Bombay High Court
Classique Associates And Ors vs Kamlakar Motiram Satve And Anr on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
1 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10155 OF 2022
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10110 OF 2022
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
1. Classique Associates
2. HGP Community Pvt. Ltd.
Both having Registered Office at
514, Dalamal Tower, Nariman
Point, Mumbai 400 021
... Applicants
In the matter between
1. Kamlakar Motiram Satve
Age about 49, occupation: service
and social worker, residing at Sita
Sadan, Opp. I.I.T Main Gate,
Tirandaz /village, Powai,
Mumbai-400 076
2. Sou Usha Kamlakar Satve
Age about 44, occupation:
household work and social work,
residing at Sita Sadan, Opp. I.I.T
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
Main Gate, Tirandaz /village,
RAJESHWARI RAMESH ... Petitioners
RAMESH
PILLAI
PILLAI Powai, Mumbai-400 076
Date:
2023.01.12
16:19:53
+0530
2 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Department of Revenue & Urban
Development, Government of
Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032
3. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority
Having office at Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051
4. Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation through its
Commissioner having his office at
Mahapalika Bhavan, Opposite
C.S.T., Fort, Mumbai-400 001
5. Chittaranjan Chandrabhan
Sharma age about 80, occupation:
Builder having his office at C-104,
Prashant Apartment, Opp IIT
Main Gate, Powai,
Mumbai 400 076
6. Narottam Chittaranjan Sharma
age about 80, occupation: Builder
having his office at C-104,
Prashant Apartment, Opp IIT
Main Gate, Powai,
Mumbai 400 076
3 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
7. Bhavanishankar (Lallu)
Harishchandra Sharma
Age about 60, Occupation :
Builder, residing at Sharma
Cottage, Behind Lake Cassel,
Hiranandani Complex, IIT Powai,
Mumbai-400 076 having his office
at Bhavani Industrial Services
Estate, Powai, Mumbai-400 076
8 Prashant Gopal Sharma
Builder & Developer, 3rd Floor,
G.H.P. Corporation,
MilleniumTower, Near Petrol
Pump, Powai, Mumbai-400 076
9 M/s. Hiranandani Developers Pvt.
Ltd. Having its office at 'Olympia'
Hiranandani Complex, Powai,
Mumbai-400 076
10 Niranjan Hiranandani
Age about 55, Occupation: Builder
Managing Director of M/s.
Hiranandani Developers Pvt. Ltd-
the Respondent no. 9 having his
office at at 'Olympia' Hiranandani
Complex, Powai,
Mumbai-400 076 ... Respondents
4 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
WITH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 91 OF 2008
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 437 OF 2011
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 441 OF 2011
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 91 OF 2008
Mr. Rajendra Thacker
Res. At Flat No. D1, Dwarkesh Park Co-
operative Housing Society, Sai Baba
Nagar, Borivali (West)
Mumbai-400 092 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Principal Secretary , Dept. of
Urban Development Dept,
Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department, Mantralaya
Mumbai-400 032
2. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority
Having office at Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051
3. Slum Redevelopment Authority
Regd Add : 5th floor, MHADA Bldg
Kalanagar, Bandra (E),
Mumbai-400 051
5 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
4. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, Regd Add : Mahapalika
Bhavan CST,Mumbai-400 001
5. Maharashtra Chamber of Housing
Industry, Regd. Add : Maker
Bhavan II 4th floor, 18/V
Thackersey Marry, New Marine
Lines, Opp. Income Tax Office,
Mumbai
6. M/s. Hiranandani Construction
Regd. Add: 'Olympia' Central
Avenue, Hiranandani Gardens,
Powai, Mumbai-400 076
6A Niranjan Hiranandani
6B Hiranandani Group of Companies
6C Lake View Developers
All having address at : 'Olympia'
Central Avenue, Hiranandani
Gardens, Powai. ... Respondents
WITH
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 21 OF 2010
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 442 OF 2021
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 21 OF 2010
Medha Patkar
National Alliance for Peoples Movement
29-30 Haji Habib Building, Naigaon Cross
Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai-400 014 ... Petitioner
6 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary, Urban
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Secretary
Housing and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai
3. Competent Authority
Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976, New
Administrative Building,
Government Colony, Bandra
(East), Mumbai-400 051
4. The Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg
Mumbai - 400 001
5. The Metropolitan Commissioner
Mumbai Metropolitan Region
Development Authority
Having office at Bandra Kurla
Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051
6. Shri Niranjan Hiranandani
Hiranandani Gardens, Powai
Mumbai ... Respondents
7 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 37 OF 2017
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
M/s.Crescendo Associates and Ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2011
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Anr. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2011
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
Niranjan Hiranandani and Ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
8 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 36 OF 2017
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 131 OF 2008
M/s. Lake View Developers and Ors. ...Applicants
In the matter between
Kamlakar Motiram Satve and Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Chetan Kapadia,
Ms. Vidisha Rohira, Mr. Parag Kabadi and Ms. Falguni Thakkar
i/b. DSK Legal for the Applicant.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for the State.
Mr. Akshay Shinde for MMRDA.
Mr. Mihir Joshi for the Petitioner in PIL/21/2010.
Mr. Latika Kabad i/b. Mr. Rohit Joshi for Respondent nos. 5
and 6 in PIL/131/2008 and IA/10135/2022.
Mr. Akshay Shinde 'B' Panel Counsel a/w. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP
and Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the State.
Mr. Ramdas Shelke i/b. Mr. S.G.Deshmukh for the Petitioner in
PIL/131/2008.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 11 JANUARY, 2023
9 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
JUDGMENT (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J) :-
1. These three Public Interest Litigations involve the issue
of development of vast lands at Powai in Mumbai known as
"Powai Area Development Scheme" (for short PADS). The
constructions put up by the developer on these lands under
PADS have been challenged in these three Public Interest
Litigations praying inter alia for institution of inquiry in
respect of Tripartite Agreement dated 19 November 1986
executed between State of Maharashtra, Mumbai Metropolitan
Region Development Authority (MMRDA) and the developers.
2. Extensive interim order dated 22 February 2012 came to
be passed in the present Public Interest Litigations holding
that there was breach and non-compliance of the Tripartite
Agreement by the developers. This court therefore proceeded
to pass the following directions:
(a) The petitioners and the developer as also the
Metropolitan Commissioner of the MMRDA shall prepare a
statement of all the buildings and structures put up by the
developer in the Powai ADS alongside their names and
description and the numbers and area of the units/flats
therein within 4 weeks from today.
(b) The petitioners, the developer and the Metropolitan
Commissioner of the MMRDA shall prepare a plan
showing the vacant areas of the plot under the Powai ADS,
where further buildings may be constructed, within 4
weeks from today.
10 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
(c) If the parties are unable to work jointly they would
be entitled to work individually in terms of (a) and (b)
above.
(d) The developer shall not put up any further
construction of whatsoever nature on the remainder of
the plot under the Powai ADS before specifying the vacant
lands and the buildings that can be constructed thereupon
as per the statement and plan mentioned in clauses (a)
and (b) above and shown to Court.
(e) The developer shall be entitled to commence any
further construction only after obtaining the specific
permission of this Court in that behalf and subject to the
sanctioned plans of the MMC.
(f) Such construction shall be only of 1511 flats of 40
sq.mtrs 1593 flats of 80 sq.mtrs without any
amalgamation, exception, or further allowance.
(g) No two flats shall be sold to the same person or any
member of her/his family, being her/his spouse and
children.
(h) The developer shall sell to the State Government
from such construction such of the flats or units as would
represent 15% of the total FSI of the total plot consumed
under the development @ Rs.135/- per sq.ft. And the State
Government shall offer those flats to be purchased by the
employees of the State Government at the aforesaid rate
in a transparent manner.
(i) After constructing and showing the Court the total
number of units or flats constructed for residential
purpose as initially required under the Powai ADS and
after offering to sell the flats as directed in clause (h)
above, the developer shall submit a report of such
construction and sale to Court with a copy to the
Petitioners in all the above Petitions, the MMRDA, the
State Government and the MMC.
(j) The Developer shall thereafter be entitled to put any
further construction as per law.
11 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
(k) The compensation for the breaches of the tripartite
agreement claimed by the MMRDA shall be determined in
the appropriate forum.
(l) The petitioners may file any private criminal
complaint for any offence committed by the developer or
any of the public officers of MMRDA or the State
Government in the appropriate Court.
(m) All the writ petitions shall stand over to 29th March
2012 for placing on record the statement and plan as
directed in clauses (a) and (b).
3. Thus under the interim order dated 22 February 2012,
this court directed the developers/applicants to complete
construction of 1511 flats of 40 sq.mtrs, 1593 flats of 80
sq.mtrs and to sell to the State Government such of the flats or
units as would represent 15% of the total FSI of the total plot
consumed under the development.
