Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: kurar pattern in Mujibur Rehman Chaudhary vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 3 March, 2023Matching Fragments
Unauthorized vertical extension by using brick masonry wall, M.S. angle, Ladl coba and A.C. sheet & G. I. Sheet roof ad-measuring as shown in sketch without permission of competent authority situated at Shop no.36, Food Sagar Family Restaurant, MG Link Road; Opp. Runwal Green Complex, Mulund West, Maharashtra 400080, India."
5. Although the Section 351 notice was dated 31 December, 2019, it was actually issued on 20 October, 2020 and was received by the appellant on 21 October, 2020. Such notice was replied by the appellant by his advocate's letter dated 22 October, 2020, inter alia contending that the objected structure namely the mezzanine/first floor was already in existence. It was stated that the structure of the appellant was partly affected by road widening, hence, the appellant's structure under the policy of the MCGM was eligible for a vertical extension, as part of the appellant's area was taken away in road widening. It was stated that as the benefit of the road widening was not provided to the appellant, for the area which had gone in the road widening, the mezzanine floor which according to the appellant was already in existence, was required to be given benefits as per the policy of the MCGM known as the "Kurar pattern". The reply further stated that the MCGM had issued the Section 351 notice malafide and without inspection of the premises. It was further stated that the appellant's father during his lifetime had acquired the land and the premises in regard pvr/vidya 3 of 38 Rane -901-AO-st-2662-2023.doc to the notice structure, from its previous owner, pursuant to an agreement for sale of July 1998, entered with the previous owner. It was contended that the objected structure of the appellant also had a NOC from the Fire Department of the MCGM, hence the structure was legal. It was also stated that the appellant was thus in settled possession, use and occupation of the premises conducting a hotel business, under valid license namely a Food and Drug license, Fire NOC, trade license etc, which according to the appellant supported the case of the appellant, that the objected structure was authorized. It was further stated that in any event, the property on which the structure was located, was declared as a "slum area", in pursuance thereto the structure was eligible for the purpose for issuance of a "patch holders card" (eligibility for an alternate accommodation in case of redevelopment of the slum), and in regard to which, documents were submitted by the appellant to the Tehsildar. It was therefore contended that MCGM was not the competent authority to issue such notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act.
17. Mr. Kanade has submitted that even otherwise, part of the appellant's structure had gone into road widening and hence by getting the benefit of the Municipal Corporation's policy, namely of the "Kurar Pattern", the appellant had become entitled to a vertical extension to the structure, hence such extension is being illegally objected by the MCGM.
18. Mr. Kanade has next submitted that the impugned notice under section 351 of M.M.C. Act also needs to fail, inasmuch as, the premises being objected by the MCGM, were existing premises, which was clear from the contents of the photo-pass issued in favour of the appellant. The submission is that once the construction was not a fresh construction and was an existing construction, the MCGM could not have issued such a notice, as the structure was protected under the State policy to protect the slum structures including under MCGM's Circular dated 20 March, 2017, implementing the Kurar Pattern, whereby the photo-pass issued by the competent authority was required to be accepted as conclusive proof of legality of the structure. Mr. Kanade would submit that the eligibility criteria and the documents necessary in that regard as contemplated in the Circular dated 20 March, 2017, recognizes the photo-pass issued by the competent authority and other relevant documents like ration card, pvr/vidya 15 of 38 Rane -901-AO-st-2662-2023.doc electricity bill being the documents recognizing the structure existing prior to 1 January, 2000. Mr. Kanade would accordingly submit that the appellant had made out prima facie case for grant of ad-interim injunction.
27. In support of the appellant's case praying for a temporary injunction, Mr.Kanade's submission to the effect that the 'Kurar Pattern' would assist the appellant to categorize the vertical extension as objected by the Section 351 notice of the MCGM, cannot be accepted. The Kurar Pattern is pvr/vidya 23 of 38 Rane -901-AO-st-2662-2023.doc accepted by the MCGM in its Circular dated 20 March 2017, which provides policy guidelines for removal of bottleneck/missing link of the DP Road, TP Roads and RL. Paragraph 7 of the said policy provides for finalization of eligibility in which the eligibility criteria has been provided as under:-
38. It would thus be required to be held that on a mere issuance of a photo-pass, the appellant would not be entitled to a protection to the illegal vertical extension as undertaken to the slum structure in question.
39. Insofar as the question in regard to applicability of the Kurar Pattern and the protection as claimed by the respondent relying on the same is concerned, in my opinion, the appellant ipso facto cannot claim protection under the Kurar Pattern, as no permission whatsoever was obtained by the appellant to put up a vertical extension, even assuming that certain portion of the appellant's land was taken away in the road widening as the provisions of the policy of the MCGM itself would mandate as noted above. It would be an absurdity to read the said policy as the appellant desires.