srk １ wp-55-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.55 OF 2010 Sundar Nagar Co-op. Hsg. Society ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi for the petitioner. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr. G.D. Utangale for respondent No.2. Ms. Vidya S. Gharpure for respondent No.3-MCGM. Mr. S.G. Surana i/by Mr. C.N. Gole for respondent No.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Monday, July 26, 2010 P .C. In this petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and respondent No.4 Developer to comply with their respective commitments as recorded in the minutes of a joint meeting dated 8th August, 2008, copy of which is annexed as Exhibit `J' to this petition. 2. One of the issues raised before us pertains to the payment of property taxes, water charges etc. in respect of the scheme viz. SRA scheme undertaken on final plot No.506 (part), 507 and 511 (part) of Town Planning Scheme III, Mahim Division at Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar, Mumbai. Our attention was invited to the minutes and affidavit-in-reply filed by the Sub- Engineer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and respondent No.4 developer. 3. After seeking instructions, both Mr. Utangale, the learned counsel srk ２ wp-55-10 appearing for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the respondent No.4, represented by Shri Surana, state that they would abide by their statements and commitments as recorded in the minutes so also in their respective affidavits-in -reply to this petition. 4. Mr. Surana states that fourth respondent by letter dated 3rd June, 2009 assured that as soon as the details of the amount of property taxes are received from respondent No.3 Corporation, the payments will be made. In so far as payment of the property taxes and arrears, if any, are concerned, no orders would be necessary, save and except directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to furnish all details with regard to the arrears, if any, of the property taxes. The details be forwarded to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (respondent No.2) within a period of two weeks from today. After receipt of this communication with details, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to intimate the fourth respondent within a further period of two weeks and thereafter, respondent No.4 shall make payment of the arrears within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the communication from the SRA. 5. As far as construction of the compound wall between the slum/rehab building and salable building is concerned, grievance of the petitioner-society is that the rehab component is also entitled to some open area, particularly a garden. The same is earmarked in the sanctioned plan and unless the fourth respondent-developer makes arrangement for the same at site, putting up of a compound wall should not be permitted. The society has a genuine apprehension, according to the learned counsel that, construction of compound wall if permitted the garden will not be provided by the developer. srk ３ wp-55-10 6. We do not have any material which would belie this apprehension of the petitioner, but interest of justice would be served if it is directed that respondent No.2 shall depute its engineer/appropriate officer who shall visit the site and inspect the same in the presence of the representative of the petitioner- society and respondent No.4-developer. During such visit/inspection, he shall clearly demarcate the garden area, if provided as per the sanctioned and approved plans on the sketch to be drawn in the presence of parties. The developer then shall provide the garden area and thereafter complete the construction of the compound wall. The petitioner's counsel assures that the society will not obstruct such construction once the garden area is provided and the developer can proceed with construction of the compound wall. Let the needful be done within four weeks from today. As far as other commitments recorded in the minutes and particularly providing of society's office to the petitioner is concerned, it would be open for the respondent No.4 developer to construct/complete the society's office and hand it over to the petitioner-society within the aforesaid period. 6. Petition stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.