FORUM FOR JUSTICE

2013-05-31T07:19:00.002-07:00

2013-05-31T06:40:00.003-07:00

2013-05-31T06:09:00.001-07:00

Review Petition on r

2013-05-18T23:26:00.001-07:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O.O.C.J.

REVIEW PETITION No. OF 2013

P.I.L. PETITION W.P.(O.S.) No.658 OF 2012

In the matter of Article 26 0f

Constitution of India

AND

In the matter of Maharashtra

Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966

AND

In the matter of Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act1888 and Building Bye-laws

AND

IN THE MATTER OF REVIEW OF

ORDER OF THE HONORABLE

HIGH COURT DATED 09TH APRIL2013.

WRIT PETITION No. W.P.(O.S) 658 OF 2013.

1) FORUMFOR JUSTICE (Trust) through)

Madhav Gajanan Deshpande,President )

Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )

Having his residence at: )

7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No. )

23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )

Mumba-086 AND ONE ANOTHER) …Review Petitioners /

Original petitioner No.01

V/s.

1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi )

Jain Shravak Sangh Plot No. 7, )

Sanghani Estate ‘D’ Portion Lay-out, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), )

Mumbai - 400086. )

2) Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia(Partner)

AVI Housing (Builders & Developers )

Unit No.2, Gr. Fl.,Vadani Industrial )

Estate, Opp.Shani Niketan, L.B.Shastri )

Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.)

3) Jai Neminath Kripa Co-op. )

Housing Society Ltd. Plot No.14, )

'D' portion Layout Sanghani Estate, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West) )

Mumbai-400086. )

4) Municipal Commissioner, )

Municipal Corporation of Greater )

Mumbai Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )

Mumbai – 400 001. )

5) The Government of Maharashtra )

through the Chief Secretary )

Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, )

Mumbai – 400 032. )

6) The Senior Inspector of Police )

Surya Nagar Police Station, )

Off. L. B. Shastry Marg, )

Vikhroli(West), Mumbai-400083 )…………….Respondents

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1 The Review Petitioners respectfully submits that the Review petitioner is the Trust registered under No. F-19291 Mum India and resident of the place shown in the cause title and in the c The Review Petitioners respectfully submits that the Review petitioner is the citizen of India and resident of the place shown in the cause title and in the capacity of President of the Petitioner No. 01, registered charitable trust called FORUM FOR JUSTICE is representing and pleading IN-PERSON on behalf of the petitioner No.01 in the aforementioned Writ Petition in which the impugned order dated 09th April 2013 is passed by this Honorable court. Hereto annexed is the copy of the said order dated 09/04/2013 and marked as EXHIBIT- "A"

The Respondent No.1 hereto is a religious charitable trust,

registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and managed

by the Managing committee Members trustees appointed /

elected time to time.

The Respondent No.2 is the Partner of M/S. AVI HOUSING (Builders/ Developers) appointed by the defendant No. 01

The Respondent No. 3 is a Co-op. Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, having its office and building on plot No.14 of 'D' portion of Sanghani Estate layout situated at Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.400086.

The Respondent No. 4 is the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai (M.C.G.M) who is responsible for functioning of administration of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and approves building plans, subdivision of plots, and takes decision on provisions for Recreational Open Space, Garden and such other amenities to be provided in various plots of lands through his powers delegated authorities in Director (ES&P) / Chief Engineer (D.P.) /Dy Chief Engineer (B.P.)/ Executive Engineer (B.P.) to accord approvals to buildings and sub-divisions / amalgamations etc of holdings in Greater Mumbai Limits.

The Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Secretary and as such the administrative Head of the Government of Maharashtra whose powers are delegated upon the Collector of Greater Mumbai Suburban District who in turn, through Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District and City Survey Officer under the Control of Superintendent of Land Records, incorporates changes in revenue records.

The Respondent No.6 hereto is the Sr. Inspector of Police, Suryanagar Police Station, off L.B. Shastri Marg Vikroli (W), Mumbai-400083.

