Remanded

FPA-5/BOM/2005 of Mohd. Yaseen Mohd. Dossa v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

ATFP27 Mar 2017FPA-5/BOM/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of the appellant's application seeking permission to hand over forfeited flats to the developer for redevelopment. The respondent raised no objection subject to specific conditions regarding ownership rights and future possession, which the appellant agreed to comply with.

What did the court decide?

Permission to hand over possession to developer subject to filing of affidavits and undertakings safeguarding respondent's rights.

FPA-5/BOM/2005 of Mohd. Yaseen Mohd. Dossa v/s The… — Execution and Attachment | ATFP (2017)

¶1

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY NEW DELHI

¶2

MP-132/BOM/2017 FPA-5/BOM/2005

¶3

Mohd. Yaseen Mohd. Dossa … Appellant Versus The Competent Authority, Mumbai … Respondent

¶4

Advocates/Authorized Representatives who appeared

¶5

For the appellant	:	Shri S.K. Srivastav, Advocate
For the respondent	:	Shri Stanly Joseph, I.O.

¶6

CORAM
JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH	: CHAIRMAN
SHRI KAUSHAL SRIVASTAVA	: MEMBER
SHRI ANAND KISHORE	: MEMBER

¶7

ORDER

¶8

27.03.2017

¶9

FPA-5/BOM/2005 & MP-132/BOM/2017

¶10

During the pendency of the appeal the above mentioned application no. MP-132/BOM/2017 has been filed on behalf of the appellant for seeking permission to hand over the possession of the attached flat no. 2B on the ground floor and attached flat no. 12 on the 4^th floor of building known as Zaveri Mansion to the developer for re-development of the said building. The comprehensive details are mentioned in the application. Reply is filed on behalf of the respondent on 10^th March, 2017. In the reply, respondent has no objection for the re-development of Zaveri Mansion in public interest including the safety of the people and interest

¶11

FPA-5/BOM/2005

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

of the people who are not part of this litigation, but subject to the following conditions:

¶14

“(i) The rights of Govt. of India through the Office of Competent Authority (SAFEMA), Mumbai in respect of said two forfeited flats viz. Flat No. 2B, Ground Floor and Flat No. 12, 4^th Floor of Zaveri Mansion, are safeguarded by the Appellants/Developer/Landlady.

¶15

(ii) The appellant should furnish undertaking that the respondent will be given possession of the corresponding redeveloped property in the event of respondent succeeding the present appeal or subsequent litigation as the case may be.

¶16

(iii) The appellants should also furnish the undertaking from the Developer/Builder that on completion of the redevelopment, the possession of the new property shall be handed over to the appellants only after getting the clearance from the office of the respondent and if the respondent asks for possession, the same shall be handed over to the respondent, subject to the status of litigation at the time of handing over the possession after completion of redevelopment project.

¶17

(iv) The appellants should furnish the undertaking from the landlady to the effect that she has noted the above facts and will not allow to create any third party interest in the corresponding properties.

¶18

(v) The appellant should furnish the undertaking that the proportionate are in sq. ft. they are getting in lieu of the space surrendered is not less than the proportion that the other tenants are getting and that the redeveloped space shall not be less than the presently occupied space. They should file this along with copies of agreements with the builder and also between the builder and at least two other tenants within such timeframe as may be prescribed by this Tribunal.

¶19

(vi) Any other condition as may be prescribed by this Hon‟ble Tribunal.”

¶20

The counsel for the appellant after having read the given condition submits that the appellant is agreeable to comply the conditions mentioned therein. The counsel for the appellant has also referred to the order dated 11.01.2007 of this Tribunal in the case of Rehmat Haroon Merchant V/s. the Competent Authority, Mumbai in which the

¶21

FPA-4/BOM/2005

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

appropriate order in similar circumstances was passed. The same is reproduced here below:

¶24

“ORDER

¶25

In our order dated 7.8.2006 we had directed that the Competent authority should take the consent of the Union of India regarding demolition of the concerned property as Union of India was the owner of the property and consent was necessary before we pass any order as requested in this application. The Competent Authority has now submitted its report vide letter dated 18.10.2006 in MP No. 56/BOM/2006 stating that the Finance Ministry vide its letter F.No. C- 110015/3/2006-CA dated 13.10.2006 has advised the Competent Authority to convey “No Objection” of the Government for demolition /development of the forfeited flat at 3^rd Floor, Ramzan Ali Manzil/Golden Rose Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Andrews Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai and also to file an application before Hon‟ble ATFP on behalf of Union of India.

¶26

2. The learned counsel for the applicant gave us to understand that the appellant is agreeable to give undertaking as desired by the Competent Authority in para 6 of the MP NO. 56/BOM/2006. For the sake of convenience para 6 is reproduced here below:

¶27

6. “that the Developer may be directed to file

¶28

affidavit undertaking to fulfill all conditions of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.12.2005. The developer may also be directed to file affidavit to the effect that the conditions stipulated in the MOU dated 21.12.2005 are final and it has not been altered later on and that the conditions would not be altered without getting prior approval of the Competent Authority. The concerned Society may also be directed to file affidavit about the MOU dated 21.12.2005 certifying that the said MOU dated 21.12.2005, a copy of which has been enclosed with the Misc. petition is a genuine document. Further,

¶29

(a) The builder should execute an affidavit to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority that he will complete the project within the stipulated time.

¶30

(b) The builder and the society must undertake that on completion of the building, possession of the flat will be directly handed over to this office.

¶31

(c ) The Corpus Fund and 22 months rentals agreed upon should be deposited with the Competent Authority.”

¶32

FPA-4/BOM/2005

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

The attention of the learned Counsel for the applicant was drawn to the averment made in MP NO. 42/BOM/2006 in FPA No. 48/BOM/2003 submitted on behalf of the Competent Authority particularly for allotment of additional area as worked out in paras 7 & 8 of the misc. application. The learned Advocate for the Developers applicants indicated that the applicants have no objection and fully agree to allot the flat in the new premises with the following carpet area:-

¶35

Flat Terrace 702.66 Sq. Ft. 332.40Sq. Ft.

¶36

The officer appearing for the Competent Authority has no further comment to offer on this.

¶37

4. Since the Union of India has communicated its consent as mentioned supra this O.K. with the Tribunal, accordingly all, we allow the Misc. applications.”

¶38

In view of the consent given by the respondent subject to the terms and conditions as at S. No. (i) to (v) of the Respondent’s reply dated 10^th March, 2017 which are acceptable to the appellant, the present application is, accordingly, disposed of. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would be filing the necessary affidavit for accepting the conditions within two weeks. As soon as the affidavit is filed with an advance copy to the respondent, the order will become effective. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶39

Copy of the order be given „dasti‟ to both sides.

¶40

List the appeal on 7^th September, 2017.

¶41

(Justice Manmohan Singh) Chairman

¶42

(Kaushal Srivastava) Member

¶43

(Anand Kishore) Member

¶44

New Delhi, 27^th March, 2017

¶45

‘d’

¶46

FPA-4/BOM/2005

¶47

Page 4 of 4

FPA-5/BOM/2005 of Mohd. Yaseen Mohd. Dossa v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

FPA-5/BOM/2005 of Mohd. Yaseen Mohd. Dossa v/s The Competent Authority, Mumbai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases