IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
[Rule 4(c) of Bombay High Court P.I.L. Rules-2010]
P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011
In the matter of Article 226, of the Constitution of Indiaetc.MRTPAct,BMC Act
1) Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, )
Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )
Having his residence at: )
7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No.)
23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out,)
Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )
Mumbai-400 086 and One other ) ………….…. Petitioners
V/s.
1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi
Jain Shravak Sangh Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai-400086. AND Five others )…………..Respondents
To
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
THE HUMBLE PRAYER IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
The Petitioner here to request URGENCY in this petition for taking it HIGH ON THE BOARD on the fixed date preferable within WEEK'S time so as to restrain the Respondent by considering injunction prayed in the petition for following reasons and grounds :
1. Illegal sale of compulsory Recreational Open Spaces of Sanghani Estate Layout approved under No.GB/259 in 1953 by original Developers of said lay out to Religious Charitable Trust (Respondent No.01) registered with Charity Commissioner Mumbai.
2. In turn the Said Charitable Trust selling the said Recreational Open Spaces, against the orders dated 30-08-2003 passed by City Civil Court Mumbai, to AVI -DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (respondent No. 02) with the consideration of Cash and constructed area.
(2)
3. Conspicuously, almost immediately after approval of lay out under No.GB/259 OF 1953, Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4) had been continuously approving building proposals, in the absence of approved lay out with terms and conditions etc papers on the individual plots and land and plots reserved for Recreational Open Spaces.
4. Municipal Corporation the Respondent No.4 hereto, not informing the theft of the said lay out file with approved plan and other scrutiny reports and orders passed. Also conspicuously not insisting original Developers to produce the owner's copy with plans and papers duly signed by the then Municipal Commissioner and or his powers delegated officers for the purpose of office records.
5. In the absence of owner's copy of approval to layout with the owners also, the Municipal Corporation, Conspicuously, not insisting the original Developers to the lay out to submit fresh or amended plans of lay out for the purpose creating valid records of the approval to said layout. Also, over period even after repeated representations , not forcing the plot holders to collectively submit layout plans for fresh approval and failing which informing the plot holders of they facing disconnection of water supply to all the plots, as fate-accomplish.
6. The Collector (Mumbai Suburban District) and Respondent No. 05 hereto, with out having the copy of approved lay out of Sanghani Estate from Municipal Corporation, and with out authority had been not insisting incorporation of said entire lay out approved under No.GB/269 OF 1953 in Collector's records,
7. Sub-divisional Officer of the Collector had been giving Non Agriculture (N.A.) status to individual plots without verifying sanctity and legal status of documents submitted as proof of ownership.
8. The concerned City Survey Officers, time to time in the position, had been not been going in to the authenticity and legal validity of the documents submitted towards ownership and had been surveying individual plots on the applications of individual plot owners or so called plot owners and issuing separate stratus to such plots in collector's records by way of issuing Separate Property Cards, maps of the such plots and area certificates.
9. Registrar of Documents, without verifying the legal ownership had been registering agreements of sales and conveyances of the individual plots.
(3)
10. The Charity Commissioner's office, without going in to the authenticity and legal validity of documents submitted towards
11. ownership of he applicant trust, giving their permission for sale of Recreational Open Spaces.
12. The Urban Development Department of Government of Maharashtra, without going in to the factual details have blindly accepted the fraudulent contention and interpretation that the existing internal layout roads of said Sanghni Estate lay out (CB/259 OF 1953) as Development Plan roads, though the same were in first Development Plan as Existing Roads and Lay out.
13. No steps were taken by Municipal Corporation since 1953 to take over the ownership of said Sanghani Estate Internal Roads.
14. As per provisions in law the Roads which have Existing Roads status can only be prescribed widening line after the said Existing Layout roads are owned by Municipal Corporation by completing legal formalities like paying compensation etc and completing formalities of HANDING OVER and TAKING OVER of possession of the entire road length of such internal roads. In the Development Plan the Municipal Authorities can propose additional connection to or extension to such roads.
15. The AVI - Developers and Builders with the concurrence of Shri Ghatkopar Agra Roqd Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh the Charitable Trust and hand in gloves with the Municipal and Collector authorities going ahead with the Construction of Building on Recreational Open Space meant for the benefit and recreation of the resident of said layout.
In the light of above submission the petitioner hereto is legitimately praying for urgency to restrain i) Respondent No. 02 from continuing with the Building Construction activity above or below ground level. ii) Respondent No. 02 from withdrawing the permission of Building Construction granted and not to approve any sort of Building Proposal in the said A.B.C,D, portions of Sanghani Estate layout approved.
At Mumbai
On this 14th Day of July 2011.
(Madhav G. Deshpande)
(Petitioner – IN PERSON)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT MUMBAI ( O.O. C. J. )
[ RULE 4(e) OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
P.I.L. RULES-2010 ]
P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011
Madhav G. Deshpande
And ONE other ……….Petitioners
V/S
Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road
Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh
State Government Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary AND
FOUR others…………Respondents
APPLICATION OF URGENCY
Dated this 14th day of July 2011
IN
P.I.L. W R I T P E T I T I O N
Madhav G. Deshpande
(PARTY-IN- PERSON)
7, Kaustubhdham C.H.S.Ltd.,
23, Sanghani Estate, Gavdevi
Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai – 400-086.
Tele.:2500 49 78. / 9819762677.
O.O.C.J.