4. Further interim order came to be passed by this court on
3 October 2017 clarifying that the number of flats to be
constructed by the developer would be 1511 flats of 40 sq.mtrs
and 887 flats of 80 sq.mtrs. A timeline came to be set by this
court for completion of construction of such 1511 flats of 40
sq.mtrs and 887 flats of 80 sq.mtrs. In paragraph 22 of the
order, this court directed that in the event of the
developers/applicants failing to comply with any of the terms
and conditions laid down in the order, they would construct
12 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
additional 10% of the remaining flats to be constructed which
remained incomplete as on 1 June 2021.
5. The Interim Application no. 10155 of 2022 has been filed
by the developers/applicants seeking condonation of delay
with the following prayers:
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone the delay
by extending time for completing the construction of 'A' & 'B'
wings and 'C' wing of Atlantis building comprising of 448
number of flats of 80 sq. mtrs to March 2018 and February
2019 respectively.
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to extend the
timelines for completing the construction of:
i. 'C' & 'D' Wings of Building Castle Rock till 30 th
June, 2021 and 'A' & 'B' Wings of Building Castle Rock
till 30th January 2022 (instead of December, 2020);
ii. the Building Regent Hill, Wings A & B, C, D & E till
30th January, 2023 (instead of 31st May 2021);
iii. the Building Sorrento till 15th June, 2023 (instead
of December, 2020);
(c) for interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (a)
and (b) above;
(d) for such other and consequential reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit; and
13 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
6. When the Interim Application no. 10155 of 2022 came up
before this court on 9 April 2021, this court passed following
order :
I In so far as prayer (a) is concerned, the same stands
deferred for consideration at a later stage.
II We allow the prayer clauses (b)(i) and (b)(ii).
III In so far as prayer (b)(iii) is concerned, the applicants
shall file a better affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay
in commencement of construction.
IV All other conditions imposed by the earlier orders of
this Court shall remain intact.
V The Interim Application shall be listed once again on 9 th
June 2021.
7. Thus prayer clause (b)(i) and (b)(ii) of the Interim
Application were allowed and while prayer clause (a) was
deferred for consideration at a later stage, the developers
/applicants were granted liberty to file better affidavit with
regard to prayer clause (b)(iii). Accordingly, the
developers/applicants have filed affidavit dated 7 June 2021
setting forth the reasons for delay in construction of flats in the
building 'Sorrento' covered by prayer clause (b)(iii). Further
affidavit dated 19 January 2022, 21 March 2022 and 22 June
2022 have been filed by the developers/applicants putting on
14 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
record progress made by them with regard to construction of
flats from time to time.
8. In the affidavit dated 22 March 2002, the
developers/applicants have put on record that the entire
construction is now complete and the obligation imposed by the
interim order dated 22 February 2022 read with the order
dated 3 October 2017 have been met with. It is stated that the
developers have completed construction of 1511 flats of 80
sq.mtrs and 1593 units of 40 sq. mtrs and have further handed
over 128 flats of 40 sq. mtrs and 128 flats of 80 sq.mtrs to the
State Government on 7 May 2022.
9. After consideration of the above affidavits, this court
constituted a three member committee to verify completion of
construction of 1109 flats of 40 sq.mtrs and 276 flats of 80 sq.
mtrs by its order dated 19 October 2022. The committee
appointed by this court submitted its report dated 1 November
2022 confirming completion of construction of 1109 flats of 40
sq. mtrs and 276 flats of 80 sq.mtrs.
10. Thus as of now the updated status of construction of the
flats by the developers is as follows:-
15 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
Buildings Completion/OC No. of flats O.C. Extension Prayer Present Status
estimated date as per 40 sq.mtrs 80 sq.mtrs Received Prayed for Clause
the Affidavit dated
24.9.2017 filed in this
Hon'ble Court
Atlantis-A & December 2017 294 28.03.2018 (a)
B Wings
Atlantis-C June 2018 154 13.02.2019 (a)
Wing
Hill Grange July 2018 172 172 19.06.2018
Maple September 2018 231 24.07.2018
Castle Rock- December 2020 224 26.11.2020
C & D Wings
Castle Rock- December 2020 284 30.01.2022 (b)(i) Full OC for A
Wing and Part
A & B Wing OC for B Wing
till 21st floor
received on
14.9.2021
Regent Hill- May 2021 (as per the 1021 30.01.2023 (b)(ii) OC for Wings
A and
A,B,C,D & E Order dated 3.10.2017) received on
9.3.2022; OC
Wings for Wings C, D
and E received
on 22.4.2022
Sorrento December 2020 88 15.06.2023 (b)(iii) OC received on
13.6.2022
TOTAL 1512 1128
11. Thus, as against direction of this court in interim orders
dated 22 February 2012 and 3 October 2017 for construction of
887 flats of 80 sq.mtrs, the developer/applicants have
constructed 1150 flats of 80 sq. mtrs. However there appears
to be delay in construction of some of the flats. It is evident
from the above chart showing updated status of construction.
