Disposed

Sarti Seva Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC20 Sept 2016PIL/42/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL challenging a sanctioned plan allowing excess FSI and TDR loading on a specific plot, seeking quashing and stay. The Court found no public interest involvement. Petition disposed of with reservation of rights for aggrieved persons.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no stay granted; reservation of right to approach appropriate forum for aggrieved persons.

Sarti Seva Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

spb/

¶2

18pil42-14.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 42 OF 2014

¶5

Sarti Seva Sangh … Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents.

¶8

¶9

None for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Trupti Puranik, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Rajiv Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent No.4.

¶11

Mrs.Sweta Moghe i/by Mehta & Girdharlal for Respondent No.5.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ.

¶14

DATE : 20^th SEPTEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

¶15

1 None appears for the Petitioner. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation.

¶16

2 By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a public interest litigation the Petitioner seeks following reliefs : (a) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to call for record of respondent no. 2 and 3 authority and

1/4

Borey

spb/

18pil42-14.odt

after verifying the legality and proprietory of the allegations made by the petitioner, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing plan dated 16/09/2013 approved under file no. CE/9548/WS/AK dated 13^th September, 2013 and sanctioned and accorded by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 permitting them to load excess FSI to the tune of 226.79 sq. mtrs. on the plot of land bearing Survey no.54, Hissa no.4, corresponding to CTS No.472 (pt.) and TDR on said excess plot area to the tune of 226.79 sq. mtrs.;

¶22

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may pleased to call for record of respondent no. 2 and 3 authority and after verifying the legality and proprietory of the allegations made by the petitioner, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing plan dated 16/09/2013 approved under file no. CE/9548/WS/AK dated 13^th September, 2013 and sanctioned by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 permitting them to load fungible FSI on the TDR on the plot of land bearing Survey no. 54, Hissa no. 4, corresponding to CTS No. 472(pt.) and TDR on said excess plot area to the tune of 226.79 sq. mtrs.;

2/4

Borey

spb/

18pil42-14.odt

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of petition, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to stay further construction work on the basis of sanction of plan dated 16/09/2013 under file no. CE/9548/ WS/ AK dated 13^th September, 2013 granted by respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no. 4 and 5 on the plot of land bearing Survey no. 54, Hissa no. 4, corresponding to CTS No. 472(pt.)

¶28

(d) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) be granted;

¶29

(e) ….. ….. (f) ….. …..

¶30

3 Respondent No.4 has filed Affidavit-in-reply. He has stated that there is no public interest involved in this petition. It is submitted that the petition has been filed at the behest of one of the disgruntle members of the society. It is submitted that one Mr. Ashun H. Lahir has filed a suit being L. C.Suit No. 3124 of 2013 in the City Civil Court, Bombay against the Respondent No.4, in which no interim relief was granted by the court. It was submitted that a Petition has to be filed by said Ashun H. Lahir, who is a member of the society. Secondly, it is submitted that there is gross delay in filing the petition. In para-5 of the affidavit -in-reply, it is

3/4

Borey

spb/

18pil42-14.odt

mentioned that the Corporation has granted commencement certificate in June, 2011 and thereafter the construction of Wing C-1 and another Wing being Wing no. C-2 is completed. However, so far as Wing C-2 is concerned, the construction is completed upto 6^th floor. It is submitted that the construction of the second Wing of the building is completed. In the reply, on merits of the averments made under para-11 onwards, para - wise comments have been offered.

¶36

4 We are satisfied that there is no public interest involved in this petition. However, aggrieved persons can always approach this court if they are aggrieved by any action of the Respondent No.4. Reserving the right of such person to approach the appropriate forum or court, this petition is disposed of.

¶37

(MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,J.)

¶38

4/4

¶39

Borey

Sarti Seva Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarti Seva Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Society for Nature Animals and People Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sarita Bheda Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Teachers Democratic Front (Tdf) through Its President Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Prakash Hanumant Tare Vs Mr. Anil D. Datar and Ors.

Vikrant Chandrahas Tawde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anil Damodar Thakare and Ors. Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Society for Nature Animals and People Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sarita Bheda Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Netaji Balaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Lopesh Shantilal Vora Vs Union of India, Thru. Railway Ministry and Ors.

Mr Waman H Koli Vs State of Maharashtra, Thru. Gpand Ors.