[Rule 4(c) of Bombay High Court P.I.L. Rules-2010]
P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011
In the matter of Article 226, of the Constitution of Indiaetc.MRTPAct,BMC Act
1) Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, )
Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )
Having his residence at: )
7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No.)
23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out,)
Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )
Mumbai-400 086 and One other ) ………….…. Petitioners
V/s.
1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi
Jain Shravak Sangh Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai-400086. AND Five others )…………..Respondents
To
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT
THE HUMBLE PRAYER IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
The Petitioner here to request URGENCY in this petition for taking it HIGH ON THE BOARD on the fixed date preferable within WEEK'S time so as to restrain the Respondent by considering injunction prayed in the petition for following reasons and grounds :
1. Illegal sale of compulsory Recreational Open Spaces of Sanghani Estate Layout approved under No.GB/259 in 1953 by original Developers of said lay out to Religious Charitable Trust (Respondent No.01) registered with Charity Commissioner Mumbai.
2. In turn the Said Charitable Trust selling the said Recreational Open Spaces, against the orders dated 30-08-2003 passed by City Civil Court Mumbai, to AVI -DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (respondent No. 02) with the consideration of Cash and constructed area.
(2)
3. Conspicuously, almost immediately after approval of lay out under No.GB/259 OF 1953, Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4) had been continuously approving building proposals, in the absence of approved lay out with terms and conditions etc papers on the individual plots and land and plots reserved for Recreational Open Spaces.
4. Municipal Corporation the Respondent No.4 hereto, not informing the theft of the said lay out file with approved plan and other scrutiny reports and orders passed. Also conspicuously not insisting original Developers to produce the owner's copy with plans and papers duly signed by the then Municipal Commissioner and or his powers delegated officers for the purpose of office records.
5. In the absence of owner's copy of approval to layout with the owners also, the Municipal Corporation, Conspicuously, not insisting the original Developers to the lay out to submit fresh or amended plans of lay out for the purpose creating valid records of the approval to said layout. Also, over period even after repeated representations , not forcing the plot holders to collectively submit layout plans for fresh approval and failing which informing the plot holders of they facing disconnection of water supply to all the plots, as fate-accomplish.
6. The Collector (Mumbai Suburban District) and Respondent No. 05 hereto, with out having the copy of approved lay out of Sanghani Estate from Municipal Corporation, and with out authority had been not insisting incorporation of said entire lay out approved under No.GB/269 OF 1953 in Collector's records,
7. Sub-divisional Officer of the Collector had been giving Non Agriculture (N.A.) status to individual plots without verifying sanctity and legal status of documents submitted as proof of ownership.
8. The concerned City Survey Officers, time to time in the position, had been not been going in to the authenticity and legal validity of the documents submitted towards ownership and had been surveying individual plots on the applications of individual plot owners or so called plot owners and issuing separate stratus to such plots in collector's records by way of issuing Separate Property Cards, maps of the such plots and area certificates.
9. Registrar of Documents, without verifying the legal ownership had been registering agreements of sales and conveyances of the individual plots.
(3)
10. The Charity Commissioner's office, without going in to the authenticity and legal validity of documents submitted towards
11. ownership of he applicant trust, giving their permission for sale of Recreational Open Spaces.
12. The Urban Development Department of Government of Maharashtra, without going in to the factual details have blindly accepted the fraudulent contention and interpretation that the existing internal layout roads of said Sanghni Estate lay out (CB/259 OF 1953) as Development Plan roads, though the same were in first Development Plan as Existing Roads and Lay out.
13. No steps were taken by Municipal Corporation since 1953 to take over the ownership of said Sanghani Estate Internal Roads.
14. As per provisions in law the Roads which have Existing Roads status can only be prescribed widening line after the said Existing Layout roads are owned by Municipal Corporation by completing legal formalities like paying compensation etc and completing formalities of HANDING OVER and TAKING OVER of possession of the entire road length of such internal roads. In the Development Plan the Municipal Authorities can propose additional connection to or extension to such roads.
15. The AVI - Developers and Builders with the concurrence of Shri Ghatkopar Agra Roqd Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh the Charitable Trust and hand in gloves with the Municipal and Collector authorities going ahead with the Construction of Building on Recreational Open Space meant for the benefit and recreation of the resident of said layout.
In the light of above submission the petitioner hereto is legitimately praying for urgency to restrain i) Respondent No. 02 from continuing with the Building Construction activity above or below ground level. ii) Respondent No. 02 from withdrawing the permission of Building Construction granted and not to approve any sort of Building Proposal in the said A.B.C,D, portions of Sanghani Estate layout approved.
At Mumbai
On this 14th Day of July 2011.
(Madhav G. Deshpande)
(Petitioner – IN PERSON)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT MUMBAI ( O.O. C. J. )
[ RULE 4(e) OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
P.I.L. RULES-2010 ]
P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011
Madhav G. Deshpande
And ONE other ……….Petitioners
V/S
Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road
Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh
State Government Maharashtra
Through Chief Secretary AND
FOUR others…………Respondents
APPLICATION OF URGENCY
Dated this 14th day of July 2011
IN
P.I.L. W R I T P E T I T I O N
Madhav G. Deshpande
(PARTY-IN- PERSON)
7, Kaustubhdham C.H.S.Ltd.,
23, Sanghani Estate, Gavdevi
Road, Ghatkopar (West),
Mumbai – 400-086.
Tele.:2500 49 78. / 9819762677.
No comments:
Post a Comment