Bombay High Court
Girnar Residency Co-Operative Housing ... vs Shradha Co-Operative Housing Society ... on 18 June, 2019
Author: A.K. Menon
Bench: A.K. Menon
NMS-1129-16.doc
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1129 OF 2016
IN
SUIT NO.334 OF 2016
Girnar Residency Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. (Proposed) & Ors. .... Applicants
In the matter between
Girnar Residency Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. (Proposed) & Ors. .... Plaintiffs
V/s.
Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Kalachowki, Mumbai and Ors. .... Defendants
Mr. J.P. Sen, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rohan Cama, Ms. Shweta Sangtani, Ms.
Nita Solanki, Mr. Ish Jain and Mr. Kiran Jain, I/by M/s. Kiran Jain and
Company, for the Applicants-Original Plaintiffs.
Mr. Mayuresh Khandeparkar, I/by Mr. Jayesh Bhat, for Defendant No.1.
Mr. Vishal Kanade, with Ms. Kausar Banatwala and Ms. Gauri Sakhardande,
I/by Mr. Tushar Garodia, for Defendant Nos.2 to 4.
Mr. R.Y. Shirsikar, with Mr. Dadasaheb Shingade, for Defendant Nos.6 and 7.
CORAM : A.K. MENON, J.
RESERVED ON : 23 RD APRIL 2019.
PRONOUNCED ON : 18 TH JUNE 2019.
1/38
::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
P.C. :
1. By this notice of motion, the plaintiffs seek an order restraining the defendants from taking any steps to demolish / remove a wall said to be made of brick masonry and iron grills, which seeks to divide plots of land bearing C.S. No.125 (Part) and C.S. No.2/124 (Part), located between two buildings; one occupied by the persons rehabilitated under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and the other occupied by the purchasers of free sale units, situate at Kalachowki, Mumbai.
2. A brief description of the parties will be necessary to appreciate the scope of the present application.
The 1st plaintiff is a proposed co-operative housing society, namely, "GIRNAR". Plaintiff Nos.2 to 16 are the occupants of various flats in the said building, who seeks to represent the 1st plaintiff and in the interests of all flat owners. Defendant No.1 is a co-operative housing society, namely, "SHRADHA", duly registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960. Defendant No.2 is a partnership firm and the developer of the suit property. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the partners of defendant No.2. Defendant No.5 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Defendant No.6 is the Chief Fire Officer, Fire Brigade and defendant No.7 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 2/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
3. The suit seeks a declaration that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no legally enforceable right in respect of the plot bearing C.S. No.125, admeasuring 6962.92 sq.mtrs. in Parel-Sewree Division or to undertake any work thereat and for a direction against defendant Nos.1 to 5 to implement certain notifications and circulars pertaining to compliance with sub-division of the plot(s) and for allied reliefs seeking to restrain the defendants, as aforesaid. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 16 are said to be the committee members of the proposed society ("Girnar") and have filed the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the owners of 94 flats comprising of two wings, namely, "A" and "B", of the free sale flats, Plaintiffs claim that the suit wall has existed right from the inception of construction and that the defendants must be restrained from raising any objections to retention of the suit wall. While the notice of motion has been pending for final disposal, in the meanwhile, several ad-interim orders have been passed and various directions have been given, to which I will shortly advert to.
4. By way of basic historical facts, I may note that on the plot of land, upon which the two buildings have been constructed, a chawl was existing, which was acquired by the State of Maharashtra and later it was subjected to a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "DCR"). The defendant No.1- Society entrusted the matter of developing the property to one Arihant 3/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc Constructions, of which defendant No.3 was a partner at the relevant time. The proposal for redevelopment was submitted in April, 1994 and Plans were sanctioned in February, 1996. Thereafter, in June, 1997, a No Objection Certificate was obtained from defendant No.6-the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) in relation to the compliance with fire fighting and fire protection requirements. Given the fact that Girnar was to be a high rise building, of which 'A' wing has Ground + 7 Floors and the 'B' wing has Ground + 18 floors, it was submitted by Mr. Sen appearing for the plaintiffs that some construction had been carried out by M/s. Arihant Constructions.
5. The defendant No.1 terminated the Development Agreement with M/s. Arihant Constructions on or about 12 th July 1999. Mr. Sen submitted that the suit wall was in existence since the year 1999. Mr. Sen further submitted that the wall constructed initially by defendant No.2 to the height of 3 to 4 feet was a brick masonry wall, upon which the iron grills were fixed up to the height of 9 ft., the intention being to separate the rehabilitation building from the free sale building. According to Mr. Sen, the suit wall was put up before completion of both the rehabilitation and free sale buildings (hereinafter called as "Shradha" and "Girnar" respectively). It is submitted that on 22nd July 1999, defendant No.1-Society granted development rights to defendant No.2 to undertake construction of Shradha on plot bearing C.S. No.125 for rehabilitating the occupants. The defendant No.1 is also stated to have 4/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the said Developer. Mr. Sen submitted that Clauses 16, 22 and 23 of the Development Agreement were important inasmuch as Clause 16 provides for fixing of responsibility upon defendant No.2 to complete the compound wall; Clause 22 provides for subdivision of plots; and Clause 23 deals with the Power of Attorney to ensure smooth development. Apropos the Power of Attorney, it is submitted that Clauses 10, 12, 21, 25, 27 and 28 were material, as this would empower the said defendant to subdivide the plot, submit layout plans, make ULC applications, sell flats on ownership basis, form a registered co-operative society of flat owners and finally obtain a separate lease for the society of the flat owners to the extent the plaintiffs were entitled to.
