Friday, May 31, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Review Petition on r
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
REVIEW PETITION No. OF 2013
IN
P.I.L. PETITION W.P.(O.S.) No.658 OF 2012
In the matter of Article 26 0f
Constitution of India
AND
In the matter of Maharashtra
Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966
AND
In the matter of Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act1888 and Building Bye-laws
AND
IN THE MATTER OF REVIEW OF
ORDER OF THE HONORABLE
HIGH COURT DATED 09TH APRIL2013.
IN
WRIT PETITION No. W.P.(O.S) 658 OF 2013.
1) FORUMFOR JUSTICE (Trust) through)
Madhav Gajanan Deshpande,President )
Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )
Having his residence at: )
7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No. )
23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out, )
Mumba-086 AND ONE ANOTHER) …Review Petitioners /
Original petitioner No.01
V/s.
1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road
Jain Shravak Sangh Plot No. 7, )
Sanghani Estate ‘D’ Portion Lay-out, )
Mumbai - 400086. )
2) Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia(Partner)
AVI Housing (Builders & Developers )
Unit No.2, Gr. Fl.,Vadani Industrial )
Estate, Opp.Shani Niketan, L.B.Shastri )
Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.)
3) Jai Neminath Kripa Co-op. )
Housing Society Ltd. Plot No.14, )
'D' portion Layout Sanghani Estate, )
Mumbai-400086. )
4) Municipal Commissioner, )
Municipal Corporation of Greater )
Mumbai Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )
Mumbai – 400 001. )
5) The Government of Maharashtra )
through the Chief Secretary )
Mumbai – 400 032. )
6) The Senior Inspector of Police )
Surya Nagar Police Station, )
Off. L. B. Shastry Marg, )
Vikhroli(West), Mumbai-400083 )…………….Respondents
To
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON 'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON 'BLE HIGH COURT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1 The Review Petitioners respectfully submits that the Review petitioner is the Trust registered under No. F-19291 Mum India and resident of the place shown in the cause title and in the c The Review Petitioners respectfully submits that the Review petitioner is the citizen of India and resident of the place shown in the cause title and in the capacity of President of the Petitioner No. 01, registered charitable trust called FORUM FOR JUSTICE is representing and pleading IN-PERSON on behalf of the petitioner No.01 in the aforementioned Writ Petition in which the impugned order dated 09th April 2013 is passed by this Honorable court. Hereto annexed is the copy of the said order dated 09/04/2013 and marked as EXHIBIT- "A"
2
The Respondent No.1 hereto is a religious charitable trust,
registered under Bombay
by the Managing committee Members trustees appointed /
elected time to time.
The Respondent No.2 is the Partner of M/S. AVI HOUSING (Builders/ Developers) appointed by the defendant No. 01
The Respondent No. 3 is a Co-op. Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, having its office and building on plot No.14 of 'D' portion of Sanghani Estate layout situated at Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.400086.
The Respondent No. 4 is the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai (M.C.G.M) who is responsible for functioning of administration of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and approves building plans, subdivision of plots, and takes decision on provisions for Recreational Open Space, Garden and such other amenities to be provided in various plots of lands through his powers delegated authorities in Director (ES&P) / Chief Engineer (D.P.) /Dy Chief Engineer (B.P.)/ Executive Engineer (B.P.) to accord approvals to buildings and sub-divisions / amalgamations etc of holdings in Greater Mumbai Limits.
The Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Secretary and as such the administrative Head of the Government of Maharashtra whose powers are delegated upon the Collector of Greater Mumbai Suburban District who in turn, through Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District and City Survey Officer under the Control of Superintendent of Land Records, incorporates changes in revenue records.
The Respondent No.6 hereto is the Sr. Inspector of Police, Suryanagar Police Station, off L.B. Shastri Marg Vikroli (W), Mumbai-400083.
3 Petitioner is filing this Review Present petition in the interest of residents of the locality in and around ‘A’ to ‘D’ portions of Sanghani Estate and some of amongst the GROUNDS are as follows:
a) The Honorable court has not considered that Petitioners
hereto have no personal interest.
b) The petitioner hereto have been representing the cause of large section of the residents and not stood up as owners of the plots in the said layout wherein petitioners personal plot area is encroached upon and is under dispute but the cause of public interest of legitimate amenity insisted by the local body of the then BMC and the Town Planning department and authority while approving the entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions as continuous holding under layout File No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951.
c) This Honorable court has not considered that at the first instance the petitioners have filed this petition as PIL and there being no federation of around 104 plots in the said entire layout and the Respondent No. 01 being Religious Charitable trust conducting Upashray of Jain community which is in majority in the said entire layout and being under religious influence are reluctant to unite together to fight against encroachment made by the religious trust on the amenity, as law, provided in the nature of Recreational Open Space. In response to the boldness and alertness towards public interest shown, by the petitioners, the Honorable Court was initially kind enough to maintain the status of petition as PIL as registered under No. 31 of 2011 and thereafter for quick disposal was transferred to Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and thereafter Honorable Justice Shri. S.A.
d) Honorable Court has expressed the view that the buildings on the plot No. 14 built by respondent No. 03 and on plot No. 09, 10 by respondent No. 01 all basically under ROS. (Garden) were first encroached up on thirty years ago only after the original approved layout files were lost or allowed to be destroyed as criminal conspiracy of vested interest then engineers of department, Architects and the then developers.
e) The Honorable Court was neither assisted adequately by “Amicus Curiae” by taking feedback on the techno legal and procedural points on functioning of building proposal department of Respondent No. 04 from the petitioner in person who prior to uncalled for appointment of “Amicus Curiae” had taken four orders from Honorable court nor the petitioner in person, though being practicing Architect and town planner, was allowed to plead the matter.
f) Honorable court has not considered the aspect that why the stop work notices were not issued on the land of Garden
g) Honorable Court has taken the view and assumed that Petitioner states that the petitioner is relying up on the plan attached with the petition as the “Amicus Curiae” was not thoroughly prepared and the court even after request did not allow the petitioner to bring out the intricacies involved in the matter of PIL to assist the “Amicus Curiae” and the court in the interest of justice to the residents of the locality.
4 Petitioner states that on 25/08/2011 the matter was argued before the Honorable bench presided over by Chief Justice and the issue of whether to consider this PIL filed, in public interest, by TWO ALERT residents and social activist devoting around fifty years for social cause and beneficiaries of amenity like Garden (ROS) along with other hundreds of residents, most of whom are ignorant about their rights and in the habit of succumbing to local, social political and religious pressure like getting outcaste etc. It was also brought to the notice of Honorable court that the plot holder Societies and Individual plot holder owners are indifferent about forming federation of over hundred (104) plots of 'A' to 'D' portions of entire one continuous holding of the layout approved under one single file No.G.B./259 OF 28/08/1951, hence the matter should be treated as PIL.
5 Petitioner states that Honorable Chief Justice was kind enough to consider the urgency and transferred the matter on 25/08/2011 as PIL to the bench presided over by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha. PLI was heard on 21/09/2011 and orders were passed for Respondent No.04 and 05 the Municipal Commissioner and state government to file reply to the petition and directed to place the matter for admission on 22/10/2011.
6 Petitioner states that in the process the PIL No. 31 OF 2011 was on the board of either Honorable Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha or on the board of Honorable Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde and after passing four orders by two benches, on 24/01/2012 after giving the Respondent No.04 Municipal Commissioner for weeks time to file Affidavit the matter was kept on 21/02/2012 for orders.
7 Petitioner states that in the course of administrative changes in assignments of PIL matters, all PIL matters assigned to different benches were taken back to the Honorable Bench presided over by Honorable Chief Justice and said PIL matter kept for orders after number of dates and FOUR ORDERS, on 21/02/2012, was withdrawn from the bench headed by Honorable Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and kept for hearing before the Honorable Bench presided over by Chief Justice on 24/02/2012.
8 Petitioner states that the once decided issue about classifying the matter as PIL on 25/08/2011 and transferring as PIL to other benches for quick relief surprisingly the Advocates of Respondent No. 02 and 04, with the intention of confusing the court raised again the issue of PIL or non PIL status of litigation and against the explanation offered by this petitioner i) that the majority of the Exhibits attached in the petition are the part of correspondence between FORUM FOR JUSTICE (N.G.O.) and various Municipal and Government authority ii) that the registered place of charitable activities of FORUM FOR JUSTICE (N.G.O.) is in the said Sanghani Estate layout i.e. the residence of the original petitioner No, 01.