So far as 'A' and 'B' wings of 'Atlantis' building is concerned,
294 flats of 80 sq.mtrs which were required to be constructed
by December 2017 are constructed by 28 March 2018. In 'C'
wing of 'Atlantis' building 154 flats of 80 sq. mtrs which were
supposed to be complete by June 2018 are constructed by 13
16 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
February 2019. These flats are covered in prayer clause (a) of
the Interim Application no. 10155 of 2022 which was deferred
by this court by its order dated 9 April 2021. So far as 88 flats
of 40 sq. mtrs in building 'Sorrento' are concerned, the same
were required to be completed by December 2020. However,
the same appears to have been constructed by 13 June 2022.
These flats are covered by prayer clause (b)(iii) of the Interim
Application for which developers/applicants were granted
liberty to file better affidavit by order dated 9 April 2021.
12. We have heard Dr. Sathe, the learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Chetan Kapadia for the developers/applicants.
Mr. Sathe would take us through the affidavits explaining the
reasons for delay in construction of some of the flats. He would
submit that the delay caused in construction of some of the
flats in the building 'Sorrento' was essentially on account of the
requirement of obtaining environmental clearances, which was
beyond the control of the developers. That the entire obligation
of construction of requisite number of flats and handing over of
requisite area to the State Government being met by the
Developers, they should now be permitted to proceed further
with the development of PADS by lifting all fetters imposed by
17 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
this court in its various interim orders. He would further
submit that the bonafides of the developers are clear from the
fact that they have developed additional flats of 80 sq. mtrs
than the one required under the interim orders of this Court.
Dr. Sathe would further contend that as directed by this court
in paragraph 53(g) of the interim order dated 22 February
2012 developers have scrupulously followed the conditions of
not selling two flats to the same person or any member of
her/his family, being her/his spouse and children.
13. Mr Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner in PIL/21/2010 would oppose the prayers in the
Interim Application filed by the developers contending that the
justification of delay in obtaining environment clearance for
construction of the building 'Sorrento' is required to be
rejected as the developers always had the knowledge about
mandatory requirement of law for obtaining environmental
clearance. He would submit that on account of inordinate delay
in construction of 88 flats of 40 sq.mtrs in building 'Sorrento',
the direction in paragraph 22 of the interim order dated 22
August 2017 for construction of additional 10% flats would
automatically kick in. He would therefore urge before us to
18 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
direct further construction of 10% additional flats of 80 sq.
mrts. by the developers.
14. We have also heard Mr. Kakade, the learned Government
Pleader who draws our attention to the affidavit dated 19
September 2022 in which the State Government has also
clarified that the developers/applicants have complied with all
the obligations. We would refer to the relevant paragraphs of
the affidavit dated 19 September 2022 in which it is averred in
paragraph 6 to 8 as under:
6. On 7th May, 2022, the Respondent No. 2, MMRDA
has taken possession of 128 flats of 40 sq. mtrs and 128
flats of 80 sq.mtrs having area aggregating 17,173.70
sq.mtrs against 17,146.05 sq.mts in the Hill Grange
Building. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "A" and
"A-1" is copy of the said Possession Receipt dated 7 th
May, 2022 along with the English translation.
7. Thus, the Applicant has complied with the
obligation of handing over 17,146.05 sq.mtrs to State
Government as specified in paragraph 53(h) of the said
Judgment dated 22nd February, 2012 read with the
paragraph (3) of the Order dated 3rd October, 2017.
8. Thus, the Applicants have complied with the
paragraph no. 53 (f) of the said Judgment dated 22 nd
February, 2012 read with paragraph no. 16 of the Order
dated 3rd October, 2017 in respect of construction of 40
sq.mtrs and 80 sq.mtrs flats.
19 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
15. We have also heard Mr. Shinde, the learned counsel for
MMRDA who also does not dispute fulfillment of obligations
under the interim orders of this Court by the
developers/applicants.