6. Between the years 1999 and 2000, defendant No.2 is said to have attempted to sell the flats in Girnar. However, since the building did not have a proper entrance from the main road, a strip of land admeasuring 333 sq.mtrs. is believed to have been acquired in May, 2000. The flat purchasers meanwhile had entered into the Agreements for Sale, which, inter alia, provides for subdivision of plots on which Shradha and Girnar were constructed. Recital 12 of the said Agreement for Sale provides that defendant No.2 has obtained approval of layout plans for Shradha and Girnar. 'A' wing of Girnar was by then constructed and construction of 'B' wing was underway. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) vide letter dated 6th 5/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc August 1999 had agreed to grant the Occupation Certificate for 'A' wing and a sub-lease was to be obtained in respect of the land in favour of the plaintiffs. The purchasers were required to be joined in formation of the society of the said building. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have not complied with their obligations. Although the layout was approved on or about 14th December 2000, despite several representations, the defendants had not honoured various circulars, which pertain to compliance with statutory requirements, which defendant Nos.2 to 4 had failed to do. Mr. Sen submitted that the contention of the defendants that the wall required to be demolished was with the intention of redeveloping the property allegedly in collusion with defendant No.1-Society. Defendant No.6- CFO was ordered to issue a Completion Certificate and in August, 2002, the CFO had issued a No Objection Certificate observing that the parties have complied with the requirements of fire fighting system, after the property has been constructed. The construction of Girnar was completed in 2001-2002, but the society had not been registered till the year 2005. Mr. Sen contended that the 1st plaintiff-Society was registered on 29 th November 2005 and that a statement to that effect has been made in the affidavit-in-rejoinder of one Shreepal M. Jain dated 3rd December 2015. On 15th March 2009, the plaintiff No.1-society was ordered to be de-registered because apparently it was registered in the wrong ward. It is not in dispute that as on date, the plaintiff No.1-society is not registered. Later, sometime in June 2013, defendant Nos.1 6/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc to 4 are alleged to have attempted to pressurize the members of plaintiff No.1-Society to consent for redevelopment of plot bearing C.S. No.125, which resulted in complaints being filed against each other. The defendants then caused some damage to the suit wall in an attempt to demolish the wall, resulting in police complaints and cross-complaints. Correspondence was then exchanged during the year 2014 by the plaintiffs on one hand alleging trespass by the defendants and the defendants on the other denying the same. Suit No.225 of 2014 came to be filed by the plaintiffs, in which they were permitted to re-construct the damaged portion of the suit wall and the court had clarified that the wall shall not be demolished by any individual or authority, except by following due process of law and directed the parties to maintain the status-quo. The plaintiffs have since communicated this order of 20th February 2014 to various authorities and also suggested that defendant No.5-SRA should not interfere in the matter without jurisdiction.
7. Mr. Sen submitted that the plaintiffs had specifically asked defendant No.5-SRA not to entertain applications by the Developer without informing the plaintiffs, as a result the plaintiffs could not make appropriate representations. The defendant No.6-CFO had in his report observed that the suit wall was a fire risk and had recommended demolition of the wall. This report was prepared on the basis of the inspection of the premises, apparently without notice to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not make any 7/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc representations. The plaintiffs learnt of this only when they received a copy of the letter dated 25th June 2014 from defendant No.5-SRA to defendant No.2- Developer, directing them to demolish the suit wall, as provided under Section 10 of the Slum Act. Upon learning of the same, plaintiffs had, vide their Advocate's letter addressed to defendant No.6-CFO, objected to the contents of the report inter alia alleging that the SRA was hand-in-glove with the Developer. The report of the CFO was challenged in this court in Writ Petition No.1851 of 2014. An order of status-quo came to be passed on 2 nd July 2014. In the meantime, in a Suit No.225 of 2014 filed by the plaintiff, an order came to be passed holding that the possession of the plaintiffs was prima facie established. The suit wall was, therefore, protected and the said protection was subject to the result of Writ Petition No.1851 of 2014. The order of the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the notice of motion, dated 7th July 2014 observed that prima facie it was clear that the suit plot was meant as an access to be given to the plaintiffs through it and for all these years, the plaintiffs' cars had been allowed to be parked in the suit plot and that the possession of the plaintiffs to that extent could be established. That the plaintiffs being in settled possession of the suit plot for all these years, the court, in paragraph No.17 of its Judgment, held as follows :-
"17. ............ The plaintiffs being in settled possession of the suit plot for all these years to the knowledge of defendant No.2 and which possession was acquiesced in by the latter, the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rame 8/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu 1 stand duly satisfied. The plaintiffs have clearly made out a prima facie case for protection of their possession. The defendants cannot dispossess the plaintiffs, otherwise than by due process of law."
8. Furthermore, it was held that the suit wall has to be restored to its original position and that there was an action proposed by the SRA to demolish this wall, which was subject-matter of challenge in this court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1741 of 2014, wherein the order of status-quo had been granted. Thus, by that order, the plaintiffs' possession has been protected. The order dated 10th July 2014 of the Division Bench in the writ petition records that the status-quo in respect of the suit wall would operate against all the respondents, including the CFO, while granting liberty to the respondents to have the order vacated. Thereafter the said writ petition came to be withdrawn. At that stage, the Division Bench observed, having heard the parties only on the point of continuation of the ad-interim order and since it concerns the matter of safety and security of public that in an emergency such as fire, it would not be appropriate to continue the ad-interim order. It was continued then for a period of two weeks.