9 Petitioner states that in the course of scrutiny of the plaint neither Court Associate and the then Prothonotry-Sr. Master nor the Honorable Chief Justice after initially allowing the status as PIL on pleading made this petitioner on 25/08/2011, and assigning the matter as PIL to other two benches, pointed out or insisted that to get the PIL status for this matter, the NG.O. or Charitable Trust has to be the party to litigation as Petitioner No. 01.
10 Petitioner states that in the course of earlier pleading in person, prior to assigning the matter to the Honorable Benches headed by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde, it was brought to the notice of the Honorable Court that in the plaint of PIL it is mentioned that the Petitioner No. 01 is the President of Public Charitable Trust called FORUM FOR JUSTICE ( Regn. No. F-19491-Mum.) and also Chairman of Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Called Kaustubhdham C.H.S.Ltd., on plot no 23, in the said Sanghani Estate Layout even then it was not suggested by all the three benches, when the matter was heard and four orders were pass from 21/09/2011 to 24/02/2012 as PIL matter, to make the N.G.O. Trust as the petitioner No. 01.
11 Petitioner states that the order of Honorable Chief Justice dated 24th February 2012 of treating and classifying the petition, originally registered under PIL No.31 of 2011, as W.P.(O.S) was requested to be reconsidered vide Application dated 17 Oct.2012 moved before Honorable Chief Justice and was prayed that necessary amendments to original P.I.L. No. 31 of 2011 plaint be allowed by way of :
a) the FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust) as Petitioner No. 01 through its President Madhav Gajanan Deshpande (In person).
b) the litigation to be kept under P.I.L. No.31 of 2011, be considered and allowed. A copy of the said application under affidavit dated 17th Oct. 2012 is in the main petition.
12 Petitioner states that Honorable Chief Justice was kind enough to allow the prayers and under internal orders dated 04th Dec. 2012 assigned the matter to the Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanviulkar to process the Chamber Summons to admit FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust) as Petitioner No. 01 represented in person through its president Madhav Gajanan Deshpande (the original petitioner No.01) the said internal order dated 04th Dec. 2012 is in the main petition No.W.P. (O.S.) 658 of 2012.
13 Petitioner states that the Chamber Summons No.296 of 18th Dec. 2012 was moved on 19th Dec. 2012 before the Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanvilkar which came for admission on 22/02/2013 when chamber summons was allowed in terms of prayer 'a' only and made absolute with directions to carry out amendments as per prayer 'a', vide order dated 22nd Feb.2013 and even after willingness shown and insistence expressed by this petitioner before the Honorable court to continue hearing and decide to proceed the petition as PIL on the background of the Application dated 17/10/2012 moved by this petitioner before Chief Justice and internal order dated 04/12/2012 passed by Honorable Chief Justice, the bench headed by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanvilkar turned down the request for the reason that Advocate Shri. Miland Sathe the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist court was not present and matter was postponed to 11/3/2013 and thereafter to 22/3/2013. In the mean time Honorable Justice Shri A. M. Khanvilkar was promoted as Chief Justice of other High Court.
14 Petitioner states that he being practicing Architect and town planner over last 45 years and being conversant with building rules and byelaws and having knowledge and study of law, this PIL was drafted argued and pleaded in person by this petitioner and FOUR ORDERS were passed by Honorable three benches. This petitioner fails to understand even after stating before the Honorable Bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.S. Bobde that the area of land under 'D' portion of layout is 39817 Sq. Yrds. and the out of required 15% of said land comprising of part portions of many survey number mentioned in the petition is illegally sold and encroached up on by the respondent No.01, 02, 03 but the Honorable Bench without allowing me to further explain the procedural aspect passed the order dated08/12/2011 stating that "the petitioners have preferred this petition on the bases that the reservation of land bearing Survey Nos.23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 158, 159 and 161 to 164 at Ghatkopar is green and is left open for a garden and recreation ground. According to petitioners, this reservation is reflected in Resolution of the standing committee…….." which misconceived and away from the ground reality.
15 Petitioner states that similarly on 28/06/2012 when Sr. Advocate for Respondent No. 04 the Municipal Commissioner was not present a/w. Ms. T. H. Puranik was present and she was asking adjournment but this petitioner insisted to allow arguments to be started in the matter and in the course of forwarding arguments explained the procedural part of approval of building proposals and requirements of large subdivision of plot layout wherein holding more than 2500. Sq. Yrds. in area, require 15% Garden (ROS) as amenity open space for the benefit and use of residents of such layout development irrespective of amenities provided by planning authority of local self government bodies for the agglomeration in terms of Development Plan finalized by local body as per MRTP Act 1966.
