BEENA'S COMPUTER TYPING AND SHORTHAND INSTITUTE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT P10 (English)

Font Size

Select duration in minutes

Backspace: 0

Timer : 00:00

It is contended by the Petitioner that it is entitled to construct Building Nos. N and P as per plans sanctioned in the year 1983 and that therefore conveyance of even land admeasuring 16584.55 sq. mtrs., which is claimed to be in physical possession of the Societies, cannot be granted. It is contended that Building Nos. N and P would come up on land admeasuring 16584.55 sq.mtrs and this is how conveyance of even land of 16584.55 sq. mtrs. is also opposed by the Petitioner. As observed above, after completion of construction of Building Nos. A to H, J and K, Petitioner proposed construction of four more Building Nos. L, M, N and P on the land. Construction of the said four buildings was apparently premised on Petitioner’s belief that the area of land surrendered for DP road was 2200 sq.mtrs. However, it latter transpired that the actual land surrendered for DP road was only 1859 sq.mts. Accordingly, the development rights flowing out of surrendered land for DP road got reduced and Petitioner was prevented from constructing Building Nos. N and P. He could construct only Building Nos. L and M out of development rights secured through surrender of land for DP road. This position is admitted by the Petitioner in para-9 of the Petition wherein it is averred as under Occupation certificate of Buildings L and M were issued by MCGM in November 1990 but construction of building nos. N and P had to be deferred because on actual demarcation and survey of the DP road land on site, the area was ascertained to be 1859 sq.mts., instead of 2200 sq.mts., thereby restricting the construction of buildings of N and P due to deficit of FSI. The buildings N and P have been approved in the layout plan and can be constructed in lieu of development rights but due to matters pending before the Hon'ble court, the Petitioner has so far refrained from carrying out any remaining further construction activities on the proposed land. Thus, construction of Building Nos. Thus, construction of Building Nos. N and P could not be carried out by the Petitioner only on account of dispute relating to area of land surrendered for DP road. For the last 46 long years (after receipt of OC for Building Nos. L and M) Petitioner has not been able to resolve the said area dispute on the other hand.

It is contended by the Petitioner that it is entitled to construct Building Nos. N and P as per plans sanctioned in the year 1983 and that therefore conveyance of even land admeasuring 16584.55 sq. mtrs., which is claimed to be in physical possession of the Societies, cannot be granted. It is contended that Building Nos. N and P would come up on land admeasuring 16584.55 sq.mtrs and this is how conveyance of even land of 16584.55 sq. mtrs. is also opposed by the Petitioner. As observed above, after completion of construction of Building Nos. A to H, J and K, Petitioner proposed construction of four more Building Nos. L, M, N and P on the land. Construction of the said four buildings was apparently premised on Petitioner’s belief that the area of land surrendered for DP road was 2200 sq.mtrs. However, it latter transpired that the actual land surrendered for DP road was only 1859 sq.mts. Accordingly, the development rights flowing out of surrendered land for DP road got reduced and Petitioner was prevented from constructing Building Nos. N and P. He could construct only Building Nos. L and M out of development rights secured through surrender of land for DP road. This position is admitted by the Petitioner in para-9 of the Petition wherein it is averred as under Occupation certificate of Buildings L and M were issued by MCGM in November 1990 but construction of building nos. N and P had to be deferred because on actual demarcation and survey of the DP road land on site, the area was ascertained to be 1859 sq.mts., instead of 2200 sq.mts., thereby restricting the construction of buildings of N and P due to deficit of FSI. The buildings N and P have been approved in the layout plan and can be constructed in lieu of development rights but due to matters pending before the Hon'ble court, the Petitioner has so far refrained from carrying out any remaining further construction activities on the proposed land. Thus, construction of Building Nos. Thus, construction of Building Nos. N and P could not be carried out by the Petitioner only on account of dispute relating to area of land surrendered for DP road. For the last 46 long years (after receipt of OC for Building Nos. L and M) Petitioner has not been able to resolve the said area dispute on the other hand.