ssp 1 WP(L) 1725 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1725 OF 2011 M/s.Laxmi Avenue Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. .....Petitioner versus The Commissioner, BrihanMumbai Mahanagarpalika and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.B.S.Chandanani i/by M/s.Lexim Associates, for the petitioner. Mrs.P.A.Purandare, for the respondent-Corporation. Mr.S.K.Shinde, for the Intervenor. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 24 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked challenging the communication dated 08-08-2011 (Exh.I) to the petition, by which communication, the Executive Engineer, Building Proposal (E.S.)-II, has communicated the petitioner’s society that the proposal submitted by the society on 28-06-2011 has been rejected on the ground that the society’s Architect failed to submit the documents mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) of the said communication. 2. The dispute is as regards the niche area of the flats in question, which have admittedly been shown in the plan and have been constructed upon. The petitioner-society had applied for regularization of ssp 2 WP(L) 1725 of 2011 the said construction vide their proposal dated 28-06-2011. The requirement which has not been met with by the society is as regards the conveyance of the land in question. In so far as the conveyance is concerned, there is an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.1410 of 2007 in Suit No.2000 of 2002, wherein directions have been issued against the defendants in the said suit i.e. Respondent No.2 herein, to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner society on it depositing a sum of `1,75,000/- with him. We are informed across the Bar that the said amount has been deposited by the Society. We are further informed that the amount in question has already been withdrawn by the respondent No.2. However, conveyance yet has not been executed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that the society should gave up its claim in respect of balance FSI if any, in respect of the plot in question. 3. In our view, respondent No.1 Corporation would take into consideration the aforesaid aspect of there being already an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing respondent No.2 to execute conveyance in favour of the petitioner society. The respondent No.1 Corporation therefore, should not consider the non-fulfillment of the requirement of conveyance as an impediment in passing orders regarding regularization, if the petitioner society is otherwise entitled to such ssp 3 WP(L) 1725 of 2011 regularization in law. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )