Dismissed

Vandan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. v. Municial Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jan 2010WP/807/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the allotment of available FSI to another society to accommodate municipal employees. The Court declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction but directed compliance with previous directions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to comply with previous orders despite dismissal of current writ petition.

Vandan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

hvn

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITOIN NO. 807 OF 2009

¶5

Vandan Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. And Anr.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. Respondents

¶9

Mrs. N.V. Sanglikar for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. R.M. Nakhwa i/buy Mr. V.B. Dhawan for R.No. 6.

¶11

Ms. S.M. Modle for B.M.C. - R. Nos. 1 to 5.

¶12

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Petitioner was allotted a plot of land on which they have put up a building and society has been formed. Similarly Respondent No. 6 is another society which was allotted a piece of land also on which they have constructed the building. There are also other societies.

¶15

Pursuant to the decision by Corporation to decrease the width of the road, some FSI become available. The Petitioners were sent communication that FSI was available and that the Corporation in view of the grievances made by some municipal employees had decided to accommodate them in the FSI admeasuring 375.25 sq. mtrs. The Petitioners were given opportunity to remain present and to make offer. It

¶16

appears that the Petitioners made no offer. Subsequently Respondent No. 6 was also made the offer. They agreed to accommodate the six employees. According to Respondent No. 6 pursuant to accommodation of the six employees, out of 375.25 sq. mtrs. which was made available, approximately 210 to 220 sq. mtrs. was adjusted for the purpose of accommodating these six employees whose names were recommended and the society was left with balance of 115 sq. mtrs. The society has already paid money towards the FSI and has already put up constructions and made allotments of the flats.

¶17

The only contention on behalf of the Petitioners is that the Respondent No. 6 should be asked to buy TDR from the market and not to use FSI which was allotted to them. We are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction. If the Petitioners have any other remedy including by way of damages, they are free to pursue that remedy. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for, Petition dismissed.

¶18

Our attention was also invited to the order passed on 17.10.2008 in W.P. No. 2408 of 2008. We are informed that the Petitioner was called and heard on 24.11.2009. Inspite of that fact that we have refused to exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction, we direct Respondents to comply with the directions issued by this court on 17^th October, 2008, pursuant to the hearing already given.

¶19

(J.H. BHATIA, J.)

Vandan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. v. Municial Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. v. Municial Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumant Raghunath Khedekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vimal Fire Controls Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Sashikant Shivram Mhatre and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Khanzode Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Secretary (Buildings), Public Works Department and 4 Ors.

Badlu Baldev Yadav Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Sunil Trilokchand Agarwal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.