Bombay High Court
M/S. Mayurpunkh Fine Builders vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 February, 2014
Author: Anoop V. Mohta
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
1 wp2782.13.sxw
CPM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2782 OF 2013
1. M/s. Mayurpunkh Fine Builders
Pvt.Ltd. Pan No.AAACM5643E
A Private Limited Company,
incorporated under the Companies
Act of 1956, having its office at 6th floor,
Sunshine Plaza Naigaon Cross Road,
Dadar (East), Mumbai-400 014
2. Mahendra Mavji Chheda
3. Atul Shamji Bharani
Both adults, of Mumbai,
Indian inhabitants, having office
at 6th floor, Sunshine Plaza
Naigaon Cross Road,
Dadar (East), Mumbai-400014
4. New Sangam Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd., a Co-operative Housing Society
bearing Registration No. BOM (W)/KW/
HSG/(TC)/9495/96-97 having its office
at New Versova Link Road,
Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400 053. ...Petitioners.
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
through the Government Pleader,
High Court, O.S. Bombay.
2. Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra,
Urban Development Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032
1/7
::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 :::
2 wp2782.13.sxw
3. Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
constituted under the provisions
of Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 197,
having its office at Grih Nirman Bhavan,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051.
4. Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
having his office at Grih Nirman
Bhavan, Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400 051.
5. The Member Secretary,
Maharashtra Coastal Zone
Management Authority, having
Office at Kalpataru Point, Near Sion
Circle, Sion (East), Mumbai-400 032.
6. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai a body Corporate
Constituted under the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
having its address at Mahapalika
Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, Opp.
C.S.T., Mumbai-400 001.
7. Union of India through Ministry of
Environment & Forests, Paryavaran
Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003 (through Ministry of
Law (Legal Department) Aaykar Bhavan,
2nd Floor, Maharshi Karve Road,
Marine Line, Mumbai- 400 020. ...Respondents.
Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Megha Martins and Mr. Ritesh
Javre i/by M/s Purnanand & Co. for the Petitioners.
2/7
::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 :::
3 wp2782.13.sxw
Ms Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Jagdish G. Reddy for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent No. 5.
Ms. Trupti Puranik for Respondent No.6.
Mr. Parag Vyas for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 25, 2014 ORAL JUDGEMENT: (PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) Rule, returnable forthwith.
Learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service.
Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. The Petitioners' (a developer under the SRA scheme) grievance is about non-granting them of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance on the property bearing CTS No.30(Part) and 31 (Part) of Village Juhu and CTS No. 195(Part) of Revenue Village Andheri at Andheri (West), though their Application/Representation is pending before Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since long.
3. After hearing both the parties and after considering the judgments so cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the defence of the Respondent authorities is that NCZMA is in process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for Mumbai region and 3/7 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 ::: 4 wp2782.13.sxw Raigad District. This Court has decided the issue in following words:
"8. The respondents have not disputed the correctness of the aforesaid map. Only defence of the respondents is the defence which was raised in Writ Petition No.647 of 2012 (Rustomjee Realty Private Limited and another vs. Union of India and others decided on 25 March 2013) and Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013 (Om Prakash & Company and another Vs. Union of India and others decided on 17th June 2013). The defence of the respondent authorities was that NCZMA is in the process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Mumbai region and Raigad district and, therefore, till such plan is prepared and finalized, the MCZMA and NCZMA should not issue any coastal clearance. After considering such defence, in our order dated 17 June 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013, we have held as under:
"16. It appears that the NCZMA is in the process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Mumbai region and Raigad district. The question is whether the respondent-authorities should be permitted to stop the petitioner-developer from proceeding with the construction as per the approved Municipal plans on the ground that the new Coastal Zone Management Plan is not yet prepared, published and implemented.
17. It is clear that the petitioner's case is not borderline case, with uncertainties whether the land would fall in CRZ area in the new Coastal Zone Management Plan. The present case is a clear case that while measuring CRZ area, instead of taking the creek as the tidal body, sea was erroneously taken as the tidal body. The MCZMA's view in favour of the petitioner is based on the survey conducted by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) Goa, and Center for Earth Science and Studies (CESS) Trivendrum, both expert agencies recognized by NCZMA. "The doubt about dusk is not the doubt about noon"(Salmond on Jurisprudence).
18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, 4/7 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 :::
5 wp2782.13.sxw when the MCZMA has already found that the land in question does not fall within the distance indicated in the CRZ Notifications dated 9 February, 1991 and 6 January 2011 and NCZMA is not in a position to dispute this finding, the society with 480 members which has already demolished its old tenements, cannot be asked to wait for one more year, merely because NCZMA and MCZMA are going to revise Coastal Zone Management Plan in accordance with the self same CRZ Notifications.
19. Accordingly, we allow the petition and the Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai is directed to consider the petitioner's application for FSI as is permissible under the Development Control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the land in question falls out side the CRZ area."
9. The learned Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to dispute that the present case is covered by the aforesaid order.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the defence raised by the respondents is the same which was raised in Writ Petition No. 647 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013. Following our decision in the aforesaid writ Petitions, we allow this Writ Petition and direct Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider the petitioner's application for FSI as is permissible under the Development control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the petitioners' land in question falls outside the CRZ area."
4. This Court in other similarly placed matters on same issue/objection after hearing the parties directed the concerned Respondents to consider the similarly placed Petitioners' representation.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not 5/7 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 ::: 6 wp2782.13.sxw in a position to dispute and or deny the position of law declared by this Court.
6. There is no denial also with regard to the similarity of facts and the issue involved in the present matter. There is no dispute with regard to CTS No. 195 which was in consideration in earlier judgments, except the CTS numbers in question.
7. We have seen the map which is annexed at page 81. There is no denial to the affect that the map is prepared by the authorized and recognized Agency viz., Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai-600 025. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the map.
8. In defence, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed Reply and are not in a position to deny the findings/judgment/decision given by this Court as referred to above. The only submission is that they will consider the case of the Petitioners in accordance with law laid down by this Court and as per the prescribed policy of SRA.
9. Therefore, taking an over all view of the matter and in view of the decision given by this Court, we are inclined to observe that the Petitioners have made out a case for grant of relief on similar line/direction as passed by 6/7 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 ::: 7 wp2782.13.sxw this Court in various judgments so recorded above.
10. Therefore, we allow this Writ Petition and direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the Petitioners' Application for FSI in respect of property bearing CTS Nos. 30 (Part), 31(Part), Juhu, and CTS No. 195 (Part) of Revenue Village Andheri at Andheri (West) as is permissible under the Development Control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the petitioners' land in question to the extent as indicated in map falls out the CRZ area.
11. The Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) 7/7 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:51:29 :::