16. Having heard the learned counsels for rival parties and
after perusal of previous orders passed by this court and
various affidavits filed by the parties, the undisputed position
that emerges is that the developers/applicants have fulfilled
the entire obligations cast upon them by this Court by its
interim orders. However they have defaulted in respect of
timeline with regard to construction of some of the flats as
detailed above. This court has already granted prayer clauses
b(i) and b(ii) of the Interim Application No. 10155 of 2022 and
has thereby extended the timeline in respect of some the flats
in buildings 'Castle Rock' and 'Regent Hill' to 30 January 2022
(instead of December, 2020) and 30 January 2023 (instead of
31 May 2021) respectively. What remains now is to extend the
timeline/ condone the delay in construction of some of the flats
in buildings 'Atlantis' and 'Sorrento'.
17. In the affidavit dated 7 June 2021, the
developers/applicants have provided justification for delay in
20 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
construction of flats in building 'Sorrento' covered by prayer
clause (b)(iii). We have gone through the affidavit dated 7 June
2021. It appears that the developers/applicants had obtained
Environment Clearance on 10 April 2014 in respect of other
buildings such as Atlantis, Mapple and Hill Grange and since
'Sorrento' was newly proposed after the year 2014, the earlier
Environment Clearance of 2014 did not apparently cover it.
Therefore a common application for environment clearance
was made to the Central Government on 3 August 2017 for
proposed expansion of residential buildings (including
Sorrento) and on account of non-convening of meeting of
Expert Appraisal Committee, the application remained
pending. Due to change in the policy of grant of EC by the State
Environment Assessment Committee, developers/applicants
were required to re-apply for EC on 17 May 2018 at the State
Government level.
18. The State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC II) in its
77th meeting held on 16 November 2018 considered
developers'/applicants' application but decided to defer the
same seeking certain clarifications. The clarifications were
provided by the developers on 6 December 2018. Thereafter in
21 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
various meetings of SEAC II the proposal was deferred for
various reasons, details of which are stated in the affidavit.
Ultimately SEAC recommended the proposal to State
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for
approval on 24 February 2019. SEIAA granted environment
clearance to the developers/applicants on 29 May 2019 subject
to conditions. This is how final environment clearance came to
be granted in respect of various buildings including Sorrento
on 14 June 2019. The affidavit dated 7 June 2021 also states
the reason of delay in issuance of NOC for tree cutting resulted
in delay in issuance of Commencement Certificate from 31
August 2018 to 6 March 2019. Another reason cited is sub
division of plot-layout as per condition 10 of the IOD which
consumed time between 20 November 2018 to 5 July 2019.
Last impediment cited is about the ambiguity regarding
applicability of Development Control & Promotion Regulations,
2034 and its effect requiring amendment of layout and plans.
19. For the above quoted reasons delay, in completion of 88
flats of 40 sq.mtrs in building Sorrento is sought to be justified.
It must however be noted here that in prayer clause (b)(iii),
the developers/applicants sought extension of time upto 15
22 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
June 2023 for completion of those flats, whereas they were
able to complete construction of the building 'Sorrento' on 13
June 2022 itself, i.e. before the extension sought.
20. Having gone through the reasons set forth in the affidavit
dated 7 June 2021 with regard to delay in construction of 88
flats of 40 sq.mtrs in building 'Sorrento', we record our
satisfaction about the justification given therein. Therefore we
are of the view that prayer clause b(iii) sought for in the
Interim Application No. 10155 of 2022 deserves to be granted.
21. In additional affidavits filed on 19 January 2022, 22
March 2022 and 22 June 2022, the developers/applicants
have put on record as to how the construction progressed and
how ultimately the entire obligations of construction of both
categories of flats were finally completed by them.
22. So far as prayer clause(a) of the Interim Application No.
10155 of 2022 is concerned, the delay in construction of 294
flats of 80 sq.mtrs in 'A' and 'B' wing of building 'Atlantis' is
only of three months. They were to be constructed by
December 2017, but have been constructed by 28 March 2018.
So far as 154 flats of 80 sq.mtrs in 'C' wing of building 'Atlantis'
23 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
is concerned, again the delay is about seven and a half months.
They were to be constructed by June 2018 and are actually
constructed by 13 February 2019. Since the delay in
construction of flats covered by prayer clause (a) of the
Interim Application is not significant, we propose to condone
the same. It must be observed here that under the interim
orders of this court, the developers/applicants were under
obligation to construct only 887 flats of 80 sq.mtrs whereas
they have constructed 1150 flats of 80 sq.mtrs i.e more than
the obligation casted by this court. This is yet another factor to
be borne in mind while considering the prayer of the
developers/applicants for condonation of delay in respect of
flats covered by prayer clause (a) of the Interim Application.