9. Suit No.225 of 2014 was then sought to be amended vide a Chamber Summons (Lodging) No.1154 of 2015. Subsequently, in the present suit, in Notice of Motion (Lodging) No.2664 of 2015, an order came to be passed on 1 (2004) 1 SCC 769 9/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc 30th September 2015, whereby the CFO was directed to remain present in the court. He was, accordingly, present on 7 th October 2015, on which date, the CFO submitted that it is not possible for the Fire Department vehicles to manoeuvre efficiently, if there is an emergency on either side of the wall. After having considered various drawings and photographs, the court observed that the position was not very clear and found it necessary to ascertain whether the continuance of the wall poses a safety risk to the residents on either side of the wall and that the Court Receiver was directed to ensure that M/s. Shetgiri & Associates, Architects on the panel of the Court Receiver, make a site visit on the following day and make a detailed and specific report as to the position on ground. The CFO was directed to indicate, in co-ordination with M/s. Shetgiri & Associates, the possible areas, if any, where emergency vehicles can manoeuvre in the event of such an eventuality. The Court Receiver, the Architect and the CFO were directed that, while at the site, they should not consider any representations made by either of the parties to the dispute, but may seek clarifications, if so required. The Court Receiver's representative was to take photographs by himself or through a professional photographer. The CFO also stated that the Fire Brigade's vehicles would be deployed at the site, so as to ensure that they could manoeuvre in the space available. This was permitted only after M/s. Shetgiri & Associates completed the survey. The matter was then adjourned.
10/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
10. Subsequently, an order came to be passed on 20 th October 2015, which records that the officials from the Fire Department were present during the visit made by the CFO. Different vehicles were moved around in the open spaces to assess the space available. The report suggests that the access to the premises on either side of the wall was possible but on the plaintiffs' side of the wall, the space was sufficient to accommodate a larger vehicle as well. The report indicated that on the 1 st defendant's side of the wall, there were obstructions such as debris, hanging wires and galvanized iron covers, which would not accommodate the load of heavy vehicles. The CFO made certain recommendations to include removal of certain sit-out benches, existing debris and also creating a gap in the wall for access to both sides. The court was of the view that it would be considered at a later stage. It was observed that the 1st defendant-Shradha would be well advised to take appropriate steps, whether or not it was required to do so by any court or authority. The status-quo was then continued. The court was prima facie of the view that the wall had existed for some period of time and what has been sought is to prevent removal of the wall pursuant to the letter dated 25 th June 2014. In this manner, the notice of motion came to be placed for final hearing. On 11 th December 2015, this motion came to be listed before me, while both the parties mentioned the motion out of turn and submitted that there was a likelihood of the dispute being worked out. It was, accordingly, adjourned. The ad-interim order was then continued from time to time. 11/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
11. It is not in dispute that the plot bearing C.S. No.125 was originally a chawl in a slum; whereas plaintiff No.1 is the proposed society of the flat owners. Defendant No.1 is the registered co-operative housing society consisting of the members, who are the tenants rehabilitated from the chawl. The 1st plaintiff building "Girnar" is constructed as a result of the said scheme, which contemplated that after the construction was completed, the property upon which the building was constructed would be leased to the co-operative housing society and the plaintiffs had contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were required to execute lease of the said portion. The dispute in the earlier Suit No.225 of 2014 related to the adjoining plot bearing C.S. No.2/124 and, according to the plaintiffs, when Girnar was constructed, there was no proper access to the main road and defendant No.2 was unable to sell the flats in Girnar. As a result, the Developer approached the owners of the adjoining plot to purchase the same. It was agreed between the Developer and the purchasers of the flats in Girnar that access to Girnar would be through the main road to the adjoining plot, where Jain Temple would also be constructed. The suit plot was then acquired by defendant No.2-the Developer, who constructed an entrance for Girnar from the main road and through the adjoining plot. A gate and the watchman's cabins were also constructed and it was the plaintiffs, who have been in exclusive possession of the suit plot providing access and parking space for the flat owners. At that stage, the Developer contended that the suit plot had been acquired by 12/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc defendant No.2-Developer and that the Layout Plan did not reveal any wall. The existing wall was constructed without any authority and the suit plot was required to be transferred to the plaintiffs. The Developer had only to provide access to the plot, on which Girnar was constructed. Thereafter, it appears that the plaintiffs parked their cars on the adjoining plot, to which the Developer objected. According to the Developer, the 1 st plaintiff's members were allowed to use the plot to park their cars on a mutual understanding and that they would not claim any right and that they intend to develop that plot. Suit No.225 of 2014 was, therefore, filed only for the purpose of protecting the possession of the plaintiffs, who claimed that they were in lawful possession of the adjoining plot. Thus, the plaintiffs' rights were required to be considered before any order dispossessing them was passed. The settled possession of the plot or effective possession of the plot, it was held entitles the plaintiffs to protection against the true owner as well and that even a true owner has no right to dispossess a trespasser by force and except by following due process of law.
12. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. Sen submitted that the report filed by the Station Officer of the Fire Department to the CFO indicated that the gate of defendant No.1 was obstructed due to parking of vehicles and motor-cycles in front of the gate and that if these were removed, fire brigade engines could enter into the compound. Instructions were given to defendant No.1 for 13/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc removal of these obstructions. That the plaintiffs through their Advocate have lodged complaint on 18th February 2015, calling upon the authorities to remove the obstructions placed by the shops by way of otlas and patra shed and to remove the vehicles and motor-cycles. It is submitted that the report of the Station Officer, Fire Department, also found that gate of defendant No.1- Society was obstructed through parking of vehicles and motor-cycles. It is further submitted that the ad-interim protection granted initially had continued for so long and the plaintiffs were to alter the wall to make it compliant with the requirements of the Fire Department, which would facilitate access between the two sides occupied by the plaintiffs and defendant No.1.
13. Based on the report made by M/s. Shetgiri & Associates, it was submitted that the plaintiffs are willing to provide further access from their part of the compound and that defendant No.1 will be directed to remove all other obstructions in their part and such as those observed by the Commissioner, which included gunny bags, water pipelines, electric cables and structures raised above ground level, including bamboo poles and tin water tanks. Although the fire engine was allowed to enter, free movement was restricted even after entering the compound on account of electric wiring, cables hanging in the compound, benches constructed, even in the recreation garden area and large number of vehicles parked. Furthermore, 14/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc the movement of the fire engine was restricted by virtue of the large underground water tank, which was partially above the ground, Mr. Sen submitted that the defendant No.1-Society has permitted obstructions to remain and the contention that the wall being a fire risk cannot be believed. He submitted that once the obstructions listed by the Fire Department are removed, there will be no impediment in the free movement of fire brigade vehicles and, therefore, no occasion to blame the continued existence of the wall. He submitted that, under Circular dated 15 th October 1997 issued by the Urban Development Department, certain modifications were specified in the Annexure appended. In Clauses 1.1 to 6.26 of Appendix-IV of the Development Control Regulations No.33(10), which applies to Slum Rehabilitation Schemes and Clause 1.11 thereof provides for separate leases to be granted to be buildings constructed for rehabilitating the occupants in the SRA projects and the buildings constructed for free-sale purposes. It was further contended that Clause 3.17 made provision for subdividing the rehabilitation plot and free-sale plot. Furthermore, Clause 6.11 provides for maintaining front and marginal open spaces in respect of rehabilitation buildings, which are higher than 24 meters. He further submitted that Circular No.31 provides for relaxation of requirements of open spaces against payment of premium. Likewise, Circular No.27 provides for subdivision of the plots and finally Circular No.93, it is submitted, provides for regularization of the work carried out beyond any "Building Permission" or Commencement 15/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc Certificate is being levied as per Office Order dated 13 th October 2006. Mr. Sen has also relied upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (for short, "Slum Act"), as also the provisions of the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006, (for short, "Fire Prevention Act"). He has relied upon the provisions of Section 38 of the Slum Act and Sections 5 and 6 of the Fire Prevention Act. He further submitted that the said provisions of the Fire Prevention Act provides for the owner or occupier of the premises be given a notice for inspection, prior to inspection, while ascertaining the facilities and measures taken to meet fire safety requirements. According to Mr. Sen, both, the Slum Act as well as Fire Prevention Act contemplate notice to be given to the party in question and for a hearing to be granted before an order of demolition is passed.
14. In the instant case, it is submitted that, no such notice was issued or hearing was given prior to the letter dated 26 th June 2014 being issued, directing removal of the suit wall. Furthermore, defendant Nos.6 and 7, being the CFO and MCGM, had visited the suit property for inspection between 3 rd May 2014 and 17th July 2015 on several occasions, but one must follow the procedure contemplated under the said Act. The plaintiffs were given notice of such visit at only one occasion i.e. on 20 th April 2015. That even without such notice been given, the 1 st defendant's representative had accompanied 16/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc defendant No.6 on each occasion. He implied, therefore, that defendant No.6 is acting at the behest of the 1 st defendant-Society. Apropos the report prepared by defendant Nos.6 and 7, Mr. Sen submitted that the recommendations made in the report dated 3 rd May 2014, that the wall was required to be demolished since it is a fire risk, is baseless. It contained the recommendation that the Occupation Certificate/Building Completion Certificate for the building should not be issued till the removal of the said wall. He further submitted that vide letter dated 25 th June 2014, defendant No.5-SRA directed defendant No.2-Developer to demolish the suit wall, since it was contrary to the sanctioned plan and fire safety hazards. Once again no hearing was given to the plaintiffs, as contemplated under Section 38 of the Slum Act.
15. On 7th January 2015, the 6th defendant-CFO filed a report stating that the gate of the 1st defendant-society was obstructed by vehicles and debris and that if only the vehicles would be removed, the fire engine would be able to enter into the gate. Once again no notice was given to the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that, in the meanwhile, on 24 th March 2015, the 6th defendant-CFO filed a further report, upon the plaintiffs complaint, recommending that the Fire Department to carry out investigation of the shops that has been constructed on the suit plot. The CFO made a report on 24th March 2015. The report indicated that the gate has been obstructed by 17/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc the vehicles that have been parked and Otlas and other shops. The report did not mention obstruction by the suit wall. Thereafter, on 20 th April 2015, the CFO issued notice under Section 6 of the Fire Prevention Act to the plaintiffs on a complaint filed by defendant No.1-society, raising objections in relation to the obstructions caused by the occupants of shops in the said plot, upon which defendant No.1-Society building was constructed. Mr. Sen submitted that even in this notice, objections in relation to the wall were not made. Furthermore, he submitted that undated report was made by the CFO, pursuant to Suit No.225 of 2014, which records that the suit wall was in contravention of the permission granted under the No Objection Certificate dated 20th June 1997, because the suit wall reduces the open space between the buildings and, therefore, was required to be demolished. Mr. Sen made a grievance that no notice was given to the plaintiffs, nor were they heard before the report was filed. Subsequently, on 17 th July 2015, the CFO made a report recording that no further action was required to be taken in view of the fact that further suit and notice of motion were pending. In this manner, Mr. Sen sought to emphasize that procedures contemplated under the Slum Act and Fire Prevention Act had not been followed and despite the basic requirement of giving notice, no notice was given and the plaintiffs were not heard before the reports were finalized.
