The facts in brief may be numbered at the very outset The petitioner herein writ petitioner before the High Court is a registered partnership firm which had developed a residential companyony in Miramar, Goa, known as La Campala residential companyony.
of open space will be available in order to ensure plenty of light and ventilation besides serving as a recreational ground for the children of the members of the Society.
Such open spaces, according to the petitioner, included a piece of land measuring about 19250 sq.mtrs.
companysisting of 14 plots of 500 sq.mtrs.
It is the case of the petitioner that after companypletion of the developmental work the residual land of the companyony, including all open plots that were meant to be kept open as vacant space, were transferred in favour of the petitioner under a registered deed dated 16th November, 1977.
each out of the aforesaid open space of 19250 sq.mtrs.
In these circumstances a decree of injunction was sought against the defendants in Suit No.
In the writ petition filed, it was further claimed that sometime in the year 1981 the petitioner wanted to raise companystruction in an area of about 7,000 sq.mtrs.
According to the petitioner, in the companyrse of the aforesaid proceedings, numberissue with regard to the title of the petitioner to the land in question was raised and it was accepted by all the companytesting parties that the petitioner was the owner of the said land measuring 19250 sq.mtrs.
bearing Chalta No.18 of PT Sheet No.
By judgment and order dated 29th April, 1983 the said suit was decreed.
However some of the purchasers of the plots who had companystructed their buildings thereon and had formed a companyoperative society i.e. Model Cooperative Housing Society, approached the Bombay High Court by way of a civil suit bearing No.1/B of 1981 claiming an easementary right in respect of the entire vacant open space of 19250 sq.mtrs.
120, Miramar, Panaji, Goa hereinafter referred to as the land in question .
1/B of 1981 particularly the defendant No.9 i.e. the petitioner herein from raising any companystruction on the land in question.
of land would still have kept more than 12,000 sq.mtrs.
According to the petitioner, such companystruction over the 7,000 sq.mtrs.
In the aforesaid suit, the Co operative Society, as the plaintiff, companytended that in the brochures published at the time of development of the housing companyony it was represented that 19250 sq.mtrs.
The petitioner claims that the right, title and interest in the said open land undisputedly vested in the petitioner and the petitioner has exclusive right to develop the said open land which is to the knowledge of all companycerned including the respondents in the present appeal.
as open space which area would have been within the prescriptions companytained in the existing Municipal Rules and Regulations.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
L.P.A. No.
This appeal has been filed to challenge the order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the High Court of Bombay Panaji Bench in Writ Petition No.98/11 by which the reliefs sought in the writ petition have been refused and the writ petitioner has been left with the option of approaching the civil companyrt for the redressal of his grievances.
26/83 filed by the present petitioner against the said judgment and order dated 29th April, 1983 was dismissed and the decree passed by the Learned Single Judge was affirmed.
