ASN 1 PIL-131-new.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.131 OF 2009 Rashtriya Mazdoor Gokuldham Welfare Association and ors. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. Mr. S.G.Kurup with Mr. S.P. Yadav i/by M.S. Corps Legal for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Shastri.A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Mr.C.S. Balsara with Ms. Jyoti Sinha i/by Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Respondent No.5. Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.V.Deokar and Mr. P. Modi i/by Parimal K.Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.6. Mr. E.P.Bharucha, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent -BMC. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2011 PC: The petitioners’ members have purchased flats in some of the buildings constructed as per a sanctioned lay-out plan. The plan has been amended from time to time. A primary school in the lay-out plan has been changed into a secondary school. The construction of a primary school has yet not commenced. An education centre is being proposed to be constructed in place of a secondary school. A market which was to be constructed is removed from the amended lay-out plan. The hospital which was to be constructed, is changed into a maternity ASN 2 PIL-131-new.sxw home in the amended plan. The petitioners have essentially made a grievance about the delay in constructing a welfare centre, the maternity hospital and the primary school as provided in the lay-out plan. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Sathe for respondent No.6, on instructions, states that respondent No.6 will complete the construction of the welfare centre and the maternity home by 31 December 2012 and that the building of primary school will be constructed and handed over to the Municipal Corporation by 31 December 2013. The recreational grounds (RGS) adjoining the aforesaid buildings in the lay-out plan shall also be made available to the residents of the society within the aforesaid period. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that play- grounds are also not developed as per the sanctioned lay-out plan and one such play-ground is converted into a swimming pool. 4. The learned counsel for the Developer states that three play-grounds are developed as such. Corporation itself has sanctioned the construction of the swimming pool on the condition that the same will be available to the school going children. He states that one of the play-grounds is being developed along with the construction of the primary school building. He further states that the defendants shall allow all the residents of the lay-out access to and use of all the three playgrounds. The playgrounds attached to the school may be used by the school children only during school hours. However, all the ASN 3 PIL-131-new.sxw playgrounds also shall be made available to all the other residents before and after school hours. Similarly, the swimming pool may be used by the school children only during school hours. It shall, however, be allowed to be used by all the children who are residents in the lay-out before and after school hours. 5. The sanctioned lay out plan annexed to the affidavit dated 29 June 2010 of Shri. Sunil Pandurang Patil, Assistant Engineer, Building Proposal, P-Ward of the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai shows that the number of the proposed recreation grounds is 25 (1 to 24 and RG No.12a) with total area of 34703.96 sq. meters. It is directed that the respondents shall not put up any construction or allow any construction to be put up on any of the 25 parcels of lands shown as proposed Recreational Grounds in the said sanctioned lay out plan, on any parcel of land shown as proposed Play Ground and on any parcel of land shown as proposed Physical Recreation Ground. . 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also raised contention, on the basis of the order dated 1 April 1988 as modified by the subsequent order dated 1 September 2006 by the Additional Collector and the Competent Authority ULC Mumbai, that the sites reserved in the redevelopment plan have to be handed over to the Corporation before obtaining the occupation certificate. ASN 4 PIL-131-new.sxw Condition Nos. 24,25 and 29 of the order dated 1 September 2006 read as under:- 24) Some of the P.R. Cards shows name of Imla Malak, name of Co.op. Housing Societies, name of other companies and Trust, therefore the land holder developer shall be required to obtain necessary N.O.C./permissions/consent of interested persons time to time while developing such type of land wherever required. 25) Any legal rights and claims of any existing tenants, occupants, co-owners shall not be affected by the developer. 29) M.C.G.M. Authority allows to develop the buildable accommodation reservations to the Land Holder/Developer then, the Land Holder/Developer shall require to obtain necessary permission from U.L.C. point of view from Government.” 7. The learned counsel for the MMC states that the Corporation is itself unwilling to take over possession of any of the reserved sites. Hence, the sites reserved for recreation or playgrounds shall be developed as such and shall remain as such and be used by all residents of the lay-out. 8. At this stage, we are not expressing any opinion about the rival contentions and we leave it to the petitioner to move appropriate authorities in case the petitioners are of the view that the respondents have committed breach of any of the terms and conditions in the orders issued under U.L.C. Act. The concerned authorities shall look into such ASN 5 PIL-131-new.sxw grievances and take appropriate decision and action according to law. 9. The Petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above directions. Liberty to apply in case of non-compliance with any of the above directions. CHIEF JUSTICE ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )