The statement is accepted.
On 2nd July, 2001, the S.R.A. companyfirmed the status of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who were allegedly running the above mentioned flour mill, as being eligible for a residential cum companymercial allotment.
Out of the 11 structures 9 were demolished on 12th February, 2001.
It is on account of being aggrieved by the said directions of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.2298 of 2007, that the present special leave petition was filed by the petitioner herein.
The petitioner then applied for Commencement Certificate as per the approved plans.
He then referred to various orders passed by the S.R.A., as also the High Court, and the companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the S.R.A. in which it had been stated that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were jointly held to be eligible under the Scheme for a portion of the structure for companymercial use as per the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, S.R.A. on 10th December, 2003, under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
The statement is accepted.
The eligibility of the said respondents for being included in the said scheme was decided by the SRA in 2001, but on account of the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were unable to obtain possession of such area for running their flour mill.
Although, since according to the petitioner the companyditions companytained in the letter order of 14th June, 2007, companyld number be companyplied with, the Division Bench by its order dated 13th March, 2008, impugned herein, directed the S.R.A. to act and ensure that the amended plan is fully implemented and the entire area measuring 225 sq.
One of the structures, however, occupied by Ganesh Flour Mill companyld number be removed on account of BCCC Suit No.907 of 2001 filed by the said flour mill.
In Appeal No.225 of 2003 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench granted leave to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to make an appropriate application to the R.A., who were directed to companysider afresh as to whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to use the residential cum commercial premises to run the flour mill.
The S.R.A. reconsidered the matter and reiterated the earlier position holding that the applicants were eligible for one companymercial structure only since the same were number used for residential purposes so as to make the occupants eligible as slum dwellers to have a residential unit.
In view of these statements, Petition is disposed of.
for operation of their flour mill within the SRA Scheme relating to Plot Nos.545 and 548, Kulupwadi Road, Borivali East and sanction having been granted to the amended plan, till today such space has number been provided to the said respondents on one pretext or the other.
The respondent No.1 thereupon made a representation to the Chief Executive Officer on 2nd August, 2006.
Rule is discharged with numberorder as to companyts.
Thereafter, Writ Petition No.990 of 2004 filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 challenging the decision of the S.R.A. dated 12th December, 2003 came to be disposed of on 27th July, 2006, by the following order The learned companynsel appearing for Petitioners states that they give up their challenge to the order impugned in the Petition because by that order, it is clearly recorded that the premises where the Petitioners were running a flour mill has been found to be of 275 sq.
Since the structures in question were situated in a slum area, wherein there was a Slum Rehabilitation Authority S.R.A. Scheme in respect of CTS Plot Nos.545 and 546 and the companystruction of an SRA building was also going on, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner companycerned wrote to the Executive Officers of MHADA, with a companyy to the Deputy Collector SRA , to companyfirm the status of the owners of the two structures and to provide them suitable alternate accommodation in the said SRA Scheme by instructing the Developer accordingly.
After the said order was passed, the petitioner promoter was served with a letter written by the S.R.A. on 2nd April, 2008 requesting the petitioner to submit a plan for the flour mill with an area measuring 225 sq.
It is the petitioners case that instead of challenging the directions companytained in the order of the Division Bench of the High Court passed on 13th March, 2008, the S.R.A. was forcing the petitioner to implement the directions, which were companytrary to the statutory provisions and the Building Rules.
The learned companynsel appearing for Respondent No.1 states that in case such an application is made by the Petitioners within a period of four weeks, the respondent No.1 shall companysider it in accordance with law and pass orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the application.
of structure for running their flour mill free of companyt and additional area of 50 sq.
area and the Petitioners have also been found running flour mill in those premises.
In the said companynter affidavit, it was also stated that the amended plan submitted by the petitioner was for an independent ground floor structure and an application was also made by the petitioner Developer for companydonation of the open space deficiency to allow the structure to touch the companypound wall.
Thereafter, pursuant to the said order and after the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.990 of 2004 on 27th July, 2006, the petitioner Developer had submitted the amended plan for the flour mill and had requested that approval be given to the same.
While passing the impugned order, the High Court made it clear that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein would have to companyply with the provisions of the law while obtaining requisite licences from the companypetent authorities.
It was number, therefore, for the petitioner to challenge the amended plans which had been approved by the S.R.A. on the petitioners own submissions.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the Contempt Petition, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.2298 of 2007 on 9th October, 2007, challenging the letter order passed by the S.R.A. on 14th June, 2007 in response to the letter dated 8th February, 2007, written on behalf of the petitioner herein with regard to the proposed amended plan of the companyposite building of the S.R. Scheme on the plots bearing CTS Nos.545, 545/1 to 30, 546, 546/1 to 5 of village Kanheri, Kulupwadi, Borivali East , Mumbai, wherein the petitioner was directed to companyply with certain companyditions.
The Developer, M s. Veena Corporation, is the petitioner in this Special Leave Petition.
The appeal preferred against the order dated 9.9.2002, being A.O. No.225 of 2003, was in its turn disposed of on 17th June, 2003, with leave to the respondent No.1 to make an application to the S.R.A., which was directed to companysider the said application within a period of eight weeks after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent No.1.
The said plans were, thereafter, approved by the S.R.A. according to the provisions of Clause 6.24 of the amended DRC 1991 Rule 33 10 read with Appendix IV.
which had been handed over by the petitioner herein to the S.R.A. for being made over to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, had been suppressed when Writ Petition No.990 of 2004 was disposed of.
In case the petitioners make an application, the Respondent No.1 shall grant personal hearing to the Petitioners before disposing of that application.
The same was dismissed on 26th September, 2007, upon the finding that the order passed on 8th April, 2005, wherein it had been found that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to a companymercial premises measuring 225 sq.
The said writ petition was rejected on the finding that the said respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to one unit equal to the total area under their occupation as a companymercial cum residential unit.
on payment as per the regulation, if they make an application to the Chief Executive Engineer, S.R.A. for that purpose.
was companystructed and delivered to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order.
The statement is accepted.
Although, this was done on 14th June, 2007, numberfurther steps were taken by the petitioner herein or the authorities of the S.R.A. to implement the amended plan.
Since despite a hearing having been given, numberorders were passed on the representation, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a Contempt Petition on 28th March, 2007.
Their claim for two companymercial units was, therefore, disallowed.
It was also made clear that the High Court was passing its order to resolve the limited companytroversy that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entitled to the companymercial space which would have to be companystructed in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the S.R.A. within the period indicated in the order.
As respondent Nos.1 and 2 were dissatisfied with the decision of the S.R.A., they filed Writ Petition No.2213 of 2002 before the Bombay High Court claiming that in lieu of the areas which were under their occupation, they were entitled to two companymercial units, one for the flour mill and the other for a godown.
In March, 2007, the petitioner herein the promoter companystructed a wall blocking the spot in the property which was suitable for companystruction of the flour mill, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein raised a protest upon which the S.R.A. amended the plan and indicated the benefit to which the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be entitled.
Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that Writ Petition No.2213 of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 for a determination that he was having two companymercial places, a flour mill and a godown, was dismissed on 9th September, 2002.
ALTAMAS KABIR,J. This special leave petition arises out of steps taken by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to remove 11 structures on Kulupwadi Road, Borivali East , which were allegedly causing a traffic bottleneck.
The learned companynsel appearing for Respondents states that according to the relevant regulation, the petitioners would be entitled to 225 sq.
