1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 231 OF 2009 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1152 OF 2002 Citi Space & Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents. A N D M/s.Newlook Constructions Pvt.Ltd. .... Respondent in Notice of Motion. Mr. Gautam Patel with Mr. Sharan Jagtyani i/by Mr.Thakore Jariwala for the Petitioners. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Ms. Madhulata Kajale, AGP for the State. Mr. G. D. Uttangle for S.R.A. Mr. Pravin Samdani with Mr. B. V. Phadnis for Respondents. Mr. S. U. Kamdar i/by Mr. Pravin Sawant for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No.60/2009. Mr. K. K. Singhvi, Sr. Counsel Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Mr. Ivor Peter D’Cruz for Applicant in Notice of Motion No. 446/08. Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the Union of India. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2009. 2 P.C.: This petition was mainly filed in public interest on the ground that certain lands, which are kept open land in the plan, are being encroached resulting in creation of slums. While entertaining this petition, the court passed an order on 31st July, 2002, which reads thus: “Heard parties. Respondent No.2 is directed to file an affidavit disclosing necessary information as claimed in prayer clauses (c)(i) of (xiii) of the Writ Petition. Adjourned for four weeks. In the meantime, until further orders, no new rehabilitation scheme be sanctioned without the permission of this Court in respect of the open spaces which are reserved for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no development zones, pavements, roads and carriage ways”. 2. Now, a notice of motion has been moved, in which it is stated that the order of this court was that no land which is reserved for gardens, parks, playgrounds, recreational spaces, maidans, no development zones, pavements, roads and carriage ways should be utilised for new rehabilitation scheme under the Slum Rehabilitation Act without further orders of this Court. 3. In the plan which is submitted to us, it is shown that out of the total land an area of 2325 sq. yds. was reserved for a play ground and the State is not utilising it for the purpose of rehabilitation scheme. But the POSR under the Development Control Regulation relocated the area meant for 3 play ground in the same plot of land which was necessitated because of road widening. The net result is that the area which was reserved for a play ground will remain vacant for play ground and rest of the land in the plot will be utilised for the scheme under the rehabilitation. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties have filed the Minutes of Order. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 5. Mr. Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel, who is appearing for the Applicant / Intervenor in Chamber No. 60 of 2009, submits that he has filed a separate writ petition being Writ Petition No. 584 of 2008 as there is some dispute between the builders and he has obtained an order from this court dated 11th April, 2008 in the said writ petition. He further submits that the land can not be relocated as it requires amendment in the plan. We feel that this modification is covered by Rule 4 of the Development Control Regulations. However, that writ petition is not before us and it should not be construed by our order that by disposing of this petition we have expressed any opinion about the said writ petition or the order passed in that writ petition. The applicant / Intervenor can take all his pleas in that writ petition, irrespective of this order being passed, which may be available to him in law. 6. Mr. Rajesh Premji Visaria, Director of M/s. Newlook Constructions 4 Pvt. Ltd. has filed an undertaking in the form of an affidavit dated 15th April, 2009. The said affidavit is taken on file and the undertakings given therein are accepted. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any objection for allowing this scheme to be executed and we order accordingly in terms of the minutes of order produced today before the court and marked “X”. The undertaking given in the said minutes of order is accepted. 8. Notice of Motion is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)