Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25 The learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation / defendants submitted that though the IOD was prepared by the Corporation in respect of building no.4 for stilt + 21 floors, it was specifcally stated that same be treated as draft IOD. Apart from that, plaintiffs failed and neglected to pay usual charges for issuing said IOD. Therefore, there is no question of regularization of work carried out by the plaintiffs without payment of those fa165-15with849-19 charges. Not only that, the Corporation from time to time issued notices to the plaintiffs to remove the unauthorised construction as well as stop the further work. He submits that Corporation issued notice under section 354A of the said Act dated 7.2.1998 Exhibit 17 calling upon the plaintiffs to stop the further work of building no.4. He further submits that thereafter the Corporation issued notice under section 53(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 in respect of building no.4 calling upon the plaintiffs to demolish the unauthorised construction immediately, failing which Corporation will take appropriate action against them. He submits that inspite of all these facts, the plaintiffs failed and neglected to demolish the unauthorised construction.

26 The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants submits that though the Corporation issued letter dated 24.8.1998 (Exhibit 18) stating that amended plan submitted by the plaintiffs in respect of proposed building no.4 on the plot bearing CTS No.261 village Dahisar were approved, however, same were not issued for non-payment of requisite fees for which the demand notice was issued to the plaintiffs. He submits that plaintiffs has taken this letter as approval of the construction of the building no.4 in other way. He submits that actually, the said IOD was draft for approval. Therefore, there is no question of plaintiffs to carry out the construction of building no.4 without obtaining IOD in respect of the said building. Hence, the said construction is unauthorised and same is required to be demolished.

47 It is to be noted that the Corporation witness DW1/1 Pankaj Prabhudas Bansod, Sub Engineer MMC in cross-examination specifcally admitted that IOD was given in respect of building no.4 in the year 1992. Commencement certifcate in respect of building no.4 was issued only after fulfllment of all the conditions of IOD. He further admitted in his cross-examination that when the demand notice for IOD charges was issued to the plaintiffs, there was no remark of CRZ in their offce documents in respect of building no.4 i.e. stilt plus 21 floors. Paragraph 3, 4 and 5 of his cross-examination reads thus:

50 It is to be noted that in the present proceeding, plaintiffs submitted layout for issuance of sanction and IOD on 7.8.89. That time, the said area was not affected by CRZ. Not only that, plaintiffs started construction of the said project, when same was not declared as CRZ. Even when the IOD was granted by the Corporation, plans were approved by the Corporation for building no.4 on 18.6.1997, at that time, also the said area was not shown in Coastal Zone Management Plan for Maharashtra and even the same was not declared as CRZ. Not only that, Corporation also prepared IOD in respect of building no.4 but the same was not issued for want of charges. This clearly shows that on the date of construction of the said building no.4, area was not affected by CRZ.