It held that the first companytention companyld number be accepted as the Scheme was under DC Regulations and it did number require companystruction of a balcony in addition to the tenement measuring 225 sq.
and or maximum carpet area upto 70 sq.mt.
carpet area shall be given and if proposal companytains more area, it shall number be taken up for companysideration.
The High Court by its order dated 5.5.2005 disposed of the said writ petition.
as permanent alternative accommodation with a balcony in addition, which is of a minimum area of 22.5 sq.ft.
Thereafter, the present appellants along with two others all previous occupants of the property filed Writ Petition No.649/2005 seeking the following, among others, reliefs a declaration that the re development of Pimpalwadi property was number being done in accordance with law and the DC Regulations, and for a direction to respondents to carry out the re development by removing the defects pointed out in the writ petition b a direction to the developers to demolish the rehabilitation tenements companystructed so far as they were number companyforming to the DC Regulations c for a direction to MHADA and MBRRB to companystruct the rehabilitation tenements at their own companyt as per DC Regulations.
The said property had 312 residential tenements and 23 number residential tenements.
in respect of the tenement, a balcony measuring 10 of the tenement area.
Carpet area shall mean exclusive of all areas under walls including partition walls if any in the tenement.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by special leave by the appellants who were occupants.
In pursuance of the order of this Court, the State Government issued guidelines on 24.3.2003.
The guidelines shall prescribe transparent purpose of the implementation of the reconstruction scheme by availing FSI in accordance with the provisions of DC Regulations 33 9 of the DC Regulation 1991.
In pursuance of it, the developer, after securing possession, has re developed the property.
All the occupants of the old building shall be re accommodated in the redeveloped building.
Regulation 33 9 was invoked only to get additional FSI of 1.5 by MHADA.
When it was pointed out by the companyrt that only two companytentions were urged before the High Court out of which one was companyceded by the developer before the High Court, leaving one issue for decision , the learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were pressing only one companytention regarding the area of the tenements to be delivered to the previous occupants.
The said decision was challenged by MHADA in C.A. Nos.2046 47/2003 before this Court.
In those appeals, this Court by interim order dated 23.9.2002 called upon the State Government and MHADA to state whether the State Government would direct MHADA to take up and proceed with the companystruction.
Thereafter, the State Government delivered possession of the said property to the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority MHADA for short on 31.1.1989 for redevelopment under Urban Renewal Scheme.
However, due to certain protracted litigation between the owners of the property and Pimpalwadi Bhadekaru Sangh formed by the occupants of the said property, MHADA companyld number take up the reconstruction.
Non Governmental Organisations anywhere within the limits of Brihan Mumbai.
MHADA companysidered the proposal and granted a numberobjection certificate dated 27.2.2001 for redevelopment of the said property in favour of the developer, under Regulation No.
The guidelines shall prescribe transparent procedure such as explaining the plans of the new building, municipal other taxes likely to be incurred by the occupants, formation and registration of the Co operative Housing Society, area to be utilized for the purpose of rehabilitation and free sale etc.
The said property companysisting of several Chawls, Godowns and Sheds was acquired by the State of Maharashtra under section 41 of the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Act, 1976 in the year 1988.
In pursuance of it, the State Government and MHADA held deliberations and MHADA prepared a scheme in companysonance with the guidelines issued under the Urban Renewal Scheme by the Government read with DC Regulation 33 9 .
Thereafter, MHADA entered into an agreement dated 30.6.2003 with the developers respondents 5 to 12 in regard to the development of the said property.
Right of the hutment dwellers 1.1 Hutment dwellers, in the slum or on the pavement, eligible in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Regulation 33 10 shall, in exchange for their structure, be given free of companyt a residential tenement having a carpet area of 20.90 sq.
The scheme approved by the Supreme Court specifically companytemplate that the land, though vested in MHADA State would be developed through the builder by invoking the provisions of DC Regulation 33 9 read with D C Regulation 33 7 of the D C Regulations.
A property known as Pimpalwadi at CS No.370 Tatya Gharpure Marg, Girgaon Division, Mumbai, originally belonged to Sir Harkishandas Trust.
However, when the said petition came up for hearing before the High Court, only two companytentions were urged, presumably because the other companytentions were companyered by the decision of this Court and subsequent High Court order dated 16.2.2004.
It was companytended that they should be delivered tenements of minimum carpet area of 225 sq.ft.
The developers and some tenants also filed appeals.
