Bombay High Court
Shakil Ahmed Rashid Ahmed Khan And 11 ... vs Shakil Mohammed And 36 Ors(Mp) And State ... on 13 March, 2023
Author: R. N. Laddha
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni, R. N. Laddha
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (Lodg) NO. 1456 OF 2021
Shakil Mohammed & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
With
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3337 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.24282 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.24273 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.13487 OF 2022
Mr. M. A. Khan, for the Petitioners.
Mr. L. T. Satelkar, AGP for the State-Respondent No.1.
Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kunal Waghmare, for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr.Kunal Patel i/b. Chandra Naik & Associates, for Respondent No.6.
_______________________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 13, 2023
_______________________
P.C.
1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Interim Application No.3337 of 2021 and Interim Application (lodg) No.24273 of 2022 were filed by petitioner Nos.7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 33, 37 and 1 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP petitioner Nos.5, 6, 32 respectively. By these interim applications, the said petitioners had prayed that they unconditionally intend to withdraw the petition. By an order dated 30 August 2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the said Interim Applications were allowed and accordingly, the said petitioners were permitted to withdraw the petition.
2. On perusal of the cause title of the petition, it appears that such amendment has not been carried out and the said petitioners are not shown to be deleted. We allow the petitioners to delete the said petitioners and to carry out such amendment so that orders dated 30 August 2022 passed by this Court is given effect.
3. In so far as the rest of the petitioners are concerned, learned Counsel for respondent No.6 states that the petitioners are being paid transit rent upto 31 March 2023 in respect of eight petitioners. So far as the eight petitioners are concerned, there is dispute in regard to the four petitioners being petitioner Nos.18, 27, 28 and 35 as to whether they are eligible petitioners, hence, so far they have not been paid the transit rent. It is informed by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Municipal Corporation is yet to decide on their eligibility. We direct 2 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP these petitioners to submit any deficit documents which they were required to submit in compliance of the directions of the Designated Officer. Let such documents be submitted before such Officer within two weeks from today. In the event such documents are submitted, the Designated Officer shall decide the eligibility of such four petitioners within a period of two weeks thereafter.
4. Insofar as respondent No.6 is concerned, it has stepped into the shoes of respondent No.5 with whom the society had originally entered into a development agreement to undertake redevelopment of the premises of the said building. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.6, without following the proper procedure for cancelling the agreement which was originally entered between the society and respondent No.5, has taken over the project. In this context, Dr.Sathe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation would submit that a meeting was held between the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 and 5 and respondent no.6 with the Assistant Commissioner (Estate) on 20 August 2021, in which such issues were discussed when the petitioner had expressed that the petitioner as also the Society were agreeable to accept respondent No.6 to take over redevelopment project as handed over by the society in favour of respondent No.5. It is 3 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP submitted that the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation. It
appears to us that apart from such minutes of the meeting, there is no formal document as executed between the society, respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 and the MCGM being a confirming party, annulling the 'development agreement', entered by the society with respondent No.5. We are of the opinion that steps in that regard are required to be taken and placed on record of the Municipal Corporation. We accordingly direct the Assistant Commissioner (Estate) of the Municipal Corporation to oversee that the record is complete in that regard and an appropriate document be entered to avoid, in future, any complications or dispute arising between the parties, and clear the present vague position on record. We cannot countenance that a project is undertaken by a developer/contractor on municipal land without a formal agreement entered in accordance with law.
5. It appears that the construction being undertaken by respondent No.6 is in progress and the building is constructed upto 21 floors. However, it has been pointed out by the petitioners that what has been constructed is only a super structure. However, this is disputed by respondent No.6 in submitting that in fact the plastering work itself is completed upto 20th floor. Be that as it may, a complete Status report 4 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP be placed on record by respondent No.6 as also by the Competent Officer of the Municipal Corporation.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is necessary that respondent No.6 now enters into a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) as now respondent No.6 has been accepted as a developer by the Municipal Corporation. Learned Counsel for respondent No.6, on instructions of his client who is present in the Court, states that within a period of four weeks from today, PAAA agreement shall be entered with eight eligible petitioners as also with the other members of the society. Statement as made on behalf of respondent No.6 is accepted as undertaking to the Court. This shall however, be on the MCGM completing its record that respondent No.6 is now the developer under appropriate agreement.
7. List the proceedings on 17 April 2023 so that the further status as to what has been observed by us above, can be informed to the Court. In the event, the Designated Officer of the Municipal Corporation decides on the eligibility of the four petitioners and if they are held to be eligible, in that event, PAAA agreements be also entered with the said petitioners. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.
5 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::
pvr 10wpl-1456-21=IAL-3337-21GRP
8. In the affidavit which respondent No.6 would now place on record, respondent No.6 would also clarify the position in respect of annulment of the document and/or acceptance of respondent No.6 in the place of respondent No.5, and that respondent No.5 is no more the developer, having given up all his rights under the agreement entered by respondent No.5 with the society.
9. Stand over for 17 April 2023. Pending Interim applications be listed alongwith this petition.
(R. N. LADDHA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
6 of 6
-------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2023 09:21:08 :::