Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The respondent no. 9 has filed the reply dated 15.9.2019, while respondent no.9.1 has filed reply dated 8.6.2021 as well as two replies, both dated 21.6.2021. In the reply of 15.9.2019, the objections have been raised, namely, about the maintainability of the captioned writ petition. None of the fundamental rights of the petitioner-society have been violated; the petitioner-society has not placed on record any resolution authorizing the society to file the captioned writ petition. In the reply, according to the respondent no. 9, the premises is being used for commercial use and residential purpose after taking permission from the society itself. In para no. 9, it has been stated that the respondent is neither dissenting the redevelopment nor opposing the said project. Reservation is shown against the allotment of the common space of society, as the allotment is not being done equally amongst the members of the society and instead it has been done in an irrational way, giving the cause to respondent no. 9 to raise objection or to disagree with the allotment. It is urged that the petitioner-society has obtained charges and distributed several funds equally amongst the C/SCA/8530/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2022 members irrespective of plot sizes held by the members and therefore, the common space of the society must be allotted in equal portion and not as per size of the lands the members are holding currently. Reservation is also shown against the report of the Engineer dated 11.4.2019, it being vague inasmuch as it fails to disclose the exact amount of expenditure towards the redevelopment project.

10. Mr Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms Vishwa G Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner- society submitted that there are four objections raised by the respondent nos.4, 5, 8 and 9.1 (collectively, hereinafter would be referred to as "the private respondents"), namely, (i) lesser common area; (ii) no repairing work is done; (iii) structural report and; (iv) consent letter. It is submitted that so far as the consent letter is C/SCA/8530/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/06/2022 concerned, it has been taken from the owners and is notarized, as a specimen copy, one of which, is placed on record of the captioned writ petition. It is submitted that out of total 78 members, 74 members have duly signed the consent letter and has been notarized and all the members are the actual owners of the flats and possessing share certificates for the same. Moreover, the consent for redevelopment and MOU have also been of the members, who are the original owners of the flats. So far as reservation against the lesser common area is concerned, respondent no.9 had raised an objection vide letter dated 21.3.2019. So far as amenities of the society, namely, common plot, children play ground etc. are concerned, are always pro rata, which means that it is in the proportion to the area. It is also submitted that each member, initially, would have purchased the flat according to the size i.e. either 58 sq.yrds. or flat consisting of 94 sq.yrds. The concerned members would have paid according to the area, which has been purchased. It is also submitted that the builder is only redeveloping the society, considering the general development control regulations and is not buying the land of the society and therefore, the said objection of unfair distribution of the common area, does not arise. So far as the respondent nos.5, 6 and 8 are concerned, they possess the flats admeasuring 94 sq.yrds., while respondent nos.7 and 9 possess the flat admeasuring 58 sq. yrds.