1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 365 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2000 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 2000 M/s Devdatta Apartments Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents. Mr. V.V. Tulzapurkar, Sr. Advocate with Nikhil Sakhardande i/b Wadice Gordly & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate with Ms. S.M. Modle for Respondent no.1. Ms. Madhubala Koyale, AGP for Respondent No.2 and 3. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 8th October, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. By an order dated 10th January, 2001 passed in this 2 Writ Petition certain directions were issued. The order dated 10th January, 2001 reads as under: “The grievance of the Petitioner is two fold – first it is contended that the compensation has not been paid in respect of lands bearing CTS Nos. 235, 244 and 238 (part) which were acquired for D.P. Road. It is also contended that the Petitioner is entitled to FSI in lieu of compensation as per existing policy of the Municipal Corporation. The learned Counsel appearing for the State Government stated that State Government will transfer the amount to the Corporation to enable the Petitioner to seek benefit of FSI in accordance with D.C. Rules. The Municipal Corporation shall grant FSI as per their letter dated 19-12-1996 (Exh.R) subject to the payment of interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 3-9-1986 till the date of this order and subject to 3 compliance other conditions as prescribed in D.C. Rules, if any. As far as C.T.S. No. 240 (part) is concerned, the Municipal Corporation is directed to explain on affidavit whether possession of the said land was taken for the purpose of construction of Road.” 2 No affidavit is filed in relation to C.T.S. No. 240. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states on instructions from Shri Y.S. Ranjane, Sub Engineer who is present in court, that possession has been taken and road has already been constructed. 3 Admittedly, the Corporation has not filed any affidavit in relation to C.T.S. No. 240. The Petitioner has also not deposited the amount of interest as directed. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has placed on record copy of the letter dated 23.07.2007 addressed by the Corporation to the State Government. It is taken on record and 4 marked as “X” for identification. In view of the letter at “X”, the order dated 10th January, 2001 and by consent of the parties Writ Petition is disposed of in following terms: i) The State Government shall pass the order sought by letter dated 23.07.2007 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from today and communicate it to the Petitioner and the Corporation. ii) After receiving the order from the State Government the Corporation shall calculate and release FSI as per the directions issued by the State Government and communicate it to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of directions from the State Government. iii) The Corporation shall also intimate to the Petitioner about the amount of interest that he has to pay to the Corporation in accordance with the order dated 10th January, 2001 which is quoted above. If the 5 order passed by the State Government or Corporation is adverse to the interest of the Petitioner, the Petitioner is at liberty to adopt the remedy that may be available to the Petitioner in law. 4 Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As the Writ Petition is disposed of, Notice of Motion No. 365 of 2006 does not survive for consideration, therefore, it is also disposed of. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)