16. Mr. Sen has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Qari 18/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc Mohammed Zakir Hussain and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others2, in support of his contention that jurisdiction of the court is not barred. In conclusion, Mr. Sen submitted that the wall should not be demolished and should be allowed to be retained pending disposal of the suit.
17. On behalf of defendant No.1, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the present suit is an abuse of the process inasmuch as plaintiff Nos.2 to 16 have made a false claim to be entitled to Conveyance of the land, upon which Girnar is constructed. That defendant No.1-Society is the lessee of the entire plot, as evident from the Development Agreement, which is annexed as Exhibit-B to the plaint. There is no right vesting in the plaintiffs, therefore, to insist upon any Conveyance in their favour. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs had falsely contended that the Developer had agreed to lease the plot below the building Girnar consisting of 94 flats and 19 shops. Some of the commercial premises are also occupied by the members of defendant No.1 and only 15 plaintiffs are before this court contending that they are acting on behalf of all the occupants. The plaintiffs are now the members of the registered society and as such the 3 rd defendant is merely exercising rights under the Slum Act and in view thereof, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2 2002(2) Bom.C.R. 98 19/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc
18. Mr.Khandeparkar questioned the jurisdiction of this court in the light of the fact that the order for demolition was passed by the appropriate authority viz SRA and under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1974. Furthermore, the CFO and the MCGM are acting under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the CFO could not have been made a party by virtue of Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. That the plaintiffs have made incorrect representation to the court, as a result of which the writ petition, which had been filed in earlier point of time, was withdrawn. When the plaintiffs realized that the Division Bench was likely to reject the writ petition, an attempt was made to amend the earlier Suit bearing No.225 of 2014, but having found it impracticable, the amendment application was withdrawn. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of defendant No.1, it is stated that the 1 st defendant houses 314 premises; whereas Girnar consists of 94 flats. Numerous lives are, therefore, endangered due to illegal wall and at one instance the fire had taken place, when it was realized that fire engines could not move freely. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had not issued notice to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies prior to filing of the suit against the 1 st defendant-society.
20/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
19. It was submitted that the few flat purchasers could not insist on the continuation of the dividing wall. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that originally the plot was an open plot and the iron grill wall was put up only to safeguard the building materials that had been stored on the plot, when the construction was initially underway. However, later it was altered to include a brick masonry wall. No doubt, an order of status-quo has been passed by the court, but it is contended that the plaintiffs had assured this court that the illegal portion of the suit wall must be removed, but that has not been so removed. In the circumstances, a contempt petition has also been filed. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that a few purchasers in Girnar could not hold the defendants to ransom, as is sought to be done.
20. The Development Agreement as between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4 did not entitle the plaintiffs to claim to the plot of land. It is denied that plot bearing C.S. No.2/124 has been subdivided. It is further denied that the project has confined to plot bearing C.S. No.125. Furthermore, it is contended that plot bearing C.S. No.2/124 is not forming part of the project, as suggested. Mr. Khandeparkar highlighted the fact that the suit wall did not find place, as mentioned in the Sanctioned Plan. The wall could not be retained since it is clearly an illegal construction. The Completion Certificate of Girnar was held up only because of illegal and unauthorized alterations by plaintiffs and others, which has resulted in notices, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, being issued to them. 21/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
21. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and Ors. 3, it was contended that the court should not tolerate such unauthorized construction and the court should order its demolition even though considerable amounts have been spent in constructing the suit wall. That judicial discretion in moulding relief is not called for in such cases.
22. The allegation that the defendants had hired persons to demolish the suit wall has been denied. That baseless complaints have been made by the plaintiffs, which, correctly, have not been taken cognizance. That the issues of fire safety measures cannot be considered by this court, since these are the matters for the experts to handle. That the report of the Fire Officer is clear inasmuch as sufficient space for movement of fire department vehicles, including fire engines and fire fighting equipment, was not available at site. The fire safety norms require strict compliance and, therefore, it was meaningless to suggest that the wall was always in place and that could be simply replaced. He, therefore, submitted that the wall must be removed. Mr. Khandeparkar denied the allegations of collusion between defendant No.1- Society and defendant No.2-Developer. The removal of the wall, he submitted, has nothing to do with development of the plot, especially since the wall is not a part of the Sanctioned Plan and, therefore, it cannot be recognized in law. He submitted that there is no question of any subdivision and even assuming 3 (1999) 6 SCC 464 22/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc that it is so, the suit contains no prayer seeking subdivision of the land. Mr. Khandeparkar has submitted that the entire effort of the plaintiffs are to continue to hold on to the existing wall, which was set up in violation of the Development Control Regulations and the provisions of the Slum Act as well as the Fire Prevention Act. It is denied that defendant No.1 has acquiesced in the continued existence of the illegal wall from 1999. The plaintiffs are preventing demolition of the wall by this litigation. The allegation of defendant No.1 being guided through politically connected parties has also been denied. That the plaintiffs have filed suit owing to their superiority complex; that defendant No.1-Society was agreeable to admit the plaintiffs as members of the 1st defendant-Society and that they are not interested in doing so. It was further submitted that open space requirement has been mandated by the Supreme Court and the National Housing Department and that in the instant case, such provision has been made, but the suit wall prevents use of such open space. Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that the plaintiffs are welcome to join the 1st defendant-Society and the formation of the second society was never in contemplation. The allegations made against the CFO were also false and therefore it is submitted that the ad-interim order protecting the wall is required to be vacated. That the suit is not bonafide and the only property which is to be protected is the suit wall, which is sought to be valued at Rs.10 crores, only with a view to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of this court. He further submitted that the Architect M/s. Shetgiri and Associates appointed 23/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc by this court has incorrectly noted the presence of the Advocates for the parties, since neither Advocates were present. Furthermore, the Court Receiver was made to believe that the plaintiffs is a society, when they were not. That the plaintiffs parked their cars at the entrance of the Girnar building and the entire passage around the building is blocked. However, the cars were removed only to facilitate the Court Receiver's visit and create an impression that all was well in the Girnar side of the property. Reliance is placed on the photographs taken of the area around Girnar building, which clearly indicated that there was no space for the fire engines to move around near Girnar. The fire engines could not have been turned in the location even without any cars being parked in the compound. The Court Receiver's report has incorrectly conveyed the opinion that Girnar side of the property is better equipped for handling fire safety measures. In any event, Mr. Khandeparkar submitted that all the obstructions in the property of defendant No.1-Society have since been removed and there is no impediment whatsoever on the 1 st defendant-Society's plot.