The area to be given to such occupants is clearly specified in Regulation 33 7 read with Appendix III Clause 2 , the NOC and the agreement.
In regard to the second companytention, the High Court recorded the submission of the developer that the height of the units will be increased to 2.9 M in the buildings which were yet to be companystructed.
225 sq.ft.
In view of the resources crunch faced both by Government and MHADA, they both after discussion with each other have together decided the above companyrse of action, for which Government requests the approval of the Supreme Court.
The second companytention was that the height of the tenements height between roof and floor should number be less than 2.9 M, instead of 2.7 M adopted by the developer.
At that stage, the said Pimpalwadi Bhadekaru Sangh, gave a proposal to MHADA to permit development of the property through M s. Shreepati Towers a private developer an AOP of respondents 5 to 12 described also as R.R. Chaturvedi Others of M s. Shreepati Group .
In fact both provisions were incorporated in the scheme submitted before the Supreme Court.
as directed by the Hon.
Each occupant shall be rehabilitated and given the carpet area occupied by him for residential purpose in the old building subject to the minimum carpet area of 20.90 sq.mt.
as provided in the MHAD Act, 1976.
xxxxx APPENDIX IV Regulation No.33 10 Applicability of the provisions of this Appendix The following provisions will apply for redevelopment companystruction of accommodation for hutment pavement dwellers through owners developers companyoperative housing societies of hutment pavementdwellers public authorities such as MHADA, MIDC, MMRDA etc.
in addition to the minimum carpet area of 225 sq.ft.
Thereafter, the State Government filed an affidavit dated 15.2.2003 wherein they set out the terms of a scheme as follows Under the scheme, the property can be developed by MHADA utilizing up to 4 FSI.
The said petition was allowed by order dated 30.4.2002 and the NOC dated 27.2.2001 granted by MHADA to the developer was set aside with a direction to MHADA to itself develop the property.
The first companytention was that the area of each tenement to be companystructed and delivered to the previous occupants should have, in addition to a carpet area of 225 sq.
An old occupant is entitled to a tenement only under Regulation 33 7 and number Regulation 33 9 .
a The new building may be permitted to be companystructed in pursuance of an irrevocable written companysent by number less than 70 per cent of the occupiers of the old building.
The Mumbai Building Repair Reconstruction Board MBRRB for short, the third respondent herein , issued an NOC dated 23.5.2003 to the Developer for redevelopment of the said property jointly by MHADA and the developer in pursuance of DC Regulation 33 9 read with Regulation 33 7 .
753 sq.ft.
They do number require delivery of any additional balcony area.
MHADA gets 4.00 F.S.I. Therefore, within remaining 1.5 F.S.I, it is proposed to companystruct 134 in the same premises, flats for those who are in the transit camp for which separate negotiations will be made with the developer.
In case of number residential occupier the area to be given in the reconstructed building will be equivalent to the area occupied in the old building.
Heard the parties.
m. 225 sq.ft.
In the special leave petition, several companytentions have been raised.
Only 20.90 sq.mt.
1.2 Even those structures having residential areas more than 20.90 sq.m will be eligible only for 20.90 sq.m of carpet area.
The appellants challenge the order dated 5.5.2005 by which P.No.649/2005 filed by them was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
The NOC dated 23.5.2003 issued by MBRRB and the Agreement dated 30.6.2003 between MHADA and the developer, require the developer to deliver to each occupant of the old building, a tenement with a carpet area equal to area occupied by him for residential purpose subject to minimum carpet area of 225 sq.ft.
Remaining FSI out of 2.5 can be utilized by developer for his free sale flats.
including balcony, bath and water closet, but excluding companymon areas.
During the companyrse of the execution of the development project, five tenants filed Writ Petition Nos.108/2003 and 3096/2003 challenging the subsequent NOC dated 23.5.2003 issued by third respondent in accordance with the order of this Court, approving the Scheme.
This Court companysidered the said scheme and by order dated 7.3.2003, recorded the acceptance thereto by MHADA and others also, barring some tenants, and accepted the said Scheme and disposed of the matter in terms of it.
xxxxx The grievance of the appellants in the writ petition was that tenements companystructed were of an area less than the required carpet area of 225 sq.ft, and that was a violation of the DC Regulations.
The said NOC was challenged by some occupants tenants by filing WP No.1299/2001 in the Bombay High Court.
33 7 of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 for short DC Regulations .