16 Petitioner states that in the said entire Sanghani Estate layout approved under file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 the Garden portion 'B' which includes then non-build able area of plots No. 09, 10 which might have been shown as plots but in the course of continued scrutiny of the layout proposal , the approving authority of Respondent No. 04 must have directed the then Architect C.K.SANGHANI to amend plans and include the non buildable area with irregular shape under plot No.09 and 10 to meet the Garden (ROS) requirement and originally shown trapezoidal area with out access to get direct frontage to garden from 30Ft. wide internal road of the layout, presently called as Gaondevi Road.
17 Petitioner states that the main layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/51 and files containing concurrence given by the then Standing Committee in four ('A' to 'D' portions) phase wise development are intentionally lost or allowed to be destroyed hand in glows with then concerned officers and instead of depending on approved layout plans and permissions under the seal and signature of then Municipal officers of Municipal Commissioner, the layout plan prepared and required to be amended in the course of scrutiny of the layout proposal but not as final approved plan by building proposal depart or then City Engineer is certified by the Architect under his seal and signature as "certified true copy of layout plan" which the building proposal engineers have been illegally and highhandedly accepting as valid document of approval of layout by then Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC).
18 Petitioner states that in the absence of Respondent No. 04 exerting hard to trace out the finally approved layout wherein the then considered to be irregular land and made part of the Garden B shown on the plan which, in the course of scrutiny of layout proposal, found having no access from Gaondevi road was required to be amended by increasing the originally inadequate trapezoidal ‘B’ Garden area and providing road frontage to thus increased entire garden ‘B’ which, in fact, is the area position shape size of Garden ‘B of supposed to be final approved layout the files of which are intentionally lost or destroyed to avail criminal benefit by encroaching up on garden and illegally making the unbuildable area buildable by illegally executing GIVE AND TAKE of adjoining property.
19 Petitioner states that the scrutiny department of building and layout proposals of respondent No.04 before it is sent to Standing Committee for concurrence / sanction must have insisted in the file N0.GB/259 of 28/08/1951 and directed to extended portion of Garden ‘B’ in unbuildable shape fronting the 30Ft. wide internal Gaondevi Road to facilitate the adjoining development to provide their 15%% Garden (ROS) touching the extended Garden ‘B’ in combination to make rectangular Recreational Amenity open Space for the locality as suggested in final approval to layout plan. Late Shri .Navnitlal Nyalchand Seth being founding trustee of respondent No. 01, then Gardens (ROS) at different places in the layout were donated or sold to the respondent No. 01 at Rupee one or for negligible amount including selling Garden(ROS) ‘A’ to the Swami Lila Shah C.H.S..Ltd., when around twenty plots in the layout were sold to the said society.
20 Petitioner states that on similar lines the certified copy of the conditions imposed by the then Town Planning Engineer is also tampered and after deleting the some of the important conditions from the main condition letter and certifying such tampered Xerox copy as certified by Architect is attached with the Affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer Building proposals which is in the main petition.
21 Petitioner states that Advocate Shri. Milind Sathe was unilaterally appointed to assist the court and the petitioner was prevented from putting forth the administrative and procedural aspect with legality involved as Amicus Curiae was appointed without the written consent or requirement of the petitioner No. 01 vide order dated 28/06/2012 of Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. S.A.
22 Petitioner states that the area of land under plot No. 09 and 10 initially being unbuildable and irregular in shape and size must have been directed as part of garden 'B' abutting on the internal 30Ft. wide Gaondevi Road as such, in the course of scrutiny of the layout; the area under plot No. 09 and 10 was required to be incorporated in the inadequate trapezoidal attach rear portion of garden initially proposed abutting plots all around with on the adjoining west side of trapezoidal garden being property out side layout boundary; as such the as per the amendments suggested in the course of scrutiny of proposal of layout, before finally the entire layout was approved by incorporating the area under plot Nos. 09, 10 and forming one complete side of garden on south side abutting the 30Fr. wide internal present Gaondevi Road. Hence the land under plot Nos. 9, 10 is not only access but part of garden 'B'.
23 Petitioner states that Advocate Shri. Milind Sathe appointed by the Honorable Bench presided over by Justice Shri. S.A.
