1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7794 of 2009 N.M. Ghag .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7795 of 2009 M.V. Patil .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7796 of 2009 R.L.Sharma.. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7797 of 2009 K.M. Hadkar .. .. Petitioner v/s. 2 Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7798 of 2009 Snehalata A. Mungekar & ors. .. .. Petitioners v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7799 of 2009 K.S. Jain .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7800 of 2009 J.D. Patel .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7801 of 2009 3 J.M. Lad .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents WITH Writ Petition No.7802 of 2009 S.S. Jain .. .. Petitioner v/s. Competent Authority formed under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act & ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.V. Govilkar i/by Ms.Rekha Panchal for Petitioners. Mr.P.G. Lad for Res.No.3. Mr.Kunal Bhunage for Res.Nos.5, 6 & 7. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 9th March, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.The Petitioners are occupants of certain flat premises in the building constructed by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) which is yet not conveyed to the Society. The premises continues to be 4 of MHADA. The Petitioners have enclosed the balcony / common verandah in the building in which they have flats. The enclosure is an unauthorised addition and alteration of the premises. It consumes FSI. MHADA has sought to take action under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. 3.The parties have relied upon various resolutions and circulars of MHADA passed from time to time, the latest of which has been passed in 2009, superseding the earlier circulars. The Petitioners, however, offer to remove the unauthorised addition / alteration in the balcony / common verandah of the MHADA premises within 1 week from today. The Petitioners had already been issued notices of MHADA in that behalf, which were not complied and the Petitioners were liable to be evicted under the impugned orders of the MHADA. 4.The other members of the Society, who have sought to intervene, contend that the Petitioners cannot be allowed to demolish / remove the unauthorised addition / alteration in the balcony / common verandah because the notice required them to vacate within 7 days of the notice, failing which the MHADA was required to take steps for eviction as per the notice. 5.The real dispute shown by MHADA is that if the 5 balconies are enclosed or if the common verandah is enclosed, FSI would be used up. MHADA officers would be liable to the Planning Authority for illegal user of additional FSI since the property continues to belong to MHADA, it having not been conveyed to the Society. 6.In the interest of justice and in the interest of all including the Petitioners, the other members of the Society and MHADA, the removal of the very construction which is unauthorised as offered by the Petitioners would be the ultimate relief. 7.Hence the following order:- ORDER (i)The Petitioners shall remove / demolish the enclosed balcony / common verandah put up by them in or near their premises and restore their premises to its original condition within 7 days from today. The Petitioners shall file an Affidavit, showing compliance of this order within 10 days from today. If the unauthorised addition / alteration / construction is removed, there shall be no further action against the Petitioners. (ii)MHADA officers shall be entitled to inspect each of the premises of each of the Petitioners to see whether 6 the balcony / common verandah has been removed and restored to its original condition. If the MHADA officers find that it is not so removed, they shall be entitled to take photographs of the unremoved / unauthorised construction. (iii)If the Petitioners fail to remove any portion of their balcony / common verandah so as to restore to its original condition or fail to file an Affidavit detailing how it is removed and if the MHADA officers on inspection find that the unauthorised construction remains, those Petitioners would be liable to be evicted without any further notice but in accordance with law. 8.The Writ Petitions are allowed only to this extent and Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9.No order as to costs. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)