Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sub division of plot in Union Act vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2008Matching Fragments
In view of the defence of the Respondents to the contrary, rejoinders have been filed by the petitioners dated 25.1.2008 and 25.3.2008. In these rejoinders apart from the original petition a case is tried to be made out by the petitioner that by and under the orders of the then Municipal Commissioner dated 23.10.1989, the aforesaid large track of land has been sub divided into plots and a plan also has been approved of this sub division bearing No. CE/759/LOP dated 23.10.1989, a copy of which is produced on record. This approved plan of sub division shows clear demarcation of various plots prepared out of the said large track of land, in which the suit property has been specifically shown/marked as Plot No.2-A and is marked as reserved for "BEST Undertaking Staff Housing".
Even in the Agreement in issue dated 18.5.2007 the suit property has been described specifically as a separate plot carved out on account of the aforesaid sub division of the original large track of land, sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner on 23.10.1989.
In terms of DCR No. 21 preparation of a lay out for having sub division of plots is necessary when more than one building is proposed to be constructed on the large track of land. Admittedly, in the said large track of land various buildings have come up like that of Ankur Co-operative Housing Society, BEST Depot, etc. In law it would not have been permissible to carry out such activities on the portions of the aforesaid large track of land if the was not sub divided into plots. Therefore, in the submission of the Petitioners the fact that such activities were permitted shows that the said large track of land has already been sub divided and that the suit property is a separate plot which has been resultantly carved out on account of such sub division.
However, only because the documents issued by BEST and/or executed by BEST refer to the suit property as a "sub-divided plot" it does not necessarily mean that in law also the suit property is a "sub-divided plot". The suit property will be considered in law as a separate plot resulted on account of sanctioned and/or approved sub-division of the said large tract of land in issue only and only if the alleged sub-division of the said large tract of land is approved and/or sanctioned in accordance with law. Otherwise, the suit property will continue to be only and only a part of the said large tract of land as one piece and will not have an separate identity as "a plot".
76. Moreover, the revenue record of the said large tract of land in issue also does not reflect any such sub-division of the same. Admittedly, the suit property does not have a separate property register card drawn up by the Collector enabling us to hold that the suit property is a separate plot created on account of approved legal sub-division of the said large tract of land. Mere marking of the suit property as "plot no.2-A" on the plans of the BEST or mere references to the suit property made in various documents of BEST as "a sub-divided plotig no.2-A" will not make the suit property 'a plot'. In our view, such marking and/or references are found in the record only for the purpose of identification of the exact location and/or situation of the suit property forming part of the said large tract of land in issue admeasuring 1,54,082.42 sq. mtrs. It appears to us that for the purpose of convenience of identification of the area alone, the suit property is addressed and referred throughout by the BEST as "plot no.2-A".