hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1002 OF 2008 M/s. Dhabalia Enterprises ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. D.H. Mehta, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. D.D. Mehta i/by M/s. D.M. Legal Assocaites for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, G.P. for R. Nos. 1 and 5. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Sr. Counsel with Mrs. A.K. Savla for the R.Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: NOVEMBER 17, 2008 DATED: NOVEMBER 17, 2008 DATED: NOVEMBER 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . By our order dated 22.10.2008 we had directed the Municipal Commissioner to file additional affidavit setting out various particulars as set out therein. At todays hearing on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner the learned counsel draws our attention to the affidavit dated 14.10.2008 filed by Dr. Jairaj Phatak. It is pointed out that in the course of finalization of TPS scheme which was finalized in the year 1995, 5 arbitrators were appointed for the purpose of the said scheme. Before 1985 it is pointed out that some of the arbitrators instead of allotting one F.P. to plots exceeding 2508 sq. mtrs. allotted more than one plots, making each plot admeasuring less than 2508 sq. mtrs. Thereby the allottees of the final plots were not required to leave 15% R.G. in all these plots. In many cases, I.O.D. and C.C. has been granted, pursuant to which construction had taken place and in some cases, even Completion Certificate had been given. . In the year 1985, Shri. Kasture had become Arbitrator, he found that this practice was not correct and that the 15% R.G. ought to have been reserved when one F.P. exceeding 2508 sq. mtrs. was allotted, or where more than one F.P. each admeasuring less than 2508 sq. mtrs. were allotted to the concerned owner. There were in all 31 cases, out of which in 26 cases, I.O.D. & C.C. had been granted and construction had taken place. At the meeting held on 14.8.1985 it was decided that in case where I.O.D. and C.C. had been given the commitments are to be honoured by permitting full F.S.I. and Arbitrator may propose a premium under the scheme regulations for these plots availing 15% additional F.S.I. in comparison with others who suffer by restricting the F.S.I. to 85%. He should also make regulations to insist on provisions of 15% recreation Garden on the sub divided plots on which he intends to restrict the F.S.I. to 85% irrespective of the size and shape of the plot, with a specific mention that certain concessions as regards size, shape etc. of the Recreation Ground will have to be granted in such cases as the plots are very small in area. In the affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner Mr. Phatak it is pointed out that out of 31 cases, in 26 cases, i.o.d. AND c.c. had been granted and construction had taken place and in five cases including that of the petitioner lay out was to provide for 15% of total area of R.G. The learned arbitrator gave a decision pursuant to which the town planning scheme has been finalized. The Petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the decision of the arbitrator. In the light of that, in our opinion, no further affidavit is required from the Municipal Commissioner as directed by our order dated 22.10.2008. . On instructions the learned counsel seeks leave to withdraw the Petition to pursue the remedies available to him. Petition dismissed as withdrawn. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)