24 Petitioner states that the petitioner though practicing Architect and Town Planner was restrain and stopped from pleading in person as techno legal man on the techno legal and procedural issues raised in the petition along with the "Amicus Curiae" who was appointed to assist court but was not adequately prepared for the reasons best known to him.
25 Petitioner states that it would have been ideal to allow the petitioner to explain before the Honorable Court the techno legal and procedural part with vast experience over 45 years, of according approval to building and layout proposals and the Amicus Curiae to substantiate the same with additional law points. In the absence of this the Amicus Curiae appointer aught to have taken instructions from this petitioner on the points which have become untied ends in the order dated 09/04/2013 passed by Honorable High Court.
26 Petitioner states that the petitioner is not relying up on the plan attached with the petition but challenging the authenticity of the said layout plan which is supplied by the Respondent No. 04 here to from their records on the bases of which and in the absence authentic approval to said layout with seal and signature of Respondent No. 04 with them and authentic City survey records from Respondent No. 05 how approvals on Garden (ROS) reservations and on other plots in the layout are given.
27 Petitioner states that the contention of the Advocate for Respondent Nos. 01, 02, 03 mentioned in order is not correct to the extent that the litigation in the City Civil Court Mumbai was filed under Section 90(1)a as Public Interest litigation but there also this petitioner being in person the inadvertence on procedure of in filing the petition made this petitioner to seek withdrawal of said petition. Copy of the order granting withdrawal of the PIL Suit filed is in the reply to the Affidavit filed by respondent No, 02.
28 Petitioner states that the first crime of constructing on part Garden portion on land under plot No. 09, 10 which were in the stage of scrutiny of the layout but being then unbuildable and required to compensate the deficiency in required Garden and to have such Garden with road frontage the land under initially proposed plot Nos. 09, 10 though merged and made part of Garden 'B' marked on the plan of which the original Sanction copy being destroyed or lost for ever the layout plan copy made by the then Architect is illegally and criminally adopted as approved plan which has no legal status but is the part of conspiracy of then developer of layout, Architect of layout and the concerned municipal engineers responsible for scrutiny of building and layout proposals thus the crime committed more than thirty years back and now continued by demolishing the old earlier crime cannot be pardoned in the absence of authentic documents towards approval of layout having seal and signature of Respondent No. 04 the Municipal Commissioner.
29 Petitioner states that similarly the land under plot No. 14, 15, 16 was a open land on site hence in the terms and conditions of the letter dated 19/06/1953 of Asst. Engineer Town Planning under their authority had put the condition No. 11 to said piece of land comprising of plot No. 14 to 16 admeasuring 1944 Sq. Yrds. In the course of typing the letter it is inadvertently mentioned that the said piece of land admeasuring 1944 Sq. Yrds is on the South Side of plot No. 24, 25 instead mentioning on the North side of the plot No. 24, 25 which will be factually correct as South side boundary of plot No. 24, 25 is the extreme boundary of the entire layout holding. Out of these three plots admeasuring together equal to said 1944 .Sq. Yds. the plot No.14 was illegally encroached upon by with the knowledge of Architect R.M. Vora and the engineers of Building Proposal department and the plot Nos. 15, 16 were open ground till 2011 when through this PIL resident to layout were awaiting justice.
30 Petitioner states that there is no dispute about the fact that the 'D' portion has 36 plots including plot no.23, and plot numbers 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 but the plot Nos.14.15.16 being vacant land as also the entire layout consisting vacant agricultural land under 'A' to 'D' portions out of entire Sanghani Estate layout, comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions was submitted under one layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 the status of said ENTIRE LAYOUT approved by Standing Committee of Respondent No. 04 as i)_Approvable or ii) Approved is missing, lost or destroyed but appears to have been allowed to be developed by allowing phase wise separation , of A , B, C, D phases, under different resolutions at different time through different Architects and by different developing agencies to save N.A. charges.
31 Petitioner states that the entire Sanghani Estate layout of which part developments called Sainth Nagar and Sarvyodaya Nagar consisting of around 104 plots and Recreational Open Spaces at different places, was approved under one layout file No. GB\259 of 28\08\1951 subject to additional conditions imposed by the then Town planning Authority of then Bombay Province
32 Petitioner states that the portion, out of entire layout called Sarvyodaya layout of 18 plots. Submitted by Architect R.S. Sanghani was given concurrence for separation with plot No. 12 admeasuring about 4500 Sq. yrds., and marked as community open space abutting L.B.S. Marg is later encroached upon by constructing Cinema Theatre called Shreyas Cinema. A copy of the said layout with name of the Architect as R.S. Sanghani is attached herewith and mark as Exhibit – "F".
33 Petitioner states that the portion out of entire Sanghani Estate layout, presently called as Sainath Nagar submitted through Architect M/S. K.D. Shah was given concurrence for separation for 27 plots and 1440Sq.Yrds., as Garden (R.OS.) plot on the then Municipal Commissioner's letter No. A.E./C-4161-Sub., of 21\10\1952 by Standing Committee passing the resolution in its meeting under No.1297 of 31\10\1952 wherein Under Memo of Terms and conditions at (11) says that the Garden (ROS) will be 1440. Sq. Yrds., as marked on common layout bearing No.G.B./259 OF 28\08\1951. The said resolution No. 1297 of 31\10\1952 is in the main petition file.
34 Petitioner states that similarly the 'D' portion is also the part of entire lay-out earlier approved under No.G.B./259 of 28\08\1951, of which phase wise concurrence for separation as part 'D' through Architect M/S, Suvarna Patki Vora, on the then Municipal Commissioner's letter No.A.E.-18914-Sub.,of 16\04\1953 was given by Standing Committee under resolution No. 148 of 22\04\1953. In this portion of the entire Sanghani Estate layout, technically scrutinized time to time and approved, of which plans and other relevant papers and permissions are lost, the Municipal Commissioner must have considered the un-build able waste land, in 'D' portion layout, under plot No. 09, 10 as Part of Garden provided and extending back up to plot No.17 which is abutting on Gaondevi Road to this entire garden 'B' of the layout with additional area of 1944 Sq. Yrds., under plot No.14, 15, 16 insisted by imposing condition to that effect by Town Planning authority. A copy of the said resolution No. 148 of 22/04/1953 red with Condition letter dated 19/o6/1953 of Asst. Engineer Town Planning Sub is the main W.P. File.
35 The petitioner states that as per building Rules, Regulations and Byelaws prevailing then, procedurally in the course of scrutiny, of the layout proposal submitted to department dealing with the approvals to layouts and building proposals under the control and authority of the Municipal Commissioner then, must have directed the then Architect of entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions, to amend the plans submitted time to time on different objections raised such as to the extent of providing required 15% Recreational Open Spaces (Gardens) at different places in the 'A' to 'D' parts.
36 The petitioner states that it is not true that Recreation Ground is sought for petitioners hereto as their personal property or exclusive privilege but are beneficiary to the vast amenity of ROS (Garden) along with hundreds of other resident in the locality who have been provided with the amenity open spaces (Gardens) at different places in the holding of one entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions as per Rules and Regulations famed by the government and approved under one single proposal file No.GB/259 OF 28/08/1951.
37 Petitioner states that the contents of the PIL filed under No.31 of 2011 and thereafter converted in to W.P.(O.S.) No.658 of 2012 are applicable for this Review Petition.
38 Petitioner states that the present Review Petition with in the period of limitation.
39 The petitioners state that the cause of action for filing this petition has arisen in Mumbai and this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India
40 The Petitioner/s state that the period of limitation is not applicable to this petition as there is continuous cause of action
41 The petitioners are paying fixed court fees for the purpose of this petition.
42 On the background of aforementioned facts narrated hereinabove petitioner pray as follows :
a)The Review Petition be allowed.
b)The order dated 09/04/2013 be recalled and the
petition be heard in detail and depth.
c) Such other orders in terms of prayers of the PIL
W.P. (O.S.) No. 658 of 2012 kindly be passed in
favor of Petitioner in public interest as deem fit in
as facts of the circumstances of the case.
Solemnly affirmed.
On this 08th Day of May 2013.
At Mumbai. Madhav G. Deshpande ( In person)
President of FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust)
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, age71 year, President Forum for Justice the Pitiioner No, 01, residing at 07, Kaustubh-dham C.H.S. Ltd., 23, Sanghani Estate ‘D’ portion layout, Gaondevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086, the petitioner above named do here by solemnly declare that what is stated in para 01 to 37 is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraph numbers 38 to 42 are stated on the information gathered, and I believe the same to be true and correct.
Solemnly declared at Mumbai. )
On this th day of May 2013. )
(Madhav Gajanan Deshpande ( In person)
President
FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
