But the appellants filed a writ petition challenging the legality of the order of the respon dent No.
5, Enjay Estates Pvt.
By another resolution dated 14.3.1974, the first resolution was modified limiting the reservation for the park to 7,000 sq.
On July 30, 1984 when the appeals were taken up for hearing, a prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for an adjournment for two weeks on the ground that Shri Bhore, the Advocate on Record, had met with an accident and the learned Counsel was unable to proceed with the appeals without the Advocate on Record.
The land in question had been purchased by the respondent No.
The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay, shall take over the possession of the land proposed to be kept as Green on southern side, abutting the sea after getting the plots properly demarcated.
173776 of 1985 and Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The Municipal Corporation passed a resolution on 3.12.1973, inter Ala, extending the park reservation by including the remaining area of the land companyprised in R.S. No.
Ltd., from its erstwhile owner, Byramji Jeejeebhoy Pvt.
17376 of 1985 arises out of Misc.
17377 of 1985.
They have, however, filed before this Court the above two Special Leave Petitions.
Ltd. In the 1966 sanctioned Development Plan of Greater Bombay, the said land was shown in the residential zone and a companytiguous parcel of land measuring 18,000 sq.
Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Petition No.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1984 of the Bombay High Court in O.S.W.P. No.
Two appeals were preferred by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the Division Bench.
463 of 1974 challenging the legality and validity of the resolution dated 14.3.1974 and Misc.
was shown as a green belt.
Both the Misc.
1406 of 1978 challenging the order of the Government of Maharashtra dated 25.7.1978 exempting the disputed land under section 20 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
The appellants, who are rate payers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and claim to be members of various ecological action groups, appeared in the appeal and opposed the same companytending, inter alia, that the whole of the said land should be kept reserved for a green belt or recreational ground in the interest of the general public.
With a view to developing the disputed land, the respondent No.
5 for the companystruction of a hotel on the said land.
Petition No.
5 submitted a plan to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for the companystruction of a five star hotel.
5 pref erred an appeal to the Government of Maharashtra under section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
K. Dholakia, Ashok H. Desai, A.M. Khanwilkar, S.Bhasme, D.N. Mishra, S. Sukumaran, G.E. Vahanvati, V.B. Agarwala, B.B. Agarwala, R.B. Hathi Khanawala for the Respondents.
The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, however, rejected the plan on the sole ground that it was proposed to earmark the said land under reference as a recreational ground with suitable internal network of roads during the revision of the development plan which was in the offing.
The petitioners have number challenged the judgment on review applications.
The permission for development of plots as per plans submitted by appellants be granted by the M.C.B. C. subject to the companyditions mentioned above.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Development shall be allowed IOD and C.C. shall be issued as per the Development Control Rules.
Being aggrieved by the said rejection of the plan, the respondent No.
Vinod A. Bobde, Mrs. J. Wad and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Intervener.
5, on the following companyditions 15 Recreation space to be left in Block A shall be kept on the southern side of the plot abutting the green space left from Block B after merging the Road area in the Green space.
2 set aside the order of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation rejecting the plan submitted by the respondent No.
The Municipal Corporation accepted the appellate order and did number challenge the order of the respondent No.
The appeal was heard by the Minister of State for Urban Development, the respondent No.
5 after hearing the petitioners as also the Municipal Commissioner and directed sanctioning of the plan on certain companyditions which will be referred to later in this judgment.
The petitioners have number challenged the judgment of the High Court passed on the review applications.
The petitioners, who are the appellants in the above appeal, filed two Misc.
out of the disputed land.
Petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.
The respondent No.
5 who proposed to companystruct a five star hotel on a tract of land measuring 44,820.49 square yards at Bandra, Bombay, bearing R.S. Nos.
416 Part and 417.
The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment under appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. The subject matter of this appeal by special leave is the permission for development of the land granted in favour of respondent No.
A few facts may be stated.
Petitions, namely, Misc.
The Municipal Commissioner, M.C., G.E., Bombay, may companysider the proposal of allowing the development and maintenance of the park and garden space by the applicant party at their own companyt after obtaining the possession of the lands number proposed to be kept green.
G. Kalsekar, K.M.M. Khan, N. Nettar and S.N. Bhat for the Appellants.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench did number accede to the prayer of the learned Counsel for an adjournment for two weeks on the ground that the appeals were old appeals of 1979, and that the learned Counsel who prayed for adjournment himself appeared throughout the proceedings as an Advocate.
2 herein.
2537 of 1985 etc.
The learned Judges, however, adjourned the appeals to the next day, that is, July 31, 1984 to enable the learned Counsel to be ready with the matter.
704 of 1984.
463 of 1974 whereby the petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the said resolution dated 14.3.1974.
Petition No.
Both the said applications for review were dismissed by the Division Bench after companysidering all the points including certain additional grounds to the effect that certain companytentions had number been dealt with earlier by the judgment dated October 9/10, 1985.
2 granting sanction of the plan submitted by the respondent No.
The F.S.I. of the road area would be admissible on plot A as per Development Control Rule 10 2 .
