Bombay High Court
Sai Corporation Prop. Bharat P. Desai vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Government ... on 14 June, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
24 Cp-398-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 398 OF 2021
Sai Corporation. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Ms. Sonal Awasthi and Mr. Ronish Mehta i/b Vinod Mistry &
Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shweta Yadav, Mr. Akash Sonawale and Mr.
Pranali Singh i/b SAVJ Law Solutions for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5.
Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for the Respondent-State (the Respondent No. 1 and 2.)
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : June 14, 2024. P. C. : 1. Heard.
2. By this petition, contempt is alleged of the order dated 18 th August 2017, 10th September 2018 read with the clarificatory order dated 1st April 2019 by the Respondent No. 3, and the Respondent Nos. 5 to 10.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has taken this Court through the orders of which contempt is alleged. He submits that although by order dated 18th August 2017 interim relief was Patil-SR 1 of 6 24 Cp-398-2021.doc granted in terms of prayer clause (e) restraining the Respondents from acting in pursuance of the order dated 10th January 2017, i.e., the order of deemed conveyance, subsequent thereto on 28th June 2018, the Respondent No.5 as a secretary of the Respondent No.3 had filed an application before the City Survey Officer for the purpose of mutating the record of rights in terms of the deemed conveyance certificate. He would further point to the statement dated 19 th May 2018 and would submit that false information was submitted by the Respondent No.3 that there is no litigation pending in respect of the suit property as well as there is no order of stay granted by any Court. He submits that the said statement was re-iterated in the applications filed for entering the names in the record of rights before the City Survey Officer. He would further submit that by order of 18 th August 2017, this Court had directed the Respondent No.3 not to obstruct or create any hindrance in the on going construction work of the Petitioner on the balance open plot of land which is in possession of the Petitioner.
4. He submits that subsequent thereto, by order dated 10 th September 2018, pursuant to a civil application filed by the Petitioners, order of status quo was granted which was thereafter clarified that the status was only vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 3 Patil-SR 2 of 6 24 Cp-398-2021.doc therein i.e., the society and not qua the Petitioner. He submits that despite thereof, boards have been erected in the property on 25 th February 2021 referring to the ownership of Respondent No.3-society and cautioning the general public from entering into sale transaction with any person. He would submit that before planning authorities, complaints were filed by the Respondent society as against the development permission granted. He submits that the clear case of contempt is, thus, made out.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to 10 would submit that as far as the order not to obstruct or create any hindrance in the on going construction work of the Petitioner is concerned, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to 10 have not created any obstruction in the on-going construction work of Petitioner. He submits that, in fact, the writ petition itself was not maintainable and as such the regular efforts were being made for hearing of the main writ petition.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. By order dated 18th August 2017, this Court had granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) which stayed the operation, implementation and effect of the order of deemed conveyance dated Patil-SR 3 of 6 24 Cp-398-2021.doc 10th January 2017 and restrained the Respondents from taking any action pursuant to or in continuation of the impugned order dated 10th January 2017. The order of the 10th July, 2017 is an order granting certificate to the Respondent No. 3 - Society to execute unilateral deemed conveyance. As the order was stayed, no further steps consequent thereto such as entering their names in the record of rights or registering the deemed conveyance could have been initiated by the Respondent No.3-Society through its members, i.e., the Respondent Nos.5 to 10. Despite thereof, on 28 th June 2018 an application was filed by the Respondent No. 6 in his capacity as the secretary of Respondent No. 3-society before the City Survey Officer acting in pursuance of order of deemed conveyance and seeking mutations in the record of rights which was allowed by the order dated 31st July 2018. Despite the order staying grant of deemed conveyance passed by the Respondent No. 2 therein and specific order restraining the Respondent-Society and its members from taking any steps consequent to the order of grant of deemed conveyance, an application was made based on the deemed conveyance. Furthermore, false statements were made before the concerned authorities that there is no litigation pending in respect of the suit property and there is no stay order.
Patil-SR 4 of 6
24 Cp-398-2021.doc
8. The order dated 18th August 2017 further restrained
Respondent No.3-Society from obstructing or creating any hindrance in the on going construction work of the Petitioner on the balance open plot of land which is in possession of the Petitioner.
9. The photograph which is produced at page No.78 of petition would indicate that despite stay to deemed conveyance, the Respondent No.3-society has projected itself as owner of the said property and by cautioning the general public attempted to ensure that construction does not progress smoothly. Furthermore, the complaint (which is at page 126) made by the Respondent No.3 Society to the planning authority would prima facie constitute an hindrance in the ongoing construction work of the Petitioner. In event there was any FSI violation required to be brought to the notice of planning authority, considering the order dated 18 th August 2017, it was expected that an appropriate application would be made in the pending writ petition for modification of the said order pointing out to the Court the FSI violations which are required to be brought to the notice of planning authority. Despite the specific direction and restraining orders of this Court including the order of status quo, prima facie there is violation of the order dated 18 th August 2017, 10th September 2018 read with order dated 1st April 2019.
Patil-SR 5 of 6
24 Cp-398-2021.doc
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to 10 have not made any submission as regards the steps taken for mutating the record of rights by relying upon the deemed conveyance despite interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (e) and would only insist that the writ petition be heard.
11. Prima facie case of contempt is made out. Issue notice to the Respondent Nos.3 and 5 to 10, under Rule 9(2) of Chapter-XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, returnable on 12 th July 2024.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 6 of 6
Signed by: Sachin R. Patil
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/06/2024 15:02:51