*1* chs.1324.11.s.3281.09.901.3.pm.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1324 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.3281 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1968 OF 2011 Laxminarayan Bhuvan Welfare Association and another. ..Plaintiffs -versus- Chandrakant N. Jayakar and others. ..Defendants ............ Mr.Rakesh Kumar i/by Legal Vision for the Plaintiffs/Applicants. Mr.K.P.Jain a/w Mr.Tushar Goradia for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Mr.N.D.Dharod for the Defendant No.5. Mr.A.Y.Shirsekar for the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Mr.Tejas Vora i/by Tamhane & Company, for the Intervenor. Mr.Kshitij Raj i/by J.Narula & Associates for the Defendant Nos.6(a) to 6(d). ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 30th November, 2011. (At 03:00 pm) P.C.: (In continuation of the order passed in morning session.) 1 The matter was placed before this Court on account of the direction issued on the earlier occasion. In order to ensure the compliance therewith, that at the request of the parties, this Chamber Summons No. 1324/2011 was placed today. 2 Mr.Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs, Mr.Vora, learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor and Mr.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4, are *2* chs.1324.11.s.3281.09.901.3.pm.sxw agreed that the necessary documents and agreements would be executed as stated before this Court within two weeks from today. In such circumstances, the Chamber Summons No.1968/2011 filed by the Intervenor (Developer and its Partners) is granted after hearing all parties. Let amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Chamber Summons No. 1968/2011 is, accordingly, allowed. 3 Mr.Jain and Mr.Vora, state that for the purpose of effective, complete and proper redevelopment of the property, it was necessary for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to involve the Firm of the Developers and that is how the Intervenor which is a partnership firm has been approached and the Intervenor is involved in the project. The Intervenor is involved in the project on the basis of the rights in the property. It is stated that the Intervenor-Developer is aware of all obligations that have been undertaken by the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 including their undertakings before this Court. Since the Developer is claiming through these Defendants, the Developer equally will abide by these orders and directions and in addition thereto, the Developer undertakes that all statements, responsibilities and obligations of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 under the agreement, so also, their undertakings before this Court, would be binding on the Developer. 4 Needless to state that in addition to the rights that are stated above, if any rights are conferred on the Intervenor-Developer in terms of the agreements between the Defendant Nos.1 to 4, that would not be affected by this order. However, needless to state that all rights that are claimed by the Developer, would be subject to the orders and directions of this Court in this matter and the obligations qua the Plaintiffs would have to be fulfilled and complied with by them. This takes care of the *3* chs.1324.11.s.3281.09.901.3.pm.sxw apprehension of Mr.Rakesh Kumar that if the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 walk out of the project, the Plaintiffs will be left high and dry with no redevelopment of the property. 5 The matter was posted today for one more reason because the Municipal Corporation was to inform the Court that whether the plans that are awaiting sanction, would be sanctioned and if there is any impediment in doing so, what are the compliances and conditions that are necessary to be complied with. 6 In the light of the order passed in the morning session, the Assistant Municipal Commissioner from R/C Ward, so also, the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal, Western Suburbs, are present in the Court. Both state that the compliances that are necessary have been intimated to Mr.Manish Shah who is Architect of the project and the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are aware of what has been required for, at their end. It is stated that the property is near the Railway line/property, therefore, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Railway Authorities is required. 7 Mr.Jain states that such NOC from the Railway Authorities is never insisted at the time of commencement of construction, but the Occupation Certificate is withheld ordinarily until the NOC is obtained from the Railway Authorities. However, at the threshold such condition is required to be complied with by the Architect, or else that would make it impossible for the Architect to proceed with the matter of construction as it would not be possible for him to state as to how much time the Railway Authorities would take for issuance of the NOC. It is for the Architect to satisfy the Executive Engineer as to whether, the NOC from the Railway Authorities is necessary or is required before the Commencement Certificate/IOD is issued. This order does not mean that the Architect cannot raise any such pleas and at this stage, the Court need not express *4* chs.1324.11.s.3281.09.901.3.pm.sxw any opinion with regard to this requirement. 8 As far as the corrected Property Registration Card and particularly the discrepancy that is stated at Sr.No.2 in letter dated 23.11.2011 is concerned, Mr.Jain, on taking instructions, states that the Architect would attend the office of the concerned Engineer by 02nd December, 2011 (Friday) and produce necessary documents including the Property Registration Card (PR Card) and point out if there is no discrepancy or if there is any such error or discrepancy, same would be duly corrected and that requirement would be complied with as expeditiously as possible. 9 It is stated on instructions from the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, so also, the Executive Engineer that barring these two requirements in the letter dated 23.11.2011, the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are not required to comply with anything else and necessary certificates would be issued by them immediately on compliance with these two requirements stipulated in this letter. 10 Mr.Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 to 4, states that for the reasons which are best known to these authorities, they are insisting on permission for pulling down the old and dilapidated building although the same is completely vacant and none is occupying the same. 11 On a query to the officers present in the Court as to whether, any such prior permission is required for pulling down the old building in terms of the statute, they are unable to point out anything except stating that this being a redevelopment proposal, they have to ensure that the occupants in the building should not be deprived of their rights and that is why they insist on permission prior to demolition of the old building. It is not necessary to rule on this aspect any further because before me it is *5* chs.1324.11.s.3281.09.901.3.pm.sxw agreed that the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 can pull down the old building and the Corporation will have no objection to the same and particularly when the building is vacant. All that is required to do is to complete the site inspection which would be completed by 02nd December, 2011 (Friday) by the officers of the Corporation and thereafter, the building can be pulled down. 12 The letter dated 23.11.2011 issued by the Corporation to Mr.Manish Shah, is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)