1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1428 OF 2007 Renu Dilip Agarwal and another ).. Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others ).. Respondents Mr. Pradeep J. Thorat for the Petitioners. Mrs. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, along with Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Mr.J.G. Reddy for Respondent No.4. Mr.Rajeev Narula along with Mr.Anuj Narula i/b J. Narula Associates for Respondent Nos.10 and 11. Mr. D.H. Mehta i/b D.M. Legal Associates for Respondent No.13. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 15TH APRIL 2010 P.C. Time to carry out amendment extended by one week. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seeks Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing Respondent Nos.1 to 6 to take action against Respondent Nos.10 and 11 on account of their failure to comply with the order passed by the 2 Authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and not to take any action against the flat purchasers. 3. Prayer clause (B) of the Writ Petition seeks a permanent restraint against the Respondent Nos.10 and 11 from undertaking any construction activities and, therefore, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 must ensure that such development activities should not be permitted until the compliance by these Respondents of the orders of the Urban Land Ceiling authorities is made. 4. We are not concerned with the other prayers. 5. Suffice it to state that the Petitioners are individuals and claim to have purchased the flats on the ground floor in a building known as “Divya Stuti”, Wing B, situate at Survey No.261, CTS No. 620(Part) and more particularly described in paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition. It is the case of the Petitioners that some of the occupants in the buildings constructed in the lay-out have formed a Co-operative Housing Society which is arrayed as Respondent No.12. The property where the buildings are located is bearing CTS No.620-Part and it is the case of the Petitioners that they have purchased Flat Nos.1 and 2 on the ground floor of B Wing of Divya Stuti by two registered Agreements for 3 Sale dated 23rd August 2002 for valuable consideration. They have purchased the flats with an intention to start a Nursing Home therein. 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are authorities exercising powers under the repelled Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the ULC Act”). Respondent No.4 is the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority which is concerned with grant of permissions and certificates under the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are authorities concerned with registration of several documents, such as, agreement for sale, conveyance, etc. within the Mumbai Suburban District. Respondent Nos.10 and 11 are the builders and developers from whom the Petitioners claim to have purchased the flats. 7. Newly added Respondent Nos.12 and 13 are the Cooperative Housing Society and another developer, namely, M/s. Heena Associates. 8. During the course of arguments, Mr.Thorat, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, invited our attention to the correspondence between Respondent Nos.10 and 11 and the authorities 4 exercising powers under the ULC Act. It was stated that Respondent Nos.10 and 11 claimed exemption from the provisions of the ULC Act on the basis that they would comply with all conditions of the exemption order. The exemption order in that behalf passed by the Competent Authority mandated that Respondent Nos.10 and 11 should construct and hand over 5% of flats to the State Government/Competent Authority for providing housing accommodation to weaker sections of the society. Mr.Thorat submits that despite the construction being completed, such flats were not handed over and, therefore, the authorities concerned did not issue the requisite No Objection Certificate. For want of compliances that the terms and conditions of the exemption order such a certificate was withheld and that is why the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and other concerned did not grant Occupation Certificate and that resulted in the Petitioners being unable to start Nursing Home from the premises in question. 9. Mr. Thorat has invited our attention to the order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities and particularly to the effect that the Respondent Nos.10 and 11 have agreed to pay the money equivalent of the flats which were meant for housing the weaker sections. In other words, the penalty and recovery as imposed by the 5 Authorities was accepted. However, despite making payment of the amounts to the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities, the Occupation Certificate is still not granted because the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has insisted upon compliance with other terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent. Mr.Thorat has invited our attention to the affidavit filed on 9th April 2008 by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and particularly the annexures thereto, namely, the Letter of Intent dated 28th March 2006. Mr.Thorat submits that several conditions have been imposed and are yet remained to be complied with. Resultantly, the Occupation Certificate is being withheld causing hardship to flat purchasers like the Petitioners. 10. Mr.Narula, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.10 and 11 (Developers), on the other hand, submits that in the further affidavits placed on record, the Developers have pointed out the steps taken to comply with the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent. Mr.Narula, on instructions, makes a statement that the amount of Rs.2,92,95,069/- has been deposited with the Collector/Competent Authority under the ULC Act. Thus, as far as the order passed by the Urban Land Ceiling Authority is concerned, the same is complied with and that condition is no longer valid for withholding the Occupation Certificate. Mr.Narula submits that the 6 other authorities are not processing the application for Occupation Certificate nor permitting the Developers to make compliances because on 30th July 2007 an order of status quo has been obtained by the Petitioners in this Petition. That is construed by the authorities and all concerned to mean that they are prohibited from even processing the application for grant of Occupation Certificate. Further, the Developers cannot proceed and point out such compliance in the teeth of the status quo order. 11. However, Mr.Narula, on further instructions, makes a statement that if the status quo order is modified and he is given an opportunity to place the relevant details before the authorities, then, the authorities can process his applications and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. However, Mr.Narula submits that in order to enable them to do so, the status quo order be therefore either vacated or modified. 12. Mr.Thorat has insisted that in the garb of seeking an Occupation Certificate, the Respondent Nos.10 and 11 so also Respondent No.13 would proceed with their construction activities at other sites and that would prejudice all concerned. This is a one lay-out and all the buildings form part of the same. Therefore, the authorities may still not issue the Occupation Certificate. 7 13. When a query was raised in that behalf, Mr.Narula, on instructions, states that till the Occupation Certificate in respect of subject building is granted, Respondent Nos.10 and 11 will not undertake any further construction activities in the non-slum portion/lay-out of the concerned City Survey Number. 14. In our view, essentially the grievance is that requisite compliances of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent are not made, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to process the application made by Respondent Nos.10 and 11 on 13th April 2006 for grant of Occupation Certificate in respect of the building in question and pass necessary orders in that behalf within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Authorities to examine the application and scrutinize the relevant details in accordance with the applicable Rules and Policies and if it is of the opinion that there is compliance made by the Developers, it should proceed to grant the Occupation Certificate in respect of the construction wherein the Petitioners have agreed to purchase the flats, namely, Divya Stuti, Survey No.261, CTS No.620 (part), Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. 8 15. Till the Occupation Certificate is granted, the Respondent Nos.10 and 11 shall not undertake any construction activity in the non- slum portion of CTS No.620(part) situate at Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Film City Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. 16. The grievance made by Mr.Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.13, that the Petitioners are not concerned with the construction commenced by Respondent No.13 on the slum portion, appears to be justified. Respondent No.13 is developing a distant part of the lay-out and he is not a vendor from whom the Petitioners have agreed to purchase the flats in question. There is no privity of contract alleged between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 13. The Petitioners have agreed to purchase the flats from their vendors, who are not Respondent No.13. In such circumstances, although Respondent No.13 is impleaded as a party Respondent, we refrain from entertaining any grievance as against this Respondent and leave it open to the Petitioners to pursue such remedies as are available in law to ventilate any grievance with regard to the construction and development of any property by Respondent No.13. 17. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits nor 9 with regard to the compliances allegedly made by Respondent Nos.10 and 11. All aspects of that are kept open. Our order should not be construed as a direction to grant the Occupation Certificate without scrutiny of the relevant details placed on record. It is only a direction to consider the application made in that behalf in accordance with law. 18. Since the Writ Petition is disposed of, needless to say that all interim orders are vacated. 19. The statements made by Mr.Narula on instructions are accepted as undertakings to this Court. In any event, parties are bound by the directions issued in paragraph 15 above. 20. Writ Petition disposed of in the above terms. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.