Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(B) On 27th April, 2004, the Official Trustee filed Trust Petition No.5 of 2004, in which he, inter-alia, sought an order that the developer was entitled to use only FSI of 2294 square feet by way of TDR and an order directing the developer not to use FSI more than OSWP1469.09.doc 2294 square feet by way of TDR in respect of the property. The issue as to the extent of the FSI that the developer was entitled to was raised in the affidavits.

71. Mr. Hakani's submission could have been and some of them were, in fact, raised by the Official Trustee in previous proceedings, especially in Trust Petition No.5 of 2004 which was filed on 27th April, 2004. We have referred to the reliefs sought in Trust Petition No.5 of 2004. The Official Trustee had sought an order that the developer was entitled to use only FSI of 2294 square feet by way of OSWP1469.09.doc TDR; that the developer was not entitled to demolish any chawl or any structure on the said property; an order that the respondent is not entitled to any TDR in respect of the property except FSI of 2294 square feet; an order directing the developer not to use any FSI more than 2294 square feet by way of TDR; an order not to demolish any chawl or any structure on the property; an order that the developer is not to be allotted any additional TDR in respect of the property except FSI of 2294 square feet; an order directing the developer not to use or utilize or put up any construction on the property and an order that the Official Trustee be allowed to dispose of the balance FSI by way of TDR in respect of the property, i.e., TDR in excess of 2294 square feet.

81. These facts are also relevant while considering Mr. Chinoy's submission that this petition suffers from gross delay and laches. The writ petition was filed on 6th May, 2009, i.e., four years after the decision in the Trust Petition. The delay is aggravated by the fact that the contentions now sought to be raised were not even raised in the petition as it was originally filed. They were introduced by two amendments which were allowed on 29th November, 2010 and 30th October, 2012. In the petition, as originally filed, the Official Trustee only challenged the notice issued by MHADA under section 95-A. It is by the amendments that the Official Trustee also challenged the building plans, permissions/NOCs issued by respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 for the redevelopment of the property and sought orders restraining respondent No.5 from granting the developer any TDR certificates unless and until the actual area measurement was done of the plots.

The only relief sought was for the cancellation of the notice under section 95A. By the first amendment, the Official Trustee introduced averments challenging the NOC issued by MHADA and the plans, permissions / NOCs granted by respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 for the redevelopment of the property and an order quashing and setting aside the orders and permissions granted by MHADA and MBR&RB under DCR 33(7) or any other DC Regulation for redevelopment or development of the property. The Official Trustee also sought an order directing respondent No.5 not to grant any TDR certificate to the developer unless and until the actual area measurement was done of C.S. No.113 and 1/113 and the illegalities and irregularities in the building plans and also the alleged development scheme under DCR 33(7)are removed. By the second amendment, the Official Trustee sought an order directing respondent No.5 not to issue any TDR certificate in favour of and in the name of the developer with a further OSWP1469.09.doc direction to respondent No.5 to issue such TDR certificates only in the name of the Official Trustee.