi Peth, ]
Pune - 411 03. ]
6. Sun Planet Resident's Welfare Association ]
Through its Chairman ]
Shri Shrirang Laxman Palande ]
Age 59 years, Occ.: Service, ]
R/at : 703, Sun Planet, Survey No.9, ]
Vadgaon, Anand Nagar, Pune - 411 051. ]....Respondents
Shubhada S Kadam 1/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2016 00:55:28 :::
WP 2338.15(group)
along with
WRIT PETITION NO.7187 OF 2015
Sun Planet Resident's Welfare Association ]
Through its Chairman ]
Shri Shrirang Laxman Palande ]
Age 59 years, Occ.: Service, ]
R/at : 703, Sun Planet, Survey No.9, ]
Vadgaon, Anand Nagar, Pune - 411 051. ]....Petitioner
versus
1. Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
(A Co-operative Housing Society, having its ]
Registered Office at : Survey No.7(Part) and ]
9(Part), Vadgaon Budruk, Pune - 411 051. ]
Through the Secretary ig ]
Shri Ajit Arun Kolhatkar, ]
Age 44 years, Occ-Business, ]
R/at-C-3/304, ]
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
Survey No.7(Part) and 9(Part), ]
Vadgaon Budruk, Pune - 411 051. ]
2. Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
3. The Commissioner, ]
Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411 005. ]
4. Deputy/City Engineer, ]
Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
5. Shri Naresh Ramchandra Mittal, ]
Adult Occ- Business, ]
Residing at :- A-4, Yashodeep, ]
Rambaug Colony, Lokmanya Nagar, ]
Navi Peth, ]
Pune - 411 03. ]
6. The Secretary, ]
Urban Development Department, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ].....Respondents
Shubhada S Kadam 2/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2016 00:55:28 :::
WP 2338.15(group)
along with
WRIT PETITION NO.10329 OF 2015
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
(A Co-operative Housing Society, having its ]
Registered Office at : Survey No.7(Part) and ]
9(Part), Vadgaon Budruk, ]
Pune - 411 051. ]
Through the Chairman, ]
Shri Ashok Shankarrao Kubitkar, ]
Age 67 years, Occ-Retired, ]
R/at-B-3/303, ]
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
Survey No.7(Part) and 9(Part), ]
Vadgaon Budruk, Pune - 411 051. ].....Petitioners
versus
1. Pune Municipal Corporation, ig ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
2. The Deputy Engineer, ]
Building Permission Department, ]
Zone 2, Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
3. The Junior Engineer/Branch Engineer, ]
Building Permission Department, ]
Zone 2, Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune - 411 005. ]
4. Sun Planet Resident's Welfare Association ]
Through its Chairman ]
Shri Shrirang Laxman Palande ]
Age 59 years, Occ.: Service, ]
R/at : 703, Sun Planet, Survey No.9, ]
Vadgaon, Anand Nagar, Pune - 411 051. ]....Respondents
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, senior counsel along with Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh,
advocate for the petitioner in writ petition No. 2338 of 2015.
Mr. A. V. Anturkar, senior counsel along with Mr. Sandeep M. Phatak,
advocat for the petitioner in writ petition No. 10329 of 2015.
Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioner in writ petition No.
7187 of 2015 and respondent No.6 in writ petition No. 2338 of 2015.
Shubhada S Kadam 3/21
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 07/12/2016 00:55:28 :::
WP 2338.15(group)
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
Mr. Rajdeep Suresh Khadapkar, advocate for the Corporation.
Mr. A. G. Damle, senior counsel along with Mr. Rohit S. Gangawane,
advocate for respondent No.5 in writ petition Nos. 2338 of 2015 and
7187 of 2015.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING : 17th OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5th DECEMBER, 2016.
Oral Judgment : (Per Ranjit More, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions
are heard finally by consent.
2. Heard learned senior counsel, learned counsel and
learned AGP appearing for the respective parties.
3. Writ petition No.2338 of 2015 seeks to challenge :
1. Notification dated 17th May, 2008, issued by
the State Government sanctioning the draft
development plan under Section 31 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
(for short "the MRTP Act") vis-à-vis the road passing
through survey No.7(part) and survey No.9(part),
Vadagaon Budruk, Pune 411 051.
Shubhada S Kadam 4/21
WP 2338.15(group)
2. The order dated 21st March, 2009, passed by
the Municipal Commissioner under the provisions of
DCR 14.4.1(g) of the Development Control
Regulations of Pune Municipal Corporation granting
sanction for shifting of the reservation viz. 9 meter
wide DP Road.
Writ petition No.10329 of 2015 seeks to challenge the
notice dated 19th September, 2015, issued by the Designated Officer of
Pune Municipal Corporation under Section 260(2) of the Maharashtra
Municipal Corporations Act, (for short "the Corporations Act")
Writ petition No. 7187 of 2015 is filed seeking declaration
that the Corporation and all the respondents therein are bound by the
provisions of the final Development Plan and they are duty bound to
provide 9 meter DP Road and further sought a direction to the
respondent-Corporation and the State to provide the same. Direction is
also sought to execute the notice dated 21 st February, 2015, issued
under Section 478(1) of the Corporations Act.
Thus, the subject matter of all these petitions is the road
passing through survey No.7(part) and survey No.9(part) Vadagaon
Budruk, Pune 411 051 and, therefore, all these petitions are directed to
be clubbed together and we have heard respective counsel and propose
Shubhada S Kadam 5/21
WP 2338.15(group)
to dispose of these petitions by a common order.
4. The undisputed facts are as follows :
On 31st December, 2002, Pune Municipal Corporation -
Planning Authority published a draft development plan under Section 26
of the MRTP Act in respect of the villages those were included in the
limits of the said Corporation in the local newspaper as well as in the
Government Gazette inviting the objections. On 27 th February, 2003,
Shri Laxman Thite, Architect of respondent No.5-Developer submitted
written objection to the said draft development plan. On 3 rd November,
2004, commencement certificate was granted in favour of respondent
No.5-Developer through his Architect - Shri Laxman Thite. On 15 th April,
2005, Pune Municipal Corporation gave a show cause notice under
Section 51(1) of the MRTP Act on the ground that same is affecting the
9 meter DP road in the draft development plan. On 28 th September,
2005, Pune Municipal Corporation dropped the action under Section
51(1) of the MRTP Act for revocation of the commencement certificate
on the ground that the construction has substantially progressed. On
23rd April, 2007, Shri Thite-Architect of respondent No.5-Developer
submitted an application for shifting 9 meter DP Road to an internal
road because of the construction on the proposed road was affected by
the said 9 meter DP Road. On 11 th July, 2007, the City Engineer informed
Shubhada S Kadam 6/21
WP 2338.15(group)
the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation to grant approval for
shifting of the 9 meter DP Road. On 19 th July, 2007, respondent No.5
executed a bond and gave an undertaking to the Municipal Corporation
for removing the gate and other obstructions on the 9 meter DP road at
his cost. On 30th July, 2007, Pune Municipal Corporation issued a part
completion certificate to respondent No.5 on various terms and
conditions. Condition Nos.29 and 30 categorically mentions that it is
mandatory to first obtain revised development plan layout, before
seeking an approval for any additional construction and before
consuming the FSI for additional road widening, the said road will be
handed over to the Corporation. On 21 st September, 2007, the Special
Officer of Vigilance sought approval of the Commissioner for taking
possession of the road for opening it to the public transport. Similar
recommendation has been given by the Additional Municipal
Commissioner. On 3rd November, 2007, the Commissioner approved the
shifting of the road under DCR 14.4.1(g) of the Development Control
Regulations of Pune Municipal Corporation. On 17 th December, 2007,
the petitioner society in writ petition No.2338 of 2015 viz. Sun Empire
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. was registered. On 17 th May, 2008, the
draft development plan was sanctioned by the State Government under
Section 31 wherein the 9 meter DP Road was shown in survey No.7(part)
and survey No.9(part), Vadagaon Budruk, Pune 411 051.
Shubhada S Kadam 7/21
WP 2338.15(group)
In the month of April, 2009, 14 members of Sun Empire
Co-operative Housing Society filed RCS No.562 of 2009 before the Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Pune against Pune Municipal Corporation and
respondent No.5-Developer seeking declaration that the conversion of
internal road in the layout into DP Road is contrary to Section 7 of the
MOFA and the revised plans based upon the same are void and for
various other reliefs, declarations and injunctions. The said suit is
pending. On 21st June, 2013, Sun Planet Residents' Welfare Association
lodged complaint with the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation
requesting for access to the 9 meter DP Road. Another complaint was
made on 21st February, 2015, by Sun Planet Residents' Welfare
Association to the Corporation submitting that Sun Empire Co-opertive
Housing Society Ltd. has constructed unauthorized wall and also
constructed unauthorized structure on 9 meter DP Road and requested
the Corporation to take necessary action. On 21 st February, 2015, the
Corporation issued notice under Section 478(1) of the Corporations Act
to Sun Empire Co-opertive Housing Society Ltd. for removal of
unauthorized construction of the wall and unauthorized temple
constructed on the said 9 meter DP Road. The Sun Planet Resident's
Welfare Association filed one more complaint on 3 rd March, 2015,
requesting the Corporation to take necessary action.
Shubhada S Kadam 8/21
WP 2338.15(group)
The Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. filed
writ petition No. 2338 of 2015 on 4 th March, 2015 for the reliefs
mentioned hereinabove. This Court initially granted status-quo on
5th March, 2015 in respect on the internal road. The intervenor - Sun
Planet Residents' Welfare Association thereafter filed an intervention
application No.915 of 2015 in writ petition No.2338 of 2015. This
intervention application is allowed by passing a separate order on
17th October, 2016. Sun Planet Resident's Welfare Association also filed a
separate writ petition No.7187 of 2015 for the reliefs stated
hereinabove. Both the writ petition Nos.2338 of 2015 and 7187 of 2015
were placed for orders before a Division Bench on 1 st September, 2015.
The Division Bench of this Court, by passing an order, gave clarification
that earlier status-quo granted in favour of the petitioner in writ petition
No.2338 of 2015 does not prevent Pune Municipal Corporation from
taking action in accordance with law for removal of the illegal structures
on the internal road. The Municipal Corporation thereafter issued notice
under Section 260 of the Corporations Act to Sun Empire Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd, which notice is impugned in writ petition No.10329
of 2015.
5. Mr. Anturkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sun
Shubhada S Kadam 9/21
WP 2338.15(group)
Empire Co-operative Housing Society Limited submitted that Shri
Laxman Thite-Architect of respondent No.5-Developer, raised objection
in respect of the proposed development plan. He submitted that so far
as the objection regarding the DP road mentioned in the proposed
development plan is concerned, the matter was referred to the planning
committee and the planning committee after considering the objection
came to the conclusion that since there is development on the said
proposed DP road, the said internal road of the society should be shown
as an existing internal road. He submitted that the recommendation
made by the planning committee was accepted by the planning
authority and, therefore, it was obligatory on the planning authority to
incorporate the change/recommendation of the planning committee.
However, the changes/recommendations were not incorporated in the
plans sent by the planning authority to the Government. Mr. Anturkar
further submitted that the Corporation initially issued notice under
Section 51(1) of the MRTP Act on 15 th April, 2005. However, this notice
was dropped on 28th September, 2005, on the ground that substantial
development has already taken place. He submitted that having done
so, now it is not permissible to the Corporation to issue another notice
under Section 260 of the Corporations Act. He also submitted that the
notice under Section 260 of the Corporations Act cannot be given for the
purpose of enforcement of the alleged bond. He further submitted that
Shubhada S Kadam 10/21
WP 2338.15(group)
the notice under Section 260 can be given, in case of erection of any
building or execution of any such work is commenced or carried out,
contrary to the rules or bye-laws. He submitted that the disputed
compound wall is shown in the approved plan and, therefore, the
construction of the said wall cannot said to be illegal so as to attract the
provisions of Section 260 of the Corporations Act.