23. At the instance of this court, M/s. Shetgiri & Associates have filed their report, pursuant to an order dated 7 th October 2015. The Court Receiver was the Commissioner appointed for that purpose. A report titled as "Technical Inspection Report" dated 15th October 2015 has since been filed by M/s. Shetgiri & Associates. It describes the plot, on the basis of the documents 24/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc provided, as plot bearing C.S. No.125 of Parel - Sewree Division. The plot is supposed to be surrounded by roads on two sides, with an access from the proposed Development Plan Road for plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, with an additional access / exit available to the 1 st plaintiff on the abutting G.D. Ambedkar Road on the other side. The compound wall, which is in existence between Girnar and Shradha Buildings, is said to be of 2'-6" in height with M.S. Grill fencing, which separates the two buildings and, therefore, provides for separate access. The Site Plan was prepared by the Architect and it has seen that the main entrance gate to the Girnar property is 6.22 meters wide and the entrance gate to Shradha is 4.51 meters wide. On the Shradha side of the plot, there is another building structure comprising of shops on the ground floor and residential tenements on the upper floors. There are sit-out benches near the second structure. As a result, the space between the corners of the two structures is only about 7.5 meters; whereas, wall-to-wall, the distance is about 7.61 meters. The distance between the second structure consisting of shop line and the suit wall is about 4.45 meters at one point and reducing to 4.35 meters at the extreme end of the structure. The Architect has taken physical measurements.
24. As far as Girnar is concerned, the space available at the entrance is about 6.75 meters from the dead wall of the structure and with respect to the compound wall, existing between the two societies. The space available from 25/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc the building line of the main building in respect of the compound wall admeasures 9 meters and increases to 10.50 meters and then reduces to 5.55 meters at the rear corner of the building. The Architect has reported that certain fire engines were brought into the complex, except for the large jumbo water tanks, could not be deployed because they weigh about 48 tonnes and which could not be brought into the Shradha compound owing to certain uncertainty as to whether the M.S. steel covers would bear the load of the vehicle. The other fire department vehicles were brought into Shradha side with some difficulty, due to the existence of the line of sit-out benches, but it still managed to reach the remote corner of the complex. On the Girnar side, it appears that only the hydraulic platform was maneuvered inside the complex and the vehicle could easily be brought upto the rear side of the complex, wherein there were some difficulties within the available space and as such, there was no difficulty in maneuvering the platform. It was further observed that in case of emergency situations, the fire fighting arrangement through the Hydraulic Platform or any other large size vehicle could be provided even for Shradha building and such vehicles could be moved into the Shradha building area, if some portion of the compound wall was removed and access is provided. In the course of submissions, Mr. Sen had submitted that plaintiffs have no objection to the access being provided. The Architect had made some broad suggestions, after having taken actual measurements and verified the facts on site, which are as follows :- 26/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc (1) The sit-out benches near Building B within Shradha Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. Are recommended to be removed to ensure adequate turning radius to the Fire Engine.
(2) The available debris and lying materials within the open spaces of the complex of Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. are recommended to be removed.
(3) Opening in the existing compound wall between Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Girnar Residency Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed) in consultation with the Fire Department. However, considering the available space between Buildings A and B of Shradha Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. to an extent of 7.61 mts., the opening could be limited to the extent in correlation with the available dimension. We feel that an opening of about 10.0 mts. would ideally suffice to the requirements of providing access in terms of easy maneuvering of all small and large sized fire vehicles within both the society complexes.
(4) In case of emergency situations, the fire fighting arrangement through the Hydraulic Platform or any other large sized vehicles are recommended to be provided for 27/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc buildings of Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. through the open spaces of Girnar Residency Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed).
(5) Considering the already existing minimum open spaces and maneuvering spaces available within Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., it is recommended that to meet the emergency situations, such spaces be kept free from any obstructions, parking or any other form of encroachments, if any, to address to the last minute emergency requirements.
