Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. Mr. Purohit and Mr. Khandeparkar have both persuaded me to consider the orders dated 02.12.2010, 04.12.2015, 12.06.2018, 15.06.2018, and order dated 22.02.2024 passed by this Court. On behalf of contesting Respondents, reliance is placed on order dated 02.12.2010 in Suit No.134 of 2009 appended at page 298 wherein paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said order are relevant. They are reproduced below for immediate reference:-

"8] Original defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 so also other defendants are duly served. Barring the above affidavits and that of the MMRDA, there are no affidavits filed in reply to this notice of motion. The MMRDA in the affidavit in reply has clarified that it is a special planning authority for the area and as per the sanctioned plan the suit property was acquired and on 21st April 1995 an agreement of lease was executed in favour of defendant No.1. Ms.Bhagalia on instructions states that in pursuance of the scheme implemented under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, the property in question is a final plot which is allotted to the owner as per the sanctioned scheme. However, the owner came forward to execute the a lease deed as a lessee of MMRDA and that is how the MMRDA 14 of 32 AO.550.2025 with Group.doc executed lease deed. It also granted certain permissions and approvals. However, it noted that the construction work proceeded up to plinth level. Thereafter a check and inspection was undertaken at which it was found that there were few changes made. The MMRDA in para 6 and 8 of this affidavit has stated as under:-
"7. Meanwhile, Mr.Nilesh Tanna, Proprietor of the M/s.Tanna Construction Company by letter addressed to the Hon.Chief Minister of Maharashtra stated that his company acquired development rights for the above mentioned project in July 2000. MMRDA by its letter dated 6/10/2005 requested Mr.Tanna to furnish a copy of the permission granted by MMRDA for such transfer and receipt of the payment made to this office towards the transfer fee payable to MMRDA for such transfer. No reply to this letter was received from Mr.Tanna."
"8. The plaintiffs claim that by virtue of the amounts alleged to have paid by the plaintiffs to the developer under the allotment letters, the plaintiffs have a charge on the property. I emphatically deny that any such charge can be claimed on the land belonging to MMRDA. The plaintiffs have no rights whatsoever over the land belonging to MMRDA. The plaintiffs have no privity of contract with MMRDA. MMRDA is entitled to re-enter the land and terminate the licence of the developer."

8. I am told that a survey has been in fact carried out by the Collector and City Survey Officer. This notes the existence of 18 of 32 AO.550.2025 with Group.doc the encroachments. The Receiver has subsequently filed a report saying that there are encroachments."

23. These orders narrate the history and trajectory of the land which was acquired in 1994 by MMRDA and how the same was to be subsequently dealt with under the orders of the court. This history is relevant as it is suppressed by the Appellants. It is seen that pursuant to detention orders a show cause noted 10.09.1999 was issued to affected persons proposing forfeiture of the entire suit land comprised in CTS Nos.444, 444/1, 444/2 and 445 of Village Oshiwara. In pursuance thereof the competent authority attached the entire property by order dated 22.03.2001. Prior to this action being taken one M/s Bhavsar Construction Private Limited (for short "Bhavsar Construction") had purchased the said property from its erstwhile owner Arihant Estate and Investment Private Limited by agreement dated 17.07.1993. The said Bhavsar Construction issued allotment letters after receiving consideration to various proposed Flat Purchasers. The development however did not fructify, hence the Flat Purchasers filed Civil Suit No. 134 of 2009 in this court. It is seen that on 02.12.1994 MMRDA acquired the suit property from Bhavsar Constructions and after completion of acquisition proceedings possession was taken. What is crucial is that ownership right in the said land since 1994 till date vests in MMRDA. However upon application by Bhavsar Constructions MMRDA executed lease dated 19 of 32 AO.550.2025 with Group.doc 21.01.1995 and granted license and permission to Bhavsar Construction for carrying out development and construction on the said land. Thereafter subsequent to the above, development rights after execution of multiple agreements and JV agreement the development contract was been awarded to M/s Royal Developers, the Intervenor before me. Thereafter on 10.09.1999 SAFEMA issued show-cause- notice to Bhavsar Construction and corresponding detention order was issued by SAFEMA authorities and the competent authority by order 23.02.2001 directed forfeiture of the said land. The order of forfeiture was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal unsuccessfully. Thereafter this Court taking into consideration all above facts and attachment of the land by SAFEMA by order dated 02.10.2012 passed in Suit No. 134 of 2009 appointed Court Receiver High Court Bombay a Receiver of the said entire property with a direction to take possession and carry out measurement and survey and put fencing and compound wall to avoid further encroachments. Court Receiver made Report No. 629 of 2015 before this Court (Coram: S.J. Kathawalla, J.) and on 04.12.2015 this Court directed Court Receiver to take necessary steps alongwith Corporation for removal of encroachments from the said land. In the meantime Suit No. 134 of 2009 was heard and in Notice of Motion No. 2381 of 2011 this Court passed order dated 12.06.2018. Paragraph Nos.8, 9, 11 to 13 of this order are once again directly relevant to the facts of the present case and are reproduced 20 of 32 AO.550.2025 with Group.doc below for immediate reference:-