Regarding the order dated 21st March, 2009, of the
Commissioner shifting the DP Road under DCR 14.4.1(g) for Pune
Municipal Corporation is concerned, Mr. Anturkar submitted that the
members of Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are the
interested persons and their consent is required to be obtained and, in
the present case, as admittedly no consent is obtained, the order of
shifting of 9 meter DP Road cannot be sustained.
6. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for Sun Planet Residents'
Welfare Association opposed writ petition No. 2338 of 2015. He
submitted that the said petition suffers from delay and laches and,
therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. He also submitted that
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Limited is bound by all the
actions of respondent No.5, who is their predecessor-in-title and who
has given the bond for shifting of 9 meter DP Road to the internal road.
Shubhada S Kadam 11/21
WP 2338.15(group)
Mr. Kulkarni submitted that the interpretation of DCR 14.4.1(g) given by
Mr. Anturkar is thoroughly misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of
the law. In this regard, he submitted that the members of Sun Empire
Co-operative Housing Society Limited, at the relevant time, were not
entitled to be heard and, therefore, no fault can be found in the order
dated 21st March, 2009 of shifting the 9 meter DP road to the internal
road. He lastly submitted that writ petition No. 2338 of 2015 is not
maintainable as the members of Sun Empire Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. have already availed the alternative efficacious remedy by
filing a suit and the same is pending before the Civil Court.
So far as petition filed by Sun Planet Residents' Welfare
Association viz. writ petition No.7187 of 2015 is concerned, he submitted
that the subject road is the only access road to the members of the Sun
Planet Residents' Welfare Association. This road is illegally blocked by
Sun Empire Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and, therefore, the
encroachment on the said road is required to be removed and the road
must be made available to the members of Sun Planet Residents'
Welfare Association for access.
7. Mr. Khadapkar, learned counsel for Pune Municipal
Corporation relied upon the affidavits-in-reply filed in writ petition No.
Shubhada S Kadam 12/21
WP 2338.15(group)
2338 of 2015 as well as writ petition No.10329 of 2015 by the City
Engineer of Pune Municipal Corporation. He submitted that the
development plan sanctioned by the Government under Section 31 of
the MRTP Act cannot be objected at belated stage. He also submitted
that the order passed by the Commissioner under DCR 14.4.1(g) is
perfectly legal. He submitted that since the road in question is a DP
Road and, admittedly, there is obstruction on this road, the Corporation
was duty bound to remove this obstruction and make the said road open
for the public.
8. Having considered the rival submissions and having gone
through the petitions along with the annexures thereto and the
affidavits-in-reply, we do not find any merit in writ petition Nos. 2338 of
2015 and 10329 of 2015. We are, however, of the opinion that writ
petition No.7187 of 2015 deserves to be allowed.
9. At the outset, we will consider the maintainability of writ
petition No.2338 of 2015 on the ground of delay and laches. As stated
above, the draft development plan under Section 26 of the MRTP Act was
published on 31st December, 2002 and the same was sanctioned by the
Government under Section 31 of the MRTP Act on 17 th May, 2008. In the
development plant, the 9 meter DP Road is shown in survey Nos.7(part)
Shubhada S Kadam 13/21
WP 2338.15(group)
and 9(part). The order of shifting the DP Road to the internal road under
DCR 14.4.1(g) was passed on 2009. Some of the members of the Sun
Empire Cooperative Housing Society thereafter filed RCS No.562 of 2009
before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, seeking declaration that
the conversion of the internal road in the layout into DP Road is contrary
to Section 7 of the MOFA. Prior to this, the petitioner society - Sun
Empire Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. was registered on
17th December, 2007. At the time of filing of the suit, Sun Empire
Cooperative Housing Society was very much aware that the State
Government had already sanctioned the draft development plan and the
Commissioner was also pleased to shift the DP Road to internal road.
Despite this, the said society did not intervene in the said suit. The said
society thereafter remained mum for several years and filed writ petition
No.2338 of 2015 after a lapse of 7 years. The said society has not given
any satisfactory explanation for this delay and, therefore, we are of the
opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches alone. Nevertheless, we will deal with the submissions
of the respective counsel on merits.
