Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
M/s.Satra Plaza Premises Co-Op.Soc.Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1374, 1184 of 2017
Decided on : 04-05-2023
Occupancy Certificate - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act - Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management & Transfer) Act, 1963, Section 10 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court considered the revocation of the Occupancy Certificate granted to the petitioner's premises under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act. The court found that the revocation was based on a condition that was not authorized by law and that the Municipal Commissioner had not followed the required procedure under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The court declared the condition in the Occupancy Certificate as illegal and quashed the impugned order, prohibiting the Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive action.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a co-operative society, challenged the revocation of the Occupancy Certificate by the Municipal Commissioner. The revocation was based on a condition requiring the submission of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from CIDCO, which the court found to be unauthorized by law. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the revocation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revocation of the Occupancy Certificate was illegal and declared the condition in the certificate as unauthorized by law. The court also prohibited the Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive action under the impugned order.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the revocation of the Occupancy Certificate and the validity of the condition requiring an NOC from CIDCO. The court also considered the lack of opportunity given to the petitioner to be heard before the revocation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revocation of the Occupancy Certificate was not authorized by law and that the condition in the certificate was illegal. The court also found that the Municipal Commissioner had not followed the required procedure under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order revoking the Occupancy Certificate, declared the condition in the certificate as illegal, and prohibited the Municipal Corporation from taking any coercive action under the impugned order.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and pursuant to the mandate of the first proviso to Section 10 of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management & Transfer) Act, 1963 by the purchasers of offices/shops in the building constructed by respondent no.3 - M/s. Satra Properties(India) Ltd., the developers. The land on which the petitioner’s premises are constructed is described to be Plot Nos. 19 and 20, Sector – 19-D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703.
2. The petitioner impugns an order dated 27 December, 2016 passed by the Municipal Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) of respondent No.1 - Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short “municipal corporation”) whereby in exercise of powers vested with the Planning Authority, the municipal corporation has revoked/cancelled not only the Occupancy Certificate dated 09 February, 2012 issued to the premises of the petitioner, but also the revised Commencement Certificate.
3. The question which arises for consideration in the present proceeding is whether in the facts of the present case the Municipal Commissioner at all had any power to revoke the Occupation Certificate granted to the petitioner’s premises.
4. Shortly stated the facts are:-
Respondent No. 5-City And Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (for short, “CIDCO”) had constructed two buildings for offices for the brokers of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (for short “APMC”) on the land in question prior to the year 2000. CIDCO allotted both, the buildings along with Plot No.19 and adjacent vacant Plot No.20, namely the lands in question to the municipal corporation for its use as its Head Office.
5. The municipal corporation subsequently discovered that the two buildings constructed on Plot No. 19 were not suitable for its office use. The municipal corporation invited tenders in the year 2005 for the sale of two office buildings along with the composite plot. In pursuance of the tender/scheme floated by the municipal corporation, various aspirants submitted their offers. One M/s. Om Housing Company Pvt. Ltd. (for short, “Om Housing”) turned out to be the highest tenderer. Consequently, the municipal corporation issued to Om Housing a letter of acceptance dated 02 July, 2005. Since Om Housing needed finance from banks/financial institutions, by its letter dated 10 August, 2015, Om Housing requested the municipal corporation to execute “Agreement to Lease” in its favour. The municipal corporation consequently executed Agreement to Lease dated 18 August, 2005 agreeing to lease these composite plots in favour of the Om Housing, on the terms and conditions as set out therein.
6. The municipal corporation thereafter, by its letter dated 02 February, 2006 applied to CIDCO for permission to transfer and assign its leasehold rights of the composite plot in favour of Om Housing. CIDCO by its letter dated 24 February, 2006, requested the municipal corporation to pay additional lease premium vis-a-vis for the grant of additional FSI and amalgamation of the two plots. The municipal corporation made the payment of Rs.14,78,10,000/- towards the additional lease premium for the grant of additional FSI and amalgamation of two plots to CIDCO. Upon the payment of such additional lease premium, CIDCO by its letters dated 27 October, 2006 granted permission for the utilisation of the additional FSI as also for the amalgamation of the two plots on the terms and conditions as set out therein. CIDCO thereafter by its two letters both dated 21 December, 2006 allowed the municipal corporation to transfer and assign its leasehold rights vis-a-vis Plot No.19 and the two buildings standing thereon as well as Plot No. 20 in favour of the Om Housing.
7. Pursuant to the permission fro
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under section 51 of the MRTP Act was without jurisdiction, and the UDCPR provisions pressed in service were not applicable to affec....
Unauthorized construction violating building regulations, non-compoundable violations, and jurisdiction of the Executive Officer and Deputy Commissioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation Officers must comply with the principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, treat everyone equally, and not....
Point of law: Notices were not served on the same day this Court holds that there is no failure of natural justice or compliance with the provisions of Sections 452 and 636 of the Act.
The court affirmed that deemed conveyance can be granted under Section 11 of the Act even without an occupancy certificate, provided a self-declaration is submitted, preventing promoters from benefit....
The impugned notification did not apply to the entire area mentioned in the sanctioned layout, and subsequent applications for further development were governed by the provisions at the time of appli....
The court affirmed that deemed conveyance can be granted without an occupancy certificate if a self-declaration is submitted, emphasizing the promoter's obligation to obtain such certificate.
Public landowner has preferential redevelopment rights on reserved slum land; conditional NOC cancellation valid for developer's failure to provide compliant plans for public amenities, subordinating....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
