Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

KVM WPL 22398 OF 2022.doc The Municipal Corporation thereafter rendered hearing to the petitioners through an advocate on 10th March, 2022. On 10th March, 2022, the petitioners through its architect made an application to the Municipal Corporation for retention of the structures that were categorized by the Corporation to be unauthorized under section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the said MRTP Act) without prejudice to its rights and contentions for retention of the portion of the said premises which were alleged to have been in contravention of the sanctioned plan by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that they submitted various documents in support of the said application.

17. The petitioner no.1 filed a fresh application (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd application) on 11th July, 2022 for retention of the unauthorized construction. It is the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition that the architect of the petitioner no.1 thereafter followed up with the respondents who informed the said architect that on account of the order dated 23rd June, 2022 having been passed by this Court dismissing Writ Petition (L) No.19398 of 2022, the Municipal Corporation will require an order/directions from this Court to consider the fresh application.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS :

35. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made. We shall first decide the issue of whether the said second application dated 11th July, 2022 filed by the petitioners through their architect for retention under section 44 of the MRTP Act is maintainable or not.

36. It is not in dispute that the application made by the petitioners for retention under section 44 on 10th March, 2022 came to be rejected by the Municipal Corporation on 3rd June, 2022 after recording various reasons. The writ petition filed by the petitioners bearing (L) No. 19398 of 2022 impugning the said letter of rejection of the application for retention came to be dismissed by this Court by a judgment dated 23rd June, 2022. The petitioners admittedly did not challenge the said judgment dated 23rd June, 2022 before the Supreme Court though had obtained stay of the operation of the order dated 23rd June, 2022 for a period of six weeks. The petitioner no.1 through its architect made an application dated 11th July, 2022 (second application) for retention.

51. This Court in the said order dated 23 rd June, 2022 held that the Municipal Corporation had already passed order holding the status of the portion of the structure as unauthorized under Section 351(1A) of the MMC Act. This Court has rendered a finding that there was large scale unauthorized alterations carried out by the Petitioners after getting the plan sanctioned on the plot admeasuring 1187.84 sq. mtrs. As per occupation certificate, plot area was 2209 sq. mtrs and 2814.81 sq.mtr. was already consumed in terms of DC Regulations. The architect has now claimed FSI as per DC Regulations. The architect is not allowed to claim FSI on the basis of DCR on the entire plot. This Court has upheld the reasons recorded by the Municipal Corporation in the order rejecting the first application for retention that it was not possible to regularize the portion which was the subject matter of the application for retention under any provisions of law.