Mr. Anturkar challenged the development plan solely on
the ground that Shri Laxman Thite-Architect of respondent No.5-
Developer objected the draft development plan vis-à-vis the 9 meter DP
Shubhada S Kadam 14/21
WP 2338.15(group)
road and the said objections were considered by the planning
committee and the decision of the planning committee was thereafter
accepted and upheld by the General Body of Pune Municipal
Corporation by passing resolution No.299. The stand of the Corporation
in this regard is that Shri Thite-Architect neither raised any objection
about the DP Road proposed in draft development in survey Nos. 7 and
9, nor the planning committee recommended for deletion of the
proposed DP Road. The objections of Mr. Thite are annexed to writ
petition No.2338 of 2015 at "Exhibit C", page 47. We have gone through
those objections. We find substance in the stand of the Corporation
inasmuch as there is no reference of the DP Road in the proposed draft
development plan in survey Nos.7 and 9. Mr. Anturkar also relied upon
the document at "Exhibit D" at page 49 to substantiate his contention
that Shri Thite had taken objection about the DP Road proposed in the
draft development plan in survey Nos.7 and 9. There is no dispute that
these documents disclose that Shri Laxman Thite has taken oral
objection. However, that objection was in respect of 9 meter DP Road in
survey No.12. By no stretch of imagination, the said objection can be
stated to be in respect of DP Road proposed in the draft development
plan in survey Nos. 7 and9. In the absence of such objection, either by
Mr. Thite - Architect or respondent No.5-Developer, it cannot be said
that the planning committee recommended for deletion of the proposed
Shubhada S Kadam 15/21
WP 2338.15(group)
DP Road in survey Nos.7 and 9.
Be that as it may, the General Body of Pune Municipal
Corporation, by its resolution No.368 passed on 29 th November, 2005,
directed to submit draft development plan published under Section 29
as it is to the State Government. Thus, the said development plan
submitted under Section 30 of the MRTP Act to the State Government
was with the approval of Pune Municipal Corporation and the said draft
development plan as stated above is sanctioned by the Government
under Section 31 of the MRTP Act.
ig Thus, the challenge to the
development plan vis-à-vis the DP road in survey Nos.7 and 9 cannot be
sustained.
This takes us to consider the second submission of Mr.
Anturkar regarding the legality or otherwise of the notice under Section
260 of the Corporations Act. Mr. Anturkar stated that the Corporation
having withdrawn the earlier notice under Section 51 of the MRTP Act,
could not have issued a fresh notice under Section 260 of the
Corporations Act. He also submitted that the provisions of Section 260
of the Corporations Act cannot be resorted inasmuch as the disputed
wall is shown as compound wall in the sanctioned building plan. The
submissions, in our opinion, are clearly an afterthought. The averments
made by the Corporation in affidavit-in-reply filed in writ petition
Shubhada S Kadam 16/21
WP 2338.15(group)
No. 10329 of 2015 disclose that in respect of the said unauthorized wall,
earlier on 27th August, 2012, notice under Section 260(1) of the
Corporations Act was issued to respondent No.5-Developer and the said
Developer, in his reply, contended that he is not constructing the said
wall and the said wall is being constructed by Sun Empire Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd.. The said fact was also brought to the notice of the
said society and the developer by addressing communication. These
averments are not disputed by the said society by filing rejoinder. That
apart, it is the case of the said society that it came into picture vis-a-vis
land only in the year 2014 when the deemed conveyance dated 3 rd June,
2014, was executed in its favour. Thus, in the year 2012, the said society
had no right/authority to carry out any construction over the said land.
No specific permission was given by the planning authority under the
sanctioned building plan to carry out construction of the said wall over
the said road. The design/specification shown in the building plan
sanctioned in favour of the said Developer only indicates that the said
Developer could construct compound wall of the said
design/specification strictly as per the Development Control Rules. Thus ,
in our considered opinion, the compound wall could not have been
constructed on the DP Road. Since the compound wall and the temple
is constructed by the petitioner -society on the DP Road without
permission, the same is illegal and, therefore, the Corporation rightly
Shubhada S Kadam 17/21
WP 2338.15(group)
resorted to the provisions of Section 260 of the Corporation Act. We are
also of the opinion that withdrawal of the notice under Section 51(1) of
the MRTP Act will have no effect on the status of the DP Road as
sanctioned by the State Government.
