The Bombay High Court has rejected a plea by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and MLA Ravindra Waikar, along with his wife Manisha and three others, challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) decision to cancel permission for the development of land designated for a five-star hotel in Jogeshwari (East). The court questioned the initial permission granted by BMC officials and why no action was taken against those officials when the permission was later revoked. The dispute arose from an agreement made in 2004, and the court found that the petitioners had concealed key clauses, leading to the rejection of their plea.
The Bombay High Court has rejected a plea by Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and MLA Ravindra Waikar, along with his wife Manisha and three others, challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) decision to cancel permission for the development of land designated for a five-star hotel in Jogeshwari (East) on Jogeshwari Vikhroli Link Road (JVLR). The court's decision comes after an interim protection order had previously been granted to Waikar on June 21, preventing the BMC from taking any action while he pursued legal avenues.
In this case, the court questioned the initial permission granted by BMC officials to Waikar and why no action was taken against those officials when the permission was later revoked. BJP leader Kirit Somaiya's intervention plea was also rejected by the court, asserting that the BMC had competent legal representation.
The dispute stems from an agreement made in February 2004 between the BMC, landowners, and the petitioners, which permitted the occupiers to reserve 67 percent of the land for open spaces according to development control rules (DCR). In 2005, the petitioners purchased the land, and in 2018, they were entitled to use the floor space index (FSI) as per the DCR by surrendering 70 percent of the land to BMC.
However, in October 2020, the petitioners decided to give up 70 percent of the land and apply for development work by demolishing the existing structures. Their proposal was approved in January 2021. The dispute arose when, without prior notice or adhering to principles of natural justice, BMC revoked the permission in June 2021, leading the petitioners to approach the high court.
The court found that the petitioners had concealed key clauses from the earlier Development Agreement when submitting their proposal under DCPR 2034. They also noted that the petitioners had given a false undertaking to BMC, claiming they hadn't received any benefits or proposals for compensation. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioners submitted a development proposal for land reserved in the 2034 plan while suppressing the fact that the reservation had already been implemented.
Ultimately, the court ruled that the petitioners had received benefits under DC Regulations 1991, and their construction of a clubhouse had effectively implemented the scheme. Therefore, they couldn't seek compensation under DCPR 2034 when the land's reservation had not changed. The court also determined that BMC had followed the principles of natural justice and provided sufficient opportunities for the petitioners to present their case, dismissing the plea.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
