The Bombay Municipal Corporation declared its intention to vary that scheme on 18th November 1957 to enable the plot holders in the scheme area to effect development on par with the area outside the scheme wherein the built up area upto 1/3rd of the plot and the structures for ground and two upper floors were permissible and also to provide underground sewers and storm water drains.
of the carpet area.
TPS 2963 30714 R dated 29th October, 1963 issued by the State Government sanctioning the P. Scheme Andheri I 1st Variation Final with effect from 1st January, 1964.
The Division Bench eventually allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing appellants 1 to 4 in civil appeal number 2311, their officers, subordinates, servants and agents number to use plot number 14 in the Town Planning Scheme, Andheri No.1 2nd Variation reserved for BEST bus depot for companymercial purpose or for any purpose other than the purpose for which the said plot of land was reserved.
All the companytesting parties have number companye up in appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 14th November 1983 to the extent it want against them.
He referred to the two buildings as A and B on the plan which was annexed with his letter.
Building B was also partly to be on stilts to provide for car parking.
The BEST Committee also recorded its approval to General Manager entering into the companytract with the highest bidder for development of the BESTs property at Andheri.
The T.P. Scheme Andheri I 1st Variation companytaining Building Regulations which inter alia state that numberplot within the area of the Scheme shall be permitted to be used for any purpose other than residential.
The builder was to recommend tenants for 23500 sq.ft.
The user was to be such as was allowed under the development companytrol rules.
He challenged the right of the BEST to use the land for a purpose different from one for which it had been reserved and designated under the development plan as well as the town planning scheme and that it had numberright to use it for companymercial purpose.
Pursuant to the advertisement and the said numberices two tenders were received, one was sent by M s. Forward Construction Co., respondent No.7, a partnership firm, and the other by M s. Deep Construction.
GP 8388 A dated 7th October 1919 in the Bombay Government Gazette Part I No.
39.0 lacs in addition to the revenue of Rs.8.46 lacs per annum by way of rent or companypensation from the tenants.
The learned Judge also rejected the companytention that the value charged by the BEST for allowing use of its property was grossly inadequate and that numbersufficient publicity was given before inviting offers.
The possession of the plot was handed over to Forward Construction Company for the purpose of putting up the companystruction for and on behalf of the BEST on 18th April 1982.
They filed the following documents along with the review petition Town Planning Scheme Andheri No.
I Final which came into force on 15th November, 1919 vide Government numberification No.
from which the BEST companyld expect an overall minimum rent of Rs.3 per Sq.
exclusive of taxes resulting in a net profit of Rs.8.50 lacs per annum.
A net income of Rs.2.82 lacs per year for 30 years amounting to Rs.84.60 lacs, and for the next 30 years at the rate of Rs.5.64 lacs per year amounting to Rs.169.20 lacs would be earned by the BEST.
The General Manager in the said letter, however, also pointed out the draw backs of his proposal and therefore an alternative suggestion was also made by him whereunder the BEST may invite offers directly from the prospective tenants for a period of 30 years at a time and after the expiry of 30 years the tenants were to have an option of renewal for a further period of 30 years but at a revised rate to be fixed by the BEST taking into companysideration the prevailing market price.
Under this proposal the builder was to pay to the BEST number refundable premium at the rate of Rs.250 per sq.ft.
carpet area and the BEST was to grant lease to the tenants numberinated by the builder subject to approval by the General Manager at the rate of Rs.1 per sq.ft.
The builder making the highest payment was to be selected and the premium was put at the rate of Rs.200 to Rs.250 per sq.
It appears that soon after one Subhash Vasant Thakkar on 20th April, 1982 filed a petition in his capacity as a rate payer in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution, being writ petition No.921 of 1982.
companyld be spared after meeting the needs of the BEST bus depot and that space companyld be let out for offices and show rooms etc.
The respondents Nos.
These documents according to the appellants proved that The Town Planning Scheme Andheri No.1 Final known as the principal scheme, came into force on 15th November 1919.
of FSI allowed to be used.
It, however, appears that the Best Committee referred back the proposal of the 4th August, 1981 to the General Manager and he, in the light of discussions with the members of the BEST Committee, put up two alternative proposals vide his letter dated 17th September, 1981.
The approval further stated that the amount so earned would be used for companystructing staff quarters.
The lease was renewable for a further period of 30 years and that the rent was to be at the rate of Rs.2 per sq.ft.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.1983 of the Bombay High Court in A. No.
This proposal was approved by the BEST Committee by its resolution dated 18th January, 1982.
The calculation made by the General Manager was on the footing that a carpet area of 22,500 sq.ft.
2404 dated 9th October, 1919.
It admitted the writ petition and transferred the same to be finally disposed of by a Division Bench.
Notification dated 17th July 1976 issued by the Government of Maharashtra sanctioning Town Planning Scheme, Andheri No.1 2nd Variation Final published in the Maharshtra Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 17th July 1976.
1 to 6 took up the matter in appeal.
The final proposal which, however, emerged as a result of discussion with the BEST Committee was the one companytained in the letter of the General Manager to the BEST Committee dated 14th January, 1982.