25. It is in this background that I am called upon to decide this notice of motion. Needless to mention, the Architect has based his report on certain assumptions and limitations. To my mind, the existence of the wall by itself cannot be termed as a "fire risk". However, what is to be considered is, 'whether the existence of the wall will interfere with the discharge of emergency duties by the Fire Department in the event of an untoward incident of fire taking place?' It is this aspect that has to be taken into consideration while evaluating the merits of the case on one hand, as against the rights of the parties under the Development Agreement. Meanwhile on the issue of jurisdiction of this court, the defendant no.1 has already filed its written statement. The issue of jurisdiction has been taken up and it is open 28/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc for the defendants to take up and urge that issue may be decided first if so advised.
26. It is the case of the defendant No.1-Society that the purchasers of the flats in Girnar are bound to join the 1 st defendant-Society. That the plaintiffs' contention that they are entitled to form a separate society does not merit consideration. They have contended that the defendant No.1-Society is not concerned with the plot bearing C.S. No.2/124, which belongs to the 5 th defendant-SRA and there is no question of claiming exclusive possession of the property. The affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st defendant sets out that so called boundary wall is required to be removed in the event of any untoward incident, as the emergency services will not have a clear approach. The question that arises is, whether at all the emergency services were in any manner found themselves obstructed by the wall and considering various factual aspects, the report of the Architect - M/s. Shetgiri & Associates and the report of the Chief Fire Officer, all of these reports indicate that there are large number of obstacles in the compound of the 1 st defendant-Society. These are stated to be sit-out benches, the line of shops is constructed in a manner that hinders free movement of the fire tender. There are M.S. sheet covers in the compound, which apparently cannot bear the load of the fire tender or allied vehicles and equipment. The photographs revealed that there are large number of hanging wires across the compound and over the wall, 29/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc presumably transmission lines of cable/television etc. There is an underground water tank, which rises above the ground level, which again prevents access to the far end of the building occupied by defendant No.1- Society. I do not see how the removal of the wall will facilitate access to the far end of the building, since the portion of the water tank rising above the ground level itself is an impediment. Nothing has been shown to me that this was approved by the MCGM or the Fire Department. There is, of-course, the fact that an Occupation Certificate has been issued and if that be so, the MCGM does not appear to have felt that the water tank above the ground level is an impediment to fire fighting activities. At one stage, this wall enjoyed certain protection during the pendency of the writ petition and the said protection is continued in order to enable the parties to file appropriate proceedings, which is finally culminated in the present suit, in which again the protection to the wall has been continued. The main issue to be considered is whether there is no justification in retaining the wall, pending the decision of the suit? As we have seen, the prayers in the suit seek a declaration that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have no right in respect of plot bearing C.S. No.125, including any right to undertake development activity thereat and for a direction, inter alia, against defendant Nos.1 to 4 to implement circulars and notifications of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, which would entitle them to subdivide its portions and to convey the land beneath Girnar Tower to the plaintiffs and, in the meantime, to protect the dividing wall, which presently 30/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc exists. In my view, in order to consider whether the protection granted is to be continued, it would be necessary to examine whether the plaintiffs and/or the remaining residents of Girnar, whom they claim to represent, are entitled to form a separate society and whether they are entitled to subdivision of the plot and thereafter conveyance of the plot to a common body of flat purchasers. Exhibit-B to the plaint is a Development Agreement dated 22 nd July 1999 entered into between Shradha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and defendant No.2-the Firm of the Developer. The society is said to be the Lessee of the plot and it is this society which was desirous of developing the property under the SRA Scheme by utilizing the balance F.S.I. and entered into the Development Agreement with one M/s. Arihant Constructions, which later came to be terminated. The defendant No.2-Developer then intervened and offered to develop the property. It was then decided that the Developer would provide 267 flats admeasuring 225 sq.ft. carpet area to the members of the society, which is decided to contain 46 shops. In consideration of providing 313 units, namely, 267 residential premises and 46 shops, the Developer was permitted to utilize the balance F.S.I. permissible by the MCGM and construct multi-storeyed building and sell those units. Clause 22 of the Development Agreement provided that the Layout Plan shall be prepared by the Architect, after subdividing the existing plot into two plots by segregation with a divider road or a boundary wall such that one plot shall be for the existing residential members of the society and the other for the newly 31/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc incoming members. It would be useful to get the said clause reproduced in its entirety.
"22. In consideration of the Developer providing the society with 313 (residential 267 and shops - 46) tenements free of cost on ownership basis, the society shall permit the Developers to utilize all the additional balance FSI, as permitted by MCGB and is available today and also in future shall permit them to construct multi-storeyed buildings by consuming the said balance FSI according to the choice of the Developers and accordingly get the plans passed for, as mentioned. The layout of plans shall be prepared in such a manner and position by the Architects of the society after subdividing the existing plot any time or stage the presently into two plots, by a segregation with a divider road or boundary wall such that one plot shall for the existing residential members of the society and the other part for newly incoming members, who will become member at the society, who will be enrolled by the society on the advice of the Developers. On the layout plan annexed to this Agreement marked as Appendix E, the building to be constructed for the society is shown surrounded red colour and new members is shown is bounded with green colour." 32/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
27. Under Clause 24 of the said Agreement, defendant No.2 has exclusive right to sell the flats on ownership basis in the building to be constructed by them for the new members. Thus, it is clear that the new members are the purchasers of the building Girnar and the Developer alone has exclusive right to decide the rate at which the flats are to be sold. Under Clause 29 thereof, the Developer was to obtain the Occupation Certificate. It is, thus, evident that defendant Nos.1 and 2 themselves contemplate subdivision of the plot bearing C.S. No.125 and segregation of the two plots in the divider road or the boundary road such that one plot is for the members of defendant No.1- society and one for the new flat purchasers of Girnar. Prima facie, therefore, it is not something that was not in the contemplation of the parties. That there were attempts made to break the wall, which is evident from the photographs annexed to the plaint, and that is the reason that the plaintiffs moved this court. Considering the fact that there is a provision for subdivision in the Development Agreement itself, read with the various circulars issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, bearing Nos.18, 27 and 38A, which provide for creation of a separate identity for the flat purchasers, a prima facie case is made out.
