After the purchasers of flats formed societies, they along with the societies filed writ petitions for issue of a direction to the Corporation to provide water companynections.
Their grievance is that even though the flats were purchased under a bona fide belief that the buildings have been companystructed in accordance with law, the trial Court and the High Court did number injunct the Corporation from demolishing the same on the ground that the latter had taken action in furtherance of the orders passed in Writ Petition Nos.
The societies and their members sent reply dated 28.11.2005 through their advocate and pleaded that they were in numberway responsible for the unauthorized companystructions.
Thereupon, the petitioners filed Long Cause Suits for declaring numberices dated 19.11.2005 and orders dated 3/8.12.2005 to be illegal.
The new plans were rejected by the companypetent authority on 6.9.1984.
Shri V. Patil, Sub Engineer Building and Proposal City was present in Court to assist the Advocate for the Corporation.
Notwithstanding this, the developers companytinued the companystruction and did number stop their activity despite the stop work numberice dated 12.11.1984 issued by the Corporation.
Between 1980 and 1982, M s. Pure Drinks transferred that portion of land to the developers for companystruction of residential buildings.
Having failed to companyvince the trial Court and the High Court to entertain their prayer for restraining respondent number 1 Municipal Corporation of Mumbai for short, the Corporation from demolishing the buildings companystructed on Plot No.
They further prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Corporation, its servants, agents and representatives from taking any action demolishing the buildings.
None appeared for respondent number4 in Writ Petition No.2904 99, for respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.2403 99, for respondent Nos.4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.2402 99, for respondent number.4 and 5 in Writ Petition No.1808 2000.
Deputy Chief Engineer, Building Proposals City did number accept the reply sent by the advocate of the societies and their members and passed orders dated 3.12.2005 and 8.12.2005 and directed the petitioners to remove the illegal companystructions.
That order reads as under In all these writ petitions, arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
The Corporation leased out the plot in question, of which the total area is 17907.60 sq.
Ltd. and Abdula Yusuf Patel.
Thereafter, amendment plans proposing stilt plus twenty four floors and stilt plus sixteen floors with additional sixth and seventh floor to building number.2 and 4 and additional sixth floor for the part of building number3 were submitted but they were refused on 6th September, 1984.
9, Scheme 58, Worli, Mumbai, the petitioners have filed these petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The petitioners are the Cooperative House Building Societies for short, the societies and their members, who are said to have purchased flats in the buildings companystructed by the developers on the plot in question.
The same was rejected by the Corporation.
Shri Manjit Singh Madanjit Singh, Power of Attorney Holder of S. Karanjit Singh, Chief Executive Officer of Pure Drink Pvt.
However, the work companytinued.
Not only this it is appeared from the letter of Jayant Chitnis, Architect who specifically mentioned in his letter that he already addressed a letter dated 5.1.1990 and informed to the companycerned developer about the show cause numberice issued by the Corporation about the companystruction of upper floors which were number sanctioned.
Again new architect submitted further plan with a fresh numberice under Section 337.
This letter also addressed to the said society by the said Architect.
In the companyrse of the argument, it was revealed by the Advocate for the Corporation on taking instructions that original licence for companystruction was granted in favour of four persons viz.
On 17.12.2005, the trial Court passed ad interim orders and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit structures.
The Registrar General is required to fax the companyy of this order to the Corporation apart from the fact that of the same is being numbered by the Advocate for the Corporation.
During the pendency of those petitions, the Division Bench of the High Court took companynizance of the fact that the buildings had been companystructed in violation of the sanctioned plans and passed order dated 11.10.2005 and directed the Additional Commissioner of the Corporation to appear in person to explain the reason for number taking action against the illegal companystruction.
Meanwhile, the panchanama of the illegal companystruction was carried out on 13th November, 2002.
Ltd., Shri D.K.Gupta of D.Y. Builders Pvt.
In short on that date the upper floor companystruction was number sanctioned by the Corporation.
The petitioners also filed numberices of motion for grant of temporary injunction.
In 1984, the developers submitted new building plans proposing companystruction of two buildings on stilts with 24 and 16 upper floors respectively, additional 6th and 7th floors in building number 2 and additional 6th floor on a portion of building number 3.
Pursuant to the illegality in companystruction having been found, numberices were issued under Section 53 1 of the M.R.T.P. Act on 20th February, 2002 to all the four persons mentioned above.
In spite of that, the companystructive activities companytinued and the work beyond the approved plans was carried out, and therefore Stop Work numberice was issued under Section 353 A of the MMC Act on 12th November, 1984.
The building plans submitted by the developers for companystruction of 6 buildings companyprising of basement, ground and 5 upper floors were sanctioned by the companypetent authority on 8.6.1981.
Besides, the prosecution was launched against builder, developer and all the occupants of the building and they were companyvicted on admission of guilt and sentenced by way of imposition of fine from Rs.600/ to Rs.2000/ imposed by the Magistrate.
Thereafter, sanction was granted for prosecution of all the four persons and decision in that regard was taken on 19th May, 2003 by the Executive Engineer Building Proposal , CT/1 of the Corporation.
meters land from industrial to residential.
Ltd. on 17.1.1962 for general industrial use.
Apart from the above actions, numberother action has been taken by the Corporation in relation to the illegal companystruction.
The amendment plans were approved for nine wings of ground plus five upper floors on 2nd February, 1983.
The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Corporation before issuance of rule in the petition by Shri Kurmi Deonath Sitaram, Executive Engineer, DP City I discloses that initial approval was granted for six wings companysisting of ground plus five upper floors and it was issued on 9th June, 1981 and Commencement Certificate was granted on 10th June, 1981.
The amended building plans submitted by the developers for companystruction of 9 buildings with ground and 5 upper floors were also sanctioned by the companypetent authority.
Ltd., Shri Ishwarsingh Chawla of PSD Construction Pvt.
After 18 years and about 11 months, the State Government issued order dated 1.12.1980 under Section 37 2 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and sanctioned the change of use in respect of 13049.45 sq.
meters to M s. Pure Drinks Pvt.
