Samta Nagar Co-Operative Housing ... vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1359 Bom

                      KVM

                                                            1/3
                                                                                    1-WP1699 OF 2016.doc

          Digitally signed
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Kanchan   by Kanchan V.
V.        Mayekar
          Date: 2021.01.21
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Mayekar   17:23:04 +0530
                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 2016
                      Samta Nagar Co-operative Housing
                      Societies Union Limited & Anr.                          ..... Petitioners
                              VERSUS

                      Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
                      & Ors.                                                  ..... Respondents

                      Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh,
                      Mrs.Jasmine Kachalia, Mr. Aryan Srivastava i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy
                      and Co. for the Petitioners.

                      Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Rohan Mirpury and
                      Ms.Trupti Puranik for the Respondent No.1-M.C.G.M.

                      Ms. Sayli Apte, a/w. Ms.Naik for the Respondent No.2-MHADA.

                      Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, Asst. Government Pleader Respondent No.3-
                      State.
                                                  CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                                         MADHAV J.JAMDAR, JJ.

DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2021 (IN CHAMBER)

P.C:-

The arguments in this writ petition were completed on 8 th

January, 2021. After closure of the arguments, learned counsel for

MHADA has tendered copies of three resolutions passed by MHADA

i.e. dated 4th June, 2007, 5th May, 2009 and 7th August, 2009 respectively. The petitioners filed a tabular chart showing the break up of the area of flats.

The matter was accordingly placed in Chamber for directions to ascertain KVM

1-WP1699 OF 2016.doc from the parties whether this tabular chart submitted by the petitioners and

the copies of the resolutions filed by the MHADA can be considered in the

judgment to be delivered by this court.

2. Insofar as the copies of the resolutions filed by MHADA are

concerned, all the parties jointly state that they have no objection if these

resolutions which were referred in the NOC issued by MHADA in favour of

the petitioner no.1 are considered. Statement is accepted.

3. Insofar as tabular chart for the carpet area of the respective tenaments

submitted by the petitioners is concerned, Dr.Sathe, learned senior counsel

for the petitioners states that in the said chart, the petitioners have given

break up of the area mentioned in the affidavit dated 5 th January, 2021 and

more particularly in paragraph 5.5 which includes 35% fungible FSI and the

carpet area mentioned in the Government resolution.

4. Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation on

the other hand submits that there was violation of the Government

resolution. The said Government resolution refers to the carpet area and not

the fungible FSI.

5. Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 seeks to

verify the figures mentioned in the tabular chart submitted by the petitioners

and agrees to file additional submission recording his objection on the said KVM

1-WP1699 OF 2016.doc chart submitted by the petitioners. Both the parties are permitted to file

supplemental submissions insofar as the said tabular chart submitted by the

petitioners is concerned by 22nd January, 2021 and shall serve a copy thereof

upon the other side.

6. This court would consider the additional submissions made by both

parties in the judgment proposed to be delivered.

7. In the additional note to be submitted by the Municipal Corporation,

the Corporation is permitted to make its additional submissions also on the

relevance of Regulation 35(2)(C) of D.C.Regulations, 1991.

8. Closed for orders.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]                        [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]