Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 12 April, 2017
Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. 4 & 5 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9878 OF 2016
M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Pursuant to our Judgment dated 29.09.2016, the appellants before us claim that a large number of hitches have arisen because of the NOC conditions imposed by MHADA dated 27.11.2016.
Mr. M. L. Varma, learned senior counsel appearing for MHADA, fairly concedes that except for three such conditions, the rest need not be imposed. According to him, the first most important thing is that he should be paid back the land cost of Rs. 29 Crores or its equivalent in terms of the plots to be constructed by the appellants, which according to Mr.Varma, will be utilised for free housing. The second is that in any event, it is necessary to verify those tenants who occupied less than 300 sq. Signature Not Verified ft. so that according to Appendix III to Regulation Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.04.15 11:41:06 IST Reason: 33(7), incentive FSI by such tenants will be on 300 sq. ft. alone and not on 425 sq. ft. Also, according to the learned senior counsel, the Chief Minister's 2 decision of 2004, having been superseded by various events, it cannot be relied upon and, therefore, ultimately, at least these conditions should govern the appellants.
Sh. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, vehemently opposed both conditions and pointed out Regulation 33(7) read with Appendix III, according to which, incentive FSI will not be available only beyond 753 sq. ft. According to him, the Chief Minister's decision is binding, as MHADA accepted the same, and finally, according to him, the Chief Minister had made it clear that though the land was acquired, it would be handed back. According to us, a reading of Appendix III of Regulation 33(7) makes it clear that each occupant who is to be rehabilitated, will be given the same carpet area as he acquired in the old building, subject to a minimum of 300 sq. ft. going upto a maximum of 753 sq. ft. Given the fact that, on the facts of the present case, notwithstanding what was being actually occupied in the old building, the appellants were ready to grant 425 sq. ft, we are of the view that on the facts of this case, incentive FSI should be given on 425 sq. ft., this case not being treated as a precedent. It is only because this Court intervened and the builder, who is the appellant before us, readily agreed to our suggestion 3 that whatever sq. ft. area the tenant occupied, the builder was ready to give 425 sq. ft., that we are permitting the incentive FSI on 425 sq. ft. in the peculiar facts of this case.
In so far as the land cost is concerned, it is clear that the Chief Minister's decision, which MHADA agreed to way back in 2004, was to be by way of a joint venture between MHADA and the appellants. However, this portion of the order was superseded by events and ultimately, by our order dated 29.09.2016. This order would continue to bind the parties to the extent that it is not in conflict with our order. This being the case, Rs. 29 crores land cost cannot be given to MHADA. MHADA will now not insist on the appellants adhering to this condition, which will allow the appellants to adhere to the time line that is being fixed by our order, which Mr. Dave assures us, will be adhered to.
With these observations, the applications for directions are disposed of. MHADA is directed to issue a fresh NOC along the lines indicated above, within four weeks from today. The appellants, whose client is present in Court, has through Sh. Dave, assured us that the construction will be completed in all respects within 42 months from today. We record this undertaking accordingly.
4All the authorities, as has been stated in our order dated 29.09.2016, will cooperate to see that this project, which has been hanging fire for three decades, will be completed on time.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;
April 12, 2017.
5
ITEM NO.302 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. 4 & 5/2017 in Civil Appeal No(s). 9878/2016
M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD.AND ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(for directions and office report) Date : 12/04/2017 These applications were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv.
Mr. Yadunath Chaudhary, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv.
Ms. Anshu Vachher, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. P. N. Puri, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajendra Anbhule, Adv.
Mr. Dhiraj, Adv.
Mr. M. L. Varma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv.
Ms. Sarika Soam, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv.
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Ms. Neelu Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sumip Saddi, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar, Adv. Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.
Ms. Deepa Kulkarni, Adv.
6Mr. Anish R. Shah, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The interlocutory applications are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file)