Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is the Plaintiffs case that though in September, 2009 the Plaintiffs had learnt that the then owners of Plot A had negotiated with Defendant No.2 of redevelopment of Plot A and that the Plaintiffs also learnt that owners for Plot No. A had entered into agreement dated 16th February, 2010 with Defendant No.2 for the said purpose, it was only around August, 2013 that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.14 observed that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had carried out the aforementioned construction of podium column touching the common perimeter between Plot A and B without leaving requisite open space as provided under Development Control Rules ("DCR"). The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.14 had appointed their architect to conduct a site inspection to assess the NMS-1450-2019.DOC situation and submit report. It was only upon receiving a report dated 18th November, 2013 from their chartered architect that the violations of DCR which the Defendant No.2 had committed was brought to the knowledge of the Municipal Commissioner on 24th November, 2013.

48. Mr. Kadam has submitted that in view of commercial considerations and the obligation to complete the development on subject plot A, the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 took a decision to revise the building plans to meet the Plaintiffs' allegations in the Plaint. Under the revised plans, open space was to be maintained of 1.5 meters in the North and West along with the common boundaries between subject plot A and plot B. For creating this open space, the existing portion for podium touching the west boundary line between the subject plot A and plot B was to be demolished. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were to retain the RG area of the proposed building within the subject plot's area, 6 meters of open space would be maintained on the South side of the subject plot A for ingress / egress of fire fighting tenders/vehicles. A fireman's lift would be installed which would open at requisite mid landing point at the staircase. The revised plans took care of the grievance of the Plaintiffs and hence, there was no subsisting basis for continuing the injunction granted under the ad-interim order.