IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ROSHAN DALVI & MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.
M/s. Lake View Developers & Ors. - Applicants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.133 OF 2015 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.131, 91, 21 OF 2008
Decided On : 29.10.2015
Arithmetic Calculation - Construction of Flats - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought directions to modify the order for construction of flats based on an alleged arithmetical error in the court's calculation. They also sought credit for commercial construction and a reduction in the number of flats to be constructed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants' arithmetical calculation was incorrect and that the commercial construction exceeded the permissible limit. The court also rejected the applicants' claim for credit and modification of the judgment.
Issues: Arithmetical accuracy of the court's calculation, allowance for commercial construction, modification of the judgment, and independence of the courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the original judgment, emphasizing the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the independence of the courts in considering the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the civil application and refused to grant the applicants' requests for modification and credit for commercial construction.
1. The applicants have applied for directions with regard to the numbers of flats to be constructed by the applicants as directed in clause 'f' and 'h' of the judgment dated 22nd February, 2012 The applicants have required the Court to modify the order for construction of 1511 and 1593 flats of 40 and 80 Sq. mtrs. to 1060. Flats of 40 Sq. mtrs. and 1060 flats of 80 Sq. mtrs. having aggregate area of 127280 Sq. mtrs. and correspondingly to sell 160 flats of 40 Sq. mtrs. and 159 flats of 80 Sq. mtrs. to the State Government @ 135/psf as per the aforesaid judgment.
2. Under the judgment the reasons for directing construction of precisely 1511 flats of 40 Sq. mtrs. and 1593 flats of 80 Sq.mtrs. which would consume FSI of 1,87,990 Sq.ft. have been set out. The applicants claim that the arithmetical calculation made by the Court is erroneous. They claim that not 1,87,990 Sq.ft. but 1,20,260 Sq.mtrs (wrongly stated as 1,20,280 in prayer (a) of C A No.133 of 2015) of flats of 40 / 80 Sq.mtrs. are required to be constructed. The arithmetical calculation is explained by counsel on behalf of the applicants by taking the Court through the calculation made by the Court under the judgment of which one of us (Roshan Dalvi, J) was a party. It would have to be seen whether the calculation put by the applicants is correct and whether, therefore, the arithmetical error is to be corrected by a modification of the order with regard to the number of flats to be constructed, under clause 'f' of the judgment.
3. The calculation made by the Court is set out in paragraph 45 to 49 of the judgment and the further calculations is set out in paragraph 51 of the judgment. It may be enumerated thus :
Paragraph 45 : Total permissible FSI is 1. The plot of 7,38,609.29 Sq.mtrs. has to be developed. After legitimate deduction the net area of the plot is 4,04,838 Sq.mtrs.
Paragraph 46 : A rebate for selling and amalgamation of 15% total area allowed as per the order dated 18th August, 1989 of the government is allowed. That would be for construction of 60,730 Sq.mtrs. being 15% of the total area 4,04,838 Sq.mtrs. leaving of balance of 3,44,110 Sq.mtrs. of construction.
Paragraph 47 : For 8 Hectors of land accepted by the central government out of 50 hectors of land offered to it the FSI was allowed to be deducted. This would constitute 80,000 Sq.mtrs. of area leaving a balance of 2,64,110 Sq.mtrs.of construction.
Paragraph 48 : Construction of 689 flats of 40 Sq.mtrs. and 607 flats of 80 Sq.mtrs. consuming FSI 76,120 Sq.mtrs. had been made and hence had to be deducted leaving an area of 1,87,900 Sq.mtrs. of FSI left for construction and directed to be constructed strictly as per the contract. This would allow construction of 1511 flats of 40 Sq.mtrs. and 1593 flats of 80 Sq.mtrs.
4. The contract stipulates construction for only residential premises of the aforesaid area as affordable housing. Hence under the contract there was to be no construction of commercial nature. The applicants nevertheless put up construction for commercial nature and claimed rebate to the extent of 15% of the total FSI for commercial construction. This would be to the extent of 60730 Sq.mtrs. of construction. The applicants claim that commercial construction already put up must also be allowed to be deducted to the extent of 15% thereof from the construction now to be put up. The application is impertinent. The entire lis relates to wrongful construction against the spirit of the contract. It is because of such wrongful construction that the order of injunction against any further construction is passed. It would be not only be travesty, but mockery of justice if construction put up wholly against the contractual obligations is to be allowed, rebated or discounted. That has not been done in the judgment. It cannot be done in any order. It is, therefore, that in paragraph 51 of the judgment the case of the applicants for the 15% of the total construction as commercial premises under the D
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.