Dismissed

Sant Tukaram Chs. Ltd., v. the Chairman High Power Committee and 6 Others

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012WP/1703/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the High Power Committee's decision to approve a Letter of Intent for land development in favour of another society. The bench dismissed the writ, holding the petitioner lacked locus standi due to unchallenged prior consent to merge schemes and noting the petitioner's limited plot allocation versus the developed area.

What did the court decide?

No interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction; writ petition dismissed.

Sant Tukaram Chs. Ltd., Vs the Chairman High Power Committee… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Ladda

¶2

wp-1703-11.sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1703 OF 2011.

¶6

Sant Tukaram CHS Ltd. .. Registered Co-operative Housing Society. .. Petitioner.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Chairman High Power Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others. .. Respondents.

¶9

Mr Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate a/with Girish Kulkarni i/by Vyas & Bhalwala for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr Milind More, A.G.P. for Respondent No.3. Mr D.A.Nalavade for Respondent No.2.

¶11

Mr A.C.Singh, Senior Advocate a/with Sanjeev Singh for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

¶12

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R. Y. GANOO, JJ.

¶13

DATED :- 29th OCTOBER, 2012.

¶14

P.C. :-

¶15

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

¶16

1. The present petition, in effect, challenges the decision of the High

¶17

Power Committee dated 17^th July, 2010 passed in Application

¶18

No.153/2010. By the said application, the petitioner-Society has challenged the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued on 4^th April, 2009. That

¶19

1 of 5

¶20

wp-1703-11.sxw

¶21

challenge has been negatived on the finding that 38 members of the petitioner-Society vide consent letter dated 12^th August, 2005 have consented for merging of their SRA Scheme with the SRA of Bandra Sai Baba Nagar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd i.e. respondent No.4 herein. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said consent letter dated 12^th August, 2005 of 38 members of the petitioner society. No declaration has been sought in respect of the said consent letter before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Unless the petitioner society was to get over the said consent letter, it is not open to the petitioner which has been registered as society only in the year 2010, to challenge the LOI issued on 4^th April, 2009. The argument of the petitioner, however, is that the petitioner in the application No.153/2010 had pointedly asserted that the consent letter dated 12^th August, 2005 on which reliance is placed is a fabricated document. Further, the said consent letter has not been signed by the members of the society. According to the petitioner, these aspects have not been considered by the High Power Committee, at all.

¶22

In the first place, the relief claimed in the subject application is limited to LOI dated 4^th April, 2009 and not to the consent letter dated 12^th August, 2005, as such. Moreover, it is noticed that on the basis of the said LOI dated 4^th April, 2009 respondent No.4 Society has already

¶23

2 of 5

¶24

wp-1703-11.sxw

¶25

substantially completed the construction on the two plots. That position is stated on affidavit and the photograph of the work already completed is also placed on record. The petitioner society, therefore, cannot be permitted to challenge the LOI dated 4^th April, 2009 at this belated stage, and, more particularly, when the consent letter dated 12^th August, 2005 executed by 38 members of the petitioner society has not been challenged. Besides, there is other reason for which the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the LOI dated 4^th April, 2009.

¶26

It is noticed from the communication issued by the office of the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District dated 25^th June, 2002 Exh.2 at page 488 in writ petition No.1703/2011 - that the petitioner has been finally allotted plot only to the extent of 1530 sq.meters and not 2330 sq.meters out of survey No.34 as is asserted by the petitioner. The petitioner has admittedly paid cost of the plot only to the extent of 1550 sq.meters and not for 2330 sq.mtrs. Further, from the record, it is noticed that the construction of the building by respondent No.4 is on other portion of the plot, other than the plot allotted to the petitioner society.

¶27

1. To get over this position, the counsel for the petitioner submits

¶28

that the petitioner society would not be in a position to develop the plot area admeasuring 1530 sq.meters because of the set back area. That

¶29

3 of 5

¶30

wp-1703-11.sxw

¶31

cannot be the basis to challenge the LOI issued in favour of respondent No.4 dated 4^th April, 2009, which pertains to plot in respect of which the petitioner society has no proprietary interest. More so, because the petitioner cannot succeed in the challenge to the communication issued by the office of the Collector, Mumbai, Suburban District dated 25.6.2002 and the final allotment of the plot only to the extent of 1530 sq.meters in favour of the petitioner society. The fact that there is obvious mistake in paragraph No.2 of the impugned decision of the High Power Committee cannot be the basis to challenge the LOI dated

¶32

4^th April, 2009. As aforesaid, in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the impugned decision has rightly adverted to the relevant facts in nonsuiting the petitioner and rejecting the application No.153/2010. Accordingly, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted at the instance of the petitioner.

¶33

Counsel for the petitioner then submits that although the land allotted to be developed in terms of LOI dated 4^th April, 2009 is a Government land, no formal permission of the appropriate authority was obtained before issuance of the impugned LOI. Mere consent by 38 members could not be the basis to issue LOI dated 4^th April, 2009. This argument clearly over looks the stand taken in the affidavit of Krishna Jadhav, dated 27^th August, 2012, it clearly states that no objection has

¶34

4 of 5

¶35

wp-1703-11.sxw

¶36

been given by the Revenue and Forest Department in favour of respondent No.4 to develop the property covered under LOI dated 4^th April, 2009. Accordingly, this submission also does not merit any interference.

¶37

1. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶38

Ladda

¶39

5 of 5

Sant Tukaram Chs. Ltd., v. the Chairman High Power Committee and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Tukaram Chs. Ltd., v. the Chairman High Power Committee and 6 Others

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

Farida N. Khory Vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Savaliram Ananda Kunde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Anil Dnyaneshwar Jagatp Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sant Tukaram Chs. Ltd. Vs the Secretary Revenue and Forest Department of Maharashtr State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Rajesh K. Malviya and Ors. Vs Shri. Mohd Minaz Alam and Ors.