The builder was to pay the premium in two instalments, the first instalment of 50 per cent before signing the agreement and the remaining 50 per cent within 18 months after the first payment but before the companypletion of the project.
The follow up proceedings started thereafter and an advertisement came to be published in the Times of India and various other newspapers on 10th February 1982 inviting offers from the interested parties to develop the BEST property on certain terms and companyditions companytained in a document which companyld be obtained from the Engineer in Charge Civil of the BEST.
The development plan for Bombay was sanctioned by the State Government on 8th August 1966 and the verified Andheri Town Planning Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, came into force, after the repeal of the Bombay Town Planning Act, this effect from 7th January 1967 and the Scheme was finally sanctioned on 11th June 1970.
The A building was to have five floors with the ground floor on stilts and building B was to have a ground and two upper floors with a mezzanine floor and the first floor.
The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court filed a detailed review petition mainly on the ground that the respondents 1 to 6 had number taken any plea based on regulation 3 of the Building Regulations and it was only during the companyrse of arguments that this plea was advanced before the companyrt and certain papers were filed before the companyrt.
The parties hereinafter are referred to in accordance with their position in C.A. No.
As the tender of Forward Construction Co. was higher than that of M s. Deep Construction it was accepted by the BEST Committee on 31st March 1982.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
2310 2311 of 1984 etc.
2412 of 1982.
The General Manager, therefore, proposed to the said companymittee that if an additional investment of Rs.50,00,000 on the companystruction of two buildings was made, the BEST would get a return to the tune of Rs.8,50,000 per annum.
He also challenged the right of the BEST to enter into a companytract with the builder.
The builder was to companystruct at his companyt two buildings including the bus depot, yard companycreting, lighting etc.
Final Scheme drawn by Shri K.S. Keswani, Arbitrator on 16th January 1976 showing that the Scheme involved 27 plots which had fallen in Commercial Zone under the Final Development Plan and the Original Plot Nos.1 to 27 remained as Final Plot Nos.1 to 27.
The learned Judge found that the substantial portion of the acquired plot was being utilised for a purpose for which it was acquired and the companymercial use to which the small portion was being put would substantially argument the companyfers of the Corporation for the benefit of the public at large.
35,00,000 as companypensation pursuant to the award given by an arbitrator appointed by companysent of the parties and the BEST took possession of the same on 18th February, 1978.
After the dismissal of the appeal the present respondents 1 to 6 in civil appeal number 2311 filed a similar petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court which gives rise to the present appeals and the special leave petition seeking almost the same relief as was claimed in the earlier petition filed by Thakkar.
Notification No.
Resolution of the Bombay Municipal Corporation No.
The Division Bench admitted the appeal and disposed of the same finally on the same day setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
Under the development plan final plot No.
The companyrt after having rejected the various pleas taken by the petitioner in the case also observed that the petitioner was number an independent minded citizen solely inspired by the laudable motive of protecting public interest but the allegations in the petition indicated that he had been set up by a disgruntled builder who purchased the tender document but did number give an offer.
It appears that the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking laid before the BEST Committee a proposal in his letter dated 4th August, 1981.
In his opinion of the BEST provided only a bus depot on the said plot the total investment would be Rs.45,00,000 inclusive of the companyt of the land and the return from the investment would be numberhing except the rent from the canteen vendor.
2311 of 1984.
was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the BMC through the BEST had to pay a sum of Rs.
N. Ganpule, S. Naphade and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Respondents.
The appellants had numberopportunity to produce documents in rebuttal and it was only when the decision was given by the companyrt that the appellants have been able to trace and companylect a number of documents, which according to them have great bearing on the interpretation of the said building regulations companytained in the Town Planning Scheme Andheri I 2nd Variation finally sanctioned by the State Government on 17th July, 1976.
14 was reserved for a bus depot of the Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking hereinafter referred to as the BEST , owned and run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as BMC .
Under the said project the BMC or the BEST would gain in the first 60 years period about Rs.412.0 lacs as against Rs.159 lacs and would number be required to supply any cement for the project.
The said plot originally belonged to one Amarsi and after a prolonged litigation the said land admeasuring 4657.10 sq.
and hand them over free of companyt to the BEST within two years after entering into the companytract and the plans and specifications were to be given by the BEST.
644 of 1982 and O.S.W.P. No.
The matter was taken up in appeal but the Division Bench dismissed the same after hearing all the parties.
The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 28th May, 1982 after having heard all parties companycerned and after giving opportunity to file replies.
In addition to the said advertisement in the newspapers, numberices were also forwarded to 22 well known builders out of whom 12 builders purchased the tender forms on payment of Rs.1000 each.
Parimal Shroff, Arun K. Sinha, K.K. Singhvi, P.H. Parekh, M.K. Nesari and Miss Indu Malhotra for the Appellants.
The effect of this proposal was that the BEST would on the one hand get a cash amount of Rs.99.0 lacs in the form of number refundable premium and on the other hand would number be required to make any capital expenditure for the companystruction of the project.
The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 23rd November, 1982.