23. As observed above, this court has already granted prayer
clause (b)(i) and b(ii) of the Interim Application. As observed
above we are inclined to grant prayer clauses (a) and (b)(iii) of
the Interim Application No. 10155 of 2022.
24. Interim Application No. 10110 of 2022 has been filed
seeking direction to transfer the amount of Rs. 112.35 cores
(approx.) presently lying in the joint account held in the names
of Applicants (Classique Associates and HGP Community Pvt.
24 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
Ltd.) and the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court
into the bank account maintainable by the applicants in
accordance with the provision of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 in respect of building 'Regent Hill'
to be utilised for the purpose of construction of the building.
Prayer is also made to deposit the considerations received by
the developers/applicants from sale of the balance flats into
their bank accounts. Now that interim orders of this court are
already satisfied by the developer/applicants, the sale proceeds
deposited as per interim order dated 3 October 2017 lying in
the above joint accounts can be permitted to be withdrawn by
the applicants (Classique Associates and HGP Community Pvt.
Ltd.). Thus the Interim Application No. 10110 of 2022 can also
be disposed of permitting withdrawal of such amounts.
25. While hearing the Interim Application nos. 10155 of 2022
and 10110 of 2022, it is noticed that the main Public Interest
Litgations have not yet been disposed of. By the initial
extensive interim order though this court issued various
directions in the main PILs, the same were adjourned to 19
March 2012 seeking compliance. Thereafter various interim
orders appear to have been passed in the PILs. However all the
25 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
three PIL Nos. 131 of 2008, 91 of 2008 and 21 of 2010 continue
to remain pending. The aspect of violation of Tripartite
Agreement on the part of the developers, which is the main
issue in all there PILs, has already been dealt with in the
interim order dated 22 February 2012 and corrective
measures were directed to be undertaken. Thus the main issue
involved in the PILs has already been decided by the interim
order dated 22 February 2012. With complete compliance of all
obligations put on the developers/applicants for construction
of flats and handing over tenements to the State Government,
we observe that no purpose would be served in keeping the
PILs pending any further. Therefore while disposing of the
Interim Application No. 10155 of 2022 and 10110 of 2022, we
propose to dispose of the main PILs as well. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Interim Application No. 10155 of 2022 is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) and (b)(iii) as well.
(ii) Delay in construction of some of the flats as per the
directives of this court in the interim order dated 22 February
2012 and 3 October 2017 shall stand condoned.
26 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
(iii) It is recorded that the developers/applicants have
completed construction of 1511 flats of 40 sq.mtrs and 887
flats of 80 sq.mtrs as envisaged in the interim orders dated
22 February 2012 and 3 October 2017.
(iv) It is further recorded that the flats having aggregate area
of 17146.05 sq.mtrs have been handed over by the developers/
applicants to MMRDA which has issued possession receipt
dated 7 May 2022.
(v) In view of compliance of all the obligations imposed on
the developers/applicants by interim order dated 22 February
2012 and 3 October 2017, all restraints imposed in paragraph
53 of the order dated 22 February 2012 are vacated and the
developer/applicants shall be at liberty to proceed with
development of PADs land without any embargo/restrictions
including regarding size of tenements or joint use of the
tenements, amalgamation or construction of tenements for
commercial use.
(vi) The amounts of sale proceeds deposited as per order
dated 3 October 2017 lying in the joint accounts held jointly by
applicants (Classique Associates and HGP Community Pvt.
Ltd.) and Prothonotary and Senior Master of this court along
27 / 27
IA-10155-2022-PIL-131-2008+.doc
with interest accrued thereof are permitted to be withdrawn
by the joint applicants and the Prothonotary and Senior
Master is directed to take steps to close the joint accounts. As a
result, Interim Application No. 10110 of 2022 seeking
withdrawal of the amounts stands disposed of.
(vii) The one-man committee headed by Justice S.
Radhakrishnan (Retired) appointed by this court by order
dated 3 October 2017 shall stand discharged.
(viii) It is made clear that all other directions given in the
interim order dated 22 February 2012 and 3 October 2017,
except as modified by the present judgment, shall continue to
operate.
(ix) Public Interest Litigation Nos. 131 of 2008, 91 of 2008
and 21 of 2010 stands disposed of.
(x) In view of the disposal of the Public Interest Litigations
all Interim Applications, Civil Applications and Notices of
Motion stand disposed of.
(xi) There shall be no orders as to costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
