Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In para 27, the petitioner summarises the allegations in relation to M/s. Kukreja Builders. They are said to have colluded with the Municipal Authorities and levelled the land and have occupied a portion stated to be plot No.8. Then the petitioner, in paragraph 28, prays for stopping all illegal construction on the Government land. The petitioner points out as to how the reservation of the land for District Centre is systematically defeated by the construction activity. Then there is a reference made to the construction activity which has been carried out on portions of the land which have been reserved as also having mangroves thereon. That is a reference made in para 30 of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner says there are complaints made but they have not been attended to. Thus, the deals and transactions which the companies and builders have been successful in arriving at, are bogus. There is no title conferred in them in respect of the Government land. The petitioner cannot be expected to take note of every information and get itself impleaded. On the other hand, It is inviting the attention of the Government to the impact and legal consequences of the litigation which is pending and that is said to be a writ petition being Writ Petition No.5792 of 1996 and the interim order therein. Reference in the further paragraphs is in suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc relation to this pending litigation. Thereafter the petitioner says that the deals by M/s. Jolly Brothers Pvt. Limited with M/s. Lodha Developers have resulted in violation of the provisions of law and the terms and conditions based on which the purported rights are claimed by the private parties, namely, the predecessors-in-title of M/s. Lodha Developers. It is stated that M/s. Jolly Brothers sold Government land admeasuring 39,690.85 sq.mtrs. to Lodha Developers for constructing residential buildings. A proposal for making 6 to 20 storey buildings was approved by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in the year 2010. Thus the Government owned land is currently being used and sold as privately owned and residential complex comprises of buildings which are constructed or are under construction. For all these reasons, there is a reference made to an order dated 28-6-2010. That order is stated to have been passed by the Government. The original order is in Marathi and copy of which is annexed as Exhibit "V" and its English translation is at Exhibit "V1". Now the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has no land available to implement the reservations which are made in public interest and for public good. Thereafter there is reference made to certain entities who have carried out construction on other lands and paras 40 to 42 refer to the same. The petitioner then says that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that when there is a Government land, that land cannot be dealt with save and suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc except in public interest and for public good. If there is designation of a land for certain public purposes, all the more, the deals in relation to such land are unsustainable in law.

27. For all these reasons, it is submitted that this PIL should not be entertained. Now, that everything is regularised suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc and perfected, all the more this PIL, at the instance of the petitioner before us, should not be entertained as it erroneously presumes usurpation of the Government land. We have extensively referred to this affidavit of 30-4-2012 simply because all affidavits filed by the private parties, more or less, reiterate the contents of this affidavit. The affidavit in reply of Lodha Developers Limited to oppose the admission and grant of any interim relief in this petition is at page 355 of the paper- book. The affidavit seeks to clarify that the PIL is wrongly filed against Lodha Developers. The name of the company is Lodha Developers Limited and it was formerly known as Lodha Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The affidavit further says that it is necessary to make distinction between Jolly Board Limited (respondent No.26) and Jolly Brothers Private Limited (respondent No.19). Jolly Board Limited is only holding a lease on a small portion of the larger property, that is approximately 9 acres 32 gunthas of CTS No.657-A, whereas Jolly Brothers Private Limited is holding a separate lease over approximately 66 acres of the larger property. The development being carried out by Lodha Developers Limited and Jolly Board Limited is restricted to the part of the larger property, which is leased to Jolly Board Limited and has no relation whatsoever with the property leased to Jolly Brothers Pvt. Limited. In these circumstances, it is claimed that the joint development agreement, as reflected above, cannot be the subject-matter of suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc the present PIL. The PIL petitioner confuses the lands and the parties to the deeds and transactions deliberately so as to approach this Court with a grievance which has no substance.

29. Thus, these three documents are referred in the affidavit of Lodha Developers Limited and based on that it is claimed that Lodha Developers have paid Rs.8,77,03,762.12 to respondent Nos.26 and 27. The respondent Nos.26 and 27 thereafter applied for several permissions and based on that it suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc is claimed that the joint development has resulted in construction of residential buildings. The construction is of a building known as Lodha Aurum, which is nearly complete and Lodha Aurum Grande, which is at an advanced stage of construction. Then the joint developers are developing an IT building/commercial building by name "iThink"/Lodha Supremus on the said property. The Government Resolution of 4-12-2008 is mentioned to state that in this building the Government/Corporation will get a space of almost 1,25,000 sq.ft. free of cost. The construction activities on the property are commenced in phased manner and third party rights have been created. The Lodha Developers Limited have incurred cost of Rs.150 crores approximately towards the construction. It is, therefore, claimed that the units in the buildings developed/being developed have not only been sold/agreed to be sold, the buyers thereof have also raised finances against the same and have been put in possession of the same. It is thereafter that the petition is dealt with para-wise.

suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc Limited. The Jolly Brothers were demised land admeasuring 58 acres, 36 1/4 gunthas for a period of 99 years commencing from 8-5-1969. Thereafter, by and under a lease agreement dated 9-6-2004, executed between the State of Maharashtra and M/s. Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd., the Government demised land corresponding to CTS No.657-A (Part) admeasuring about 7 acres 3 gunthas 12 annas. The two agreements are dated 21-6-1995 and 9-6-2004. As far as events prior to the above agreements, they have been summarised in this affidavit. The Jolly Brothers have claimed to have sub-leased a part of the land. We have also the stand of this respondent that the petitioner refers loosely to parties as M/s. Jolly Brothers without indicating which respondent it is referring to. M/s. Jolly Board Limited, respondent No.26, is altogether a separate legal entity than respondent No.19 to this petition. It is, therefore, the stand of these two parties that they are not one and the same legal entity. Yet, in this affidavit there is reference to all the facts as narrated in the affidavit of Nitco Marble. It is also clear from this affidavit that respondent No.19 to this petition is claiming that the land in question and the land which is the subject-matter of the deal between M/s. Lodha Developers, is different. This respondent No.19 says that it has no connection with Jolly Board Limited, which is arrayed as respondent No.26 and which apparently entered into a development agreement with M/s. Lodha Developers. It is reiterated that respondent No.19 is suresh 908-PIL-127.2012.doc not connected either with M/s. Jolly Board Limited or M/s. Lodha Developers.