The last objection of Mr. Anturkar about the order dated
21st March, 2009, passed by the Municipal Commissioner under DCR
14.4.1(g) regarding shifting of the DP Road to internal road is concerned,
same is also without substance. The objection in this regard is only
taken on the ground that the members of the said society viz. Sun
Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are interested persons and
their consent is not taken before passing the said order dated
21st March, 2009. It is apparent that the said order regarding shifting of
the DP Road was passed at the instance of Shri Laxman Thite -Architect
of respondent No.5-Developer in pursuance of the application dated
23rd April, 2007. Respondent No.5 thereafter also gave bond. Mr.
Anturkar contends that the agreement under MOFA in favour of the said
society was registered in or about 2007 and, therefore, the members of
the said society are interested persons and required to be heard before
passing any order under DCR 14.4.1(g). The Corporation relied upon the
agreements executed by members of the said society to contend that
respondent No.5 had retained right in respect of the internal road.
Shubhada S Kadam 18/21
WP 2338.15(group)
Some of the agreements are annexed to the affidavit-in
-reply filed by the Corporation. Clause 3 of the agreement reads as
under :
"3. It is hereby declared that sanctioned plan/s
has/have been shown to the Purchaser and the Floor
Space Index (FSI) available is shown in the said plan/s.
Similarly, the Floor Space Index, if any, utilised as
floating floor space index or in any manner, i.e. to say
transfer from the said land or floor space index of any
other property used on the said land is also shown in
the plan/s. In this Agreement, the word FSI or Floor
Area Ratio shall have the same meaning as understood
by the Planning Authority under its relevant building
regulations or bye-laws. The Promoter shall be entitled
to float F.S.I. of the Property in the present scheme to
any other property and vice-versa if so permitted by the
concerned authority. The Promoter shall also be
entitled to use the FSI of the internal road, road
widening FSI, TDR. etc. on the said building and or other
buildings in the layout of the said project."
Reading of this clause, do show that respondent No.5 had
retained rights in respect of the internal road. Therefore, the members
of the petitioner-society cannot said to be interested persons who are
required to be heard. Be that as it may, the effect of setting aside the
order of the Municipal Commissioner passed under DCR 14.4.1(g) will
Shubhada S Kadam 19/21
WP 2338.15(group)
render existing structures of the petitioner unauthorized because the
same are affected by 9 meter DP Road. The record further reveals that
the area covered by the 9 meter DP Road is 3659.33 square meters.
Under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, the reserved land can be
acquired by granting FSI (Floor Space Index) or TDR (Transferable
Development Rights). The Corporation contended and Mr. Anturkar did
not dispute that the entire FSI equivalent to 3659.33 square meter land
is utilized by the predecessor-in-title of the said society. The
predecessor-in-title has also given an undertaking to remove all the
hindrances that may come within the said road and, more particularly by
removing the wall and the gate. The said society viz. Sun Empire
Cooperative Housing Society stands in the shoes of its predecessor-in-
title and, therefore, is bound by the undertaking given by him. Thus, the
petitioner in writ petition Nos. 2338 of 2015 and 10329 of 2015 are not
entitled for any relief. Both the petitions are dismissed. Consequently,
writ petition No.7187 of 2015 is made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (c).
[ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner society viz.
Sun Empire Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., seeks continuation of
Shubhada S Kadam 20/21
WP 2338.15(group)
the interim relief for a period of two weeks from today. The request is
opposed by Mr. Khadapkar, learned counsel for the Corporation.
However, in the interests of justice and in order to enable the petitioner-
society to approach the Supreme Court, the status-quo granted earlier
shall remain in force till 19 th December, 2016. It is made clear that the
petitioner-society will not seek further extension of the status-quo.
[ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] ig [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 21/21
