National Green Tribunal
Gaurav Nevatia vs Madhuli Chs Ltd Through The Secretary on 1 February, 2024
Item No.5 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (With Hybrid Option)]
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2017 (WZ)
IN
MISC. APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2018 (WZ)
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.54 OF 2016 (WZ)
Gaurav V. Nevatia and Anr. .... Applicants
Versus
Madhuli Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.(Madhuli CHSL) ....Respondents
Date of hearing : 01.02.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : ----
Respondents : Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-4
Mr. Manoj Wad, Advocate for R-6
ORDER
1. None has appeared for the applicants.
2. From the side of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Madhuli Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Prakash Khubechandani, respectively, learned counsel Mr. R.B. Mahabal has appeared.
3. From the side of respondent No.4 - MCZMA, learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni has appeared.
4. From the side of respondent No.6 - MCGM, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Wad has appeared.
[NPJ] Page 1 of 2
5. We have seen the affidavit of respondent No.4 - MCZMA filed in compliance with our previous order dated 04.01.2024, wherein no specific opinion has been given as to whether ten unauthorized occupiers/owners, details of which are given in the said affidavit in paragraph No.10, had made any violation of CRZ Notification, 1991. Therefore, it would not be possible for us to decide this matter. Respondent No.4 - MCZMA has thrust their responsibility on the shoulder of the MCGM and have stated in its affidavit that based on the reply, which has been received from the MCGM, it cannot be confirmed whether the construction was made prior to year 1991 or not. Further it is mentioned in the said affidavit that as per the reply of MCGM received by the MCZMA, there is no evidence on record of any construction, addition/alterations done in violation of FSI after 1991/2002. Hence, conclusion cannot be arrived at with respect to violation of CRZ norms.
6. We failed to understand as to why clear stand is not being taken by respondent No.4 - MCZMA with respect to violations having been made by the above ten unauthorized occupiers/owners of the property in question. We want a conclusive statement to be made from the side of respondent No.4 - MCZMA in this regard within a week positively so that we can pass the final order in this matter. As prayed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4, we grant time to file additional affidavit till next date.
7. Put up this matter for next consideration on 07.02.2024.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM February 01, 2024 E.A. No.16/2017 (WZ) npj [NPJ] Page 2 of 2