28. The circular dated 15th October, 1997, issued by the Urban Development Department provides a provision for separate lease of building for rehabilitating existing occupants and the free-sale flats. The case of the 33/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc plaintiffs is not something that could not be contemplated. Considering the provisions of the Development Control Regulations applicable for redevelopment under Regulation No.33(10), after making provisions for the occupants of premises under a Slum Rehabilitation Project, it is evident that the land would have to be leased for Co-operative Housing Society for the slum-dwellers for 50 years and similarly for the land under the free-sale component to be leased directly to the society. The lease has to be executed within 60 days of the date of Building Permission under Clause 1.11 of the Development Control Regulations. Clause 3.17 contemplates subdivision of the plots. In Circular No.27 of the SRA, condition No.(j) provides for subdivision of the free-sale units, subject to compliance of the requirements. Under Circular No.38A of the SRA, in the event of deficiency in open spaces, provision has been made for deferment of payment of premium amount. In addition, Circular No.18 of the SRA also contains provisions for subdivision. Provision for subdivision, therefore, has been in contemplation of the authorities since long. Nothing has been shown to me as to why in the instant case subdivision cannot be resorted and in that view of the matter, I do not see how the present set of circumstances can justify demolition of the wall, without the parties being heard in the suit. The wall may retained for the present.
29. The facts in M.I. Builders (supra) were far more serious and cannot be 34/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc compared to the facts at hand. Considering that there is still no clarity whether or not the sub-division was being pursued and whether or not the provisions for sub-division are available in the instant case and, cannot be gone into in this notice of motion. The scope of this notice of motion is limited to the continuance of the wall pending further orders and all aspects are, therefore, kept open.
30. In view of the aforesaid, prima facie, it appears that the plaintiffs may be entitled to separate Conveyance / Lease in their favour in respect of the sub-divided property. If that be so and considering that the division of the wall was in contemplation at the material time, all that needs to be done is MCGM must ensure that all emergency services must be accessible to the occupants of both the buildings Shradha and Girnar. It is the duty of the MCGM to ensure that, apart from the wall, there is no other obstruction. The MCGM would be, therefore, responsible to ensure, in consultation with the Fire Department, that there are no obstructions.
31. The expression "fire risk" is in the present case is a misnomer inasmuch as the wall by itself cannot lead to a fire. However, in the event of a fire, the question that arises is, whether the wall would prevent access to the Shradha side or the Girnar side ? If it does interfere with access to both sides, as appears to be the case, a solution has been suggested by M/s Shetgiri. The MCGM has not objected to the suggestion. Furthermore, several reports of the 35/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc Fire Department, while finding flaws in the existing Layout and other structures and obstructions, have not observed that the wall has prevented the access. On the contrary, it is various other structures, cables and lack of fire safety at the time of construction that may prove to be the obstructions. If the opening in the wall is created, as suggested by the experts, the risk of emergency services not accessing Shradha and Girnar would be minimized and that is the exercise now to be undertaken to ensure that there is proper access. The scope of the present notice of motion is restricted to the wall. It will be open for the MCGM to call upon Shradha or Girnar to comply with the other aspects.
32. As far as the wall is concerned, the opening, as suggested or as may be suggested hereafter by M/s. Shetgiri & Associates, in consultation with the Fire Department, would resolve the immediate problem. The Fire Department shall, therefore, ensure that they render assistance to M/s. Shetgiri & Associates in arriving at a practical solution. In the circumstances, the following order is passed;
(i) The plaintiffs shall ensure that the 10 meter opening, contemplated by the report of M/s. Shetgiri & Associates is created at the location decided by M/s. Shetgiri & Associates in consultation with defendant no.6 from the point of view of access for the emergency services into 36/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 ::: NMS-1129-16.doc both plots, meaning thereby that fire engines should be able to cross over and operate from the Girnar side to the Shradha side and vice-a-versa.
(ii) M/s. Shetgiri & Associates shall prepare the drawings within a period of two weeks from today provide necessary suggestions and furnish the same to the defendant no.6 under advise to the Advocates for the parties to the suit. The defendant no.6 shall consider the suggestions within a period of two weeks of such drawings being circulated.
(iii) The costs for preparing of such drawings and all allied costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs alone. All costs of M/s. Shetgiri & Associates shall be paid within one week from today. The plaintiffs shall deposit with the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees five lakhs) for defraying initial costs for the time being. Further sums shall be provided to the Court Receiver in advance upon demand before the work commences. If funds are not provided as required by the Court Receiver, liberty to apply.
37/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::
NMS-1129-16.doc
(iv) After the MCGM approves the plan for the opening in the wall, the work shall be executed as soon as possible by the plaintiffs at their costs and in any event, not later than within four weeks of approval of the plan.
(v). Subject to the above the ad-interim order shall continue as the interim order pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit. In the meantime, all other obstructions on the Shradha side of the wall contributing to insufficient access to emergency services, it will be open to the authorities to seek compliance.
(vii). The notice of motion is disposed in the above terms.
(A.K. MENON, J.) 38/38 ::: Uploaded on - 21/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 04:48:28 :::