Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It appears that M/s. Sandeep and Co., who are respondent No. 3 in the first writ petition, and respondent No. 6 in the second petition, purchased from the owners of the property an area approximately admeasuring 2125 sq. yards undera registered Conveyance dated 16th October, 1978. They bought the portion which included the theatre. Prior to the said Conveyance, the former owners of the said property viz. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had applied to the Superintendent of Land Records for sub-division of this plot. By an order dated 25th May, 1978, the subdivision was sanctioned, subject to a proper conveyance in favour of the present purchasers. After purchase, M/s. Sandeep and Co. have demolished and removed the theatre as also an adjoining chawl and a room and in its place after obtaining the necessary sanction from the Municipal authorities, they have construed a Shopping Centre. It appears that as on the date of filing of these petitions, the Shopping Centre had not yet come into existence. It was under construction. The construction has now been completed. But I am told that all the occupants of the Shopping Centre have been informed of this litigation and suitable undertakings have been taken from those persons to the effect that they would be bound by the result of these petitions.

9. However, let me deal with the main contentions of the petitioners and point out as to those contentions are not tenable at all. It has been argued by Mr. Tunara for the petitioners in the first petition and Mr. Dalai in the second petition, that no sub-division of any plot is possible within the City of Bombay without the consent of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the Planning Authority. Their contention is that in the present case, the sub-division was sanctioned by the Revenue authorities and not by the Municipal Authorities. Mr. Dalal, in particular, pointed out that when any plot is to be sub-divided into two plots or more, the Planning Authority will take into-account the Development Control Rules and the requirements thereunder, the benefit of F.S.I., drainage facilities, access to the plot, etc. If on subdivision, the sub-divided plot cannot avail of any F.S.I., either because the plot is too small and, therefore, no development is possible, or because the earlier plot before its subdivision had consumed the full F.S.I., no such sub-division would even be permitted. Mr. Dalai argued that after consumption of the full F.S.I. available to a particular plot, and the building is so constructed as to have some portion of the plot unbuilt upon, and thereafter, if the said unbuilt portion of the plot is sub-divided as a separate plot and the same is allowed to be developed, it would make a mockery of the entire concept of Town Planning .

12. This situation may not arise in the case of initial developments of plots after the introduction of F.S.I. regulations, Town Planning and Development Control Rules. There is no question of over-congestion or over-consumption of F.S.I. in such cases. Even where we have large plots, the question as posed by Mr. Dalai will not arise, because under Rule 39 of Development Control Rules, "(i) when the land under development admeasures 3,000 sq. yds. or more the owner of the land shall submit a proper layout or sub-division of his entire independent holding." Then it provides for other requirements as to compulsory recreational space, its dimenssion, the minimum area and width for every plot, proper access etc. In all such cases, there is no question of consumption of F.S.I. of one plot for the other. So also there is no question of further sub-division of plots, after their full development.

16. My attention has been drawn to the other two Acts which are relevant viz. to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974. Both these Acts do not put any restriction on sub-division of any plot of land as such. But what is important is that the term "plot" has been defined under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 under Section 2, Sub-section (21), and it is as follows :

"21 "plot" means a portion of land held in one ownership and numbered and shown as one plot in a town planning scheme;"