The court upheld municipal discretion in approving building plans despite minor deficiencies, recognizing hardship, fire safety compliance, and necessary adjustments per statutory regulations.

1. By the present Notice of Motion, the Applicants / Plaintiffs have sought an interim order and injunction restraining Defendant Nos.1 and 2, their employee, agents and servants, or any person claiming by or through them, from carrying out construction of any kind on Plot No. A (being old Plot No.435A corresponding to CTS Nos. E/323 (part) and E/325 collectively admeasuring 795.176 square meters or thereabouts). Further injunction is sought by the Applicants / Plaintiffs restraining Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from allotting flats and / or executing any agreements, arrangements or understandings with third parties, inducting them into the flats proposed to be constructed in the building on Plot No. A (being old Plot No.435A corresponding to CTS Nos. E/323 (part) and E/325 collectively admeasuring 795.176 square meters or thereabouts.

2. Consequential relief has also been sought against Defendant Nos.3 to 8 from issuing occupation certificate, in part or full to permit the prospective purchasers to occupy any unit in the building alleged to be illegally constructed on Plot A. Relief of appointment of Court Receiver has been sought and licensed surveyor as well as certain disclosures.

The brief background of facts is as follows:-

3. One Motwane Private Limited (“MPL”) was owner of plot of land bearing CTS Nos. E/323, E/324 and E/325 situated and lying at 14th and 15th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052 (larger property). MPL was company owned by the Motwane family.

4. On 31st March, 1990, the larger property was notionally divided and conveyed to the different members of the Motwane Family as under:-

(i) Plot A admeasuring 795.176 Square meters was conveyed to Late Hardevi Motwane and Defendant No.9 inclusive of 15% proportionate recreational ground (RG) area;

(ii) Plot B admeasuring 1887.357 square meters was conveyed to the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.14, the Late Girdhar Motwane and the late Maina Nanik Motwane.

(iii) Plot C admeasuring 793.263 Square meters was conveyed to Defendant Nos.9 and 11.

5. The Plaintiffs are the owners and residents of Plot B. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the Developers who are developing Plot No. A.

6. Defendant No.1 was granted an IOD to develop Plot A on 17th December, 2009. By the year 2013, Defendant No.1’s construction had reached stilt + 2 Podiums + 10 storeys. As of 2019, the construction had reached 12th storey out of the proposed stilt + 2 Podiums + 14 storeys.

7. The Plaintiff addressed a notice to the Municipal Commissioner on 24th November, 2013 through their Advocates wherein it is alleged that development plan had been submitted by Defendant No.1 on the basis of larger property instead of plot A alone. Though the developer of Plot A was to keep a minimum distance of 1.5 meters from the shared perimeter / boundary of Plot B, Defendant No.2 had kept open space around the new building at Plot A but had calculated the said space from the walls of the bungalow of Plot B and not from the common perimeter / boundary line between Plots A and B on the North and West side. The developer of Plot A had built a podium upto the boundary line which according to Plaintiffs, further open space was required to be kept for any future redevelopment of Plot B. It was thus the contention of the Plaintiffs that minimum open space had not been kept. Further the Developer had failed to ensure provision of 15% RG area on Plot A. The Plainti