1 WP-1655/10 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2010 Iftekhar Ahmed Siddiqui : Petitioner versus Chief Officer, Mumbai Building Reparis and Reconstruction Board and Anr. : Respondents. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy for the Petitioner. Mr. G W Mattos, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 20th September 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the communication dated 11/02/2010 and 17/03/2010. By the first communication dated 11/02/2010, the Deputy Chief Officer has communicated to the Petitioner the area of each floor of the erstwhile building situated at 85, Bapu Khote Street, Mumbai wherein the Petitioner was residing. In so far as 4th floor, on which the Petitioner was residing, is concerned, the area shown in the said communication is 45.05 sq.mt. In so far as, the communication dated 17/03/2010 is concerned, the Petitioner is informed that he cannot be exempted from the rigours of the Government Resolution dated 01/06/2005 under which a condition has been stipulated that the persons, whose names are in the Master List and who have been allotted tenements, cannot sell the same premises for a period of 10 years. 2 WP-1655/10 2 The Petitioner was a resident of the building situated at 85, Bapu Khote Street, Mumbai. It appears that the Petitioner was issued a vacation notice and was put in a transit camp as a result of which the name of the Petitioner was incorporated in the Master List maintained by the Board. On the premises being available in the building known as Avarsekar Towers at Worli Mumbai, the Petitioner was offered the said premises vide offer letter dated 5/2/2008. The premises offered was Flat No.601 admeasuring 824.32 sq.ft. The said building has been constructed pursuant to a re-development scheme under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations 1991. The Petitioner accepted the said allotment without demur and since it was held that the Petitioner was occupying an area of 45.05 sq.mtr. in the old building the Petitioner paid additional premium for the balance of the additional area which was in excess of his entitlement, in respect of the allotted premises. After accepting the said allotment and after making payment, the Petitioner, it appears on 3/3/2008 addressed a letter to the Chief Officer, MBR & R Board wherein a faint grievance was made as regards discrepancy in the area between the allotted premises and the Petitioner’s entitlement. As stated herein above, the allotment is dated 5/2/2008. The Petitioner has accepted the said allotment without demur and has been residing in the premises in question since then. The Petitioner after so accepting the premises in question is now seeking to make a grievance as regards his entitlement to a larger area and on the said basis he claims refund from the premium paid by him for the allotted premises. 3 WP-1655/10 3 In the conspectus of facts as stated herein above, the said grievance of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced by us at this length of time in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 In so far as challenge to the communication dated 17/3/2010 is concerned, we are of the view that the said challenge is bereft of merit as the Government it seems has taken a considered decision not to permit the allottees whose names appear on the Master List to sell the allotted premises for a period of ten years. If the relief sought for by the Petitioner is to be granted, it would only result in laying a premium on profiteering and self aggrandizement, and would also negate the policy of rehabilitation, as a person who is rehabilitated would then be tempted to sell the allotted premises immediately for a higher price in the open market. 5 For the aforesaid reasons, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain this Petition in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]