BEENA'S COMPUTER TYPING AND SHORTHAND INSTITUTE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT P 3 (English)

Font Size

Select duration in minutes

Backspace: 0

Timer : 00:00

Dr. Saraf further submits that so far as land surrendered for DP Road and reserved for municipal markets and primary schools are concerned, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are willing to give up claims in respect of those 3 pieces of land. Dr. Saraf goes a step further and submits that the additional land admeasuring of 123.12 sq.mtrs is taken over by MCGM in 2001 for widening of Sahar road and land admeasuring 2328.41 sq.mtrs encroached by slum dwellers which is outside the compound wall of the Society. He therefore submits that the entire land admeasuring 4711.65 sq. mts relating to DP road, municipal market, primary school, road widening and slum encroachment need not be conveyed to the Respondent-Societies. That Respondent-Societies are entitled to conveyance of entire land admeasuring 21,736 sq.mtrs. That they are willing to restrict their entitlement to land admeasuring 16,584.55 sq. mtrs so as to put an end to the entire litigation. Dr. Saraf further submits that the Petitioner has lost right to construct balance Building Nos. N and P. Inviting my attention to the pleadings in para-9 of the Petition, Dr. Saraf submits that Building Nos. N and P were to be constructed only on account of development rights flowing out of land surrendered for DP road of 2200 sq. mts. That however actually land area admeasuring 1859 sq. mtrs is ultimately surrendered for DP road. He relies on letter dated 23 April 1991 of MCGM to demonstrate that construction of Building Nos. N and P is not possible on account of non-availability of balance FSI in lieu of DP road. Dr. Saraf submits that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to withhold conveyance for satisfying its greed of carrying out additional constructions as and when new FSI becomes available. He relies on judgments of this Court in Lakeview Developers Versus. Eternia Co- operative Housing Society Ltd.1 and Rajkumar Gulati and Ors. Versus. S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors2 . He submits that the Petitioner can secure monetary compensation/TDR as and when land reserved for municipal market and primary school is acquired by the Municipal Corporation. That TDR arising out of reserved land cannot be treated as a development potential in respect of the land meant to be conveyed to the Respondent-Societies. That entire development potential in respect of the land is consumed by the Petitioner and that therefore it cannot delay conveyance of the land for eternity.

Dr. Saraf further submits that so far as land surrendered for DP Road and reserved for municipal markets and primary schools are concerned, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are willing to give up claims in respect of those 3 pieces of land. Dr. Saraf goes a step further and submits that the additional land admeasuring of 123.12 sq.mtrs is taken over by MCGM in 2001 for widening of Sahar road and land admeasuring 2328.41 sq.mtrs encroached by slum dwellers which is outside the compound wall of the Society. He therefore submits that the entire land admeasuring 4711.65 sq. mts relating to DP road, municipal market, primary school, road widening and slum encroachment need not be conveyed to the Respondent-Societies. That Respondent-Societies are entitled to conveyance of entire land admeasuring 21,736 sq.mtrs. That they are willing to restrict their entitlement to land admeasuring 16,584.55 sq. mtrs so as to put an end to the entire litigation. Dr. Saraf further submits that the Petitioner has lost right to construct balance Building Nos. N and P. Inviting my attention to the pleadings in para-9 of the Petition, Dr. Saraf submits that Building Nos. N and P were to be constructed only on account of development rights flowing out of land surrendered for DP road of 2200 sq. mts. That however actually land area admeasuring 1859 sq. mtrs is ultimately surrendered for DP road. He relies on letter dated 23 April 1991 of MCGM to demonstrate that construction of Building Nos. N and P is not possible on account of non-availability of balance FSI in lieu of DP road. Dr. Saraf submits that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to withhold conveyance for satisfying its greed of carrying out additional constructions as and when new FSI becomes available. He relies on judgments of this Court in Lakeview Developers Versus. Eternia Co- operative Housing Society Ltd.1 and Rajkumar Gulati and Ors. Versus. S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and Ors2 . He submits that the Petitioner can secure monetary compensation/TDR as and when land reserved for municipal market and primary school is acquired by the Municipal Corporation. That TDR arising out of reserved land cannot be treated as a development potential in respect of the land meant to be conveyed to the Respondent-Societies. That entire development potential in respect of the land is consumed by the Petitioner and that therefore it cannot delay conveyance of the land for eternity.