7.In that regard, when we perused the three plans, copies of
which have been annexed to the writ petition, we fnd that in the
plan copy of which is at page 147 of the paper-book approved on
13th April 2012, there is indeed a pocket terrace depicted on the 21st
foor. The petitioner may now claim that it was a ‘texting mistake’ of
the architect and it should have been as a typical foor with number
of bedrooms, kitchen, hall etc. But without waiting for any
amendment to the plan and that amendment being approved the
petitioner made the alleged alteration. Now the pocket terrace has
vanished and there are rooms in its place. These rooms form part of
distinct fats which the petitioner has already sold. The terrace is
now shown on the 23rd foor. The Municipal Corporation says that
the IOD was issued for redevelopment on 5th January 2007 and the
commencement certifcate was endorsed. It was extended for full
work, that is up to 22nd foor on 4th January 2008. The last
amended endorsement is of 13th April 2012. Beyond that there is no
endorsement. The Municipal Corporation says that it has rightly
issued the notice under Section 53(1r and supports its speaking
order and the conclusion therein.