3 Petitioner is filing this Review Present petition in the interest of residents of the locality in and around ‘A’ to ‘D’ portions of Sanghani Estate and some of amongst the GROUNDS are as follows:

a) The Honorable court has not considered that Petitioners

hereto have no personal interest.

b) The petitioner hereto have been representing the cause of large section of the residents and not stood up as owners of the plots in the said layout wherein petitioners personal plot area is encroached upon and is under dispute but the cause of public interest of legitimate amenity insisted by the local body of the then BMC and the Town Planning department and authority while approving the entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions as continuous holding under layout File No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951.

c) This Honorable court has not considered that at the first instance the petitioners have filed this petition as PIL and there being no federation of around 104 plots in the said entire layout and the Respondent No. 01 being Religious Charitable trust conducting Upashray of Jain community which is in majority in the said entire layout and being under religious influence are reluctant to unite together to fight against encroachment made by the religious trust on the amenity, as law, provided in the nature of Recreational Open Space. In response to the boldness and alertness towards public interest shown, by the petitioners, the Honorable Court was initially kind enough to maintain the status of petition as PIL as registered under No. 31 of 2011 and thereafter for quick disposal was transferred to Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and thereafter Honorable Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde.

d) Honorable Court has expressed the view that the buildings on the plot No. 14 built by respondent No. 03 and on plot No. 09, 10 by respondent No. 01 all basically under ROS. (Garden) were first encroached up on thirty years ago only after the original approved layout files were lost or allowed to be destroyed as criminal conspiracy of vested interest then engineers of department, Architects and the then developers.

e) The Honorable Court was neither assisted adequately by “Amicus Curiae” by taking feedback on the techno legal and procedural points on functioning of building proposal department of Respondent No. 04 from the petitioner in person who prior to uncalled for appointment of “Amicus Curiae” had taken four orders from Honorable court nor the petitioner in person, though being practicing Architect and town planner, was allowed to plead the matter.

f) Honorable court has not considered the aspect that why the stop work notices were not issued on the land of Garden under bygone plot Nos. 09. 10 was cleared where the building was constructed 30 years back and property cards and plans were not cancelled by Respondent No. 05 and 06 even after repeated complaints since 2000 by the petitioner to original PIL No.31 of 2011 and PIL under Section 90(1)a in June 2010.

g) Honorable Court has taken the view and assumed that Petitioner states that the petitioner is relying up on the plan attached with the petition as the “Amicus Curiae” was not thoroughly prepared and the court even after request did not allow the petitioner to bring out the intricacies involved in the matter of PIL to assist the “Amicus Curiae” and the court in the interest of justice to the residents of the locality.

4 Petitioner states that on 25/08/2011 the matter was argued before the Honorable bench presided over by Chief Justice and the issue of whether to consider this PIL filed, in public interest, by TWO ALERT residents and social activist devoting around fifty years for social cause and beneficiaries of amenity like Garden (ROS) along with other hundreds of residents, most of whom are ignorant about their rights and in the habit of succumbing to local, social political and religious pressure like getting outcaste etc. It was also brought to the notice of Honorable court that the plot holder Societies and Individual plot holder owners are indifferent about forming federation of over hundred (104) plots of 'A' to 'D' portions of entire one continuous holding of the layout approved under one single file No.G.B./259 OF 28/08/1951, hence the matter should be treated as PIL.

5 Petitioner states that Honorable Chief Justice was kind enough to consider the urgency and transferred the matter on 25/08/2011 as PIL to the bench presided over by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha. PLI was heard on 21/09/2011 and orders were passed for Respondent No.04 and 05 the Municipal Commissioner and state government to file reply to the petition and directed to place the matter for admission on 22/10/2011.

6 Petitioner states that in the process the PIL No. 31 OF 2011 was on the board of either Honorable Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha or on the board of Honorable Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde and after passing four orders by two benches, on 24/01/2012 after giving the Respondent No.04 Municipal Commissioner for weeks time to file Affidavit the matter was kept on 21/02/2012 for orders.

7 Petitioner states that in the course of administrative changes in assignments of PIL matters, all PIL matters assigned to different benches were taken back to the Honorable Bench presided over by Honorable Chief Justice and said PIL matter kept for orders after number of dates and FOUR ORDERS, on 21/02/2012, was withdrawn from the bench headed by Honorable Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and kept for hearing before the Honorable Bench presided over by Chief Justice on 24/02/2012.

8 Petitioner states that the once decided issue about classifying the matter as PIL on 25/08/2011 and transferring as PIL to other benches for quick relief surprisingly the Advocates of Respondent No. 02 and 04, with the intention of confusing the court raised again the issue of PIL or non PIL status of litigation and against the explanation offered by this petitioner i) that the majority of the Exhibits attached in the petition are the part of correspondence between FORUM FOR JUSTICE (N.G.O.) and various Municipal and Government authority ii) that the registered place of charitable activities of FORUM FOR JUSTICE (N.G.O.) is in the said Sanghani Estate layout i.e. the residence of the original petitioner No, 01.

9 Petitioner states that in the course of scrutiny of the plaint neither Court Associate and the then Prothonotry-Sr. Master nor the Honorable Chief Justice after initially allowing the status as PIL on pleading made this petitioner on 25/08/2011, and assigning the matter as PIL to other two benches, pointed out or insisted that to get the PIL status for this matter, the NG.O. or Charitable Trust has to be the party to litigation as Petitioner No. 01.

10 Petitioner states that in the course of earlier pleading in person, prior to assigning the matter to the Honorable Benches headed by Justice Shri. D.D. Sinha and Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde, it was brought to the notice of the Honorable Court that in the plaint of PIL it is mentioned that the Petitioner No. 01 is the President of Public Charitable Trust called FORUM FOR JUSTICE ( Regn. No. F-19491-Mum.) and also Chairman of Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Called Kaustubhdham C.H.S.Ltd., on plot no 23, in the said Sanghani Estate Layout even then it was not suggested by all the three benches, when the matter was heard and four orders were pass from 21/09/2011 to 24/02/2012 as PIL matter, to make the N.G.O. Trust as the petitioner No. 01.

11 Petitioner states that the order of Honorable Chief Justice dated 24th February 2012 of treating and classifying the petition, originally registered under PIL No.31 of 2011, as W.P.(O.S) was requested to be reconsidered vide Application dated 17 Oct.2012 moved before Honorable Chief Justice and was prayed that necessary amendments to original P.I.L. No. 31 of 2011 plaint be allowed by way of :

a) the FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust) as Petitioner No. 01 through its President Madhav Gajanan Deshpande (In person).

b) the litigation to be kept under P.I.L. No.31 of 2011, be considered and allowed. A copy of the said application under affidavit dated 17th Oct. 2012 is in the main petition.

12 Petitioner states that Honorable Chief Justice was kind enough to allow the prayers and under internal orders dated 04th Dec. 2012 assigned the matter to the Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanviulkar to process the Chamber Summons to admit FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust) as Petitioner No. 01 represented in person through its president Madhav Gajanan Deshpande (the original petitioner No.01) the said internal order dated 04th Dec. 2012 is in the main petition No.W.P. (O.S.) 658 of 2012.

13 Petitioner states that the Chamber Summons No.296 of 18th Dec. 2012 was moved on 19th Dec. 2012 before the Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanvilkar which came for admission on 22/02/2013 when chamber summons was allowed in terms of prayer 'a' only and made absolute with directions to carry out amendments as per prayer 'a', vide order dated 22nd Feb.2013 and even after willingness shown and insistence expressed by this petitioner before the Honorable court to continue hearing and decide to proceed the petition as PIL on the background of the Application dated 17/10/2012 moved by this petitioner before Chief Justice and internal order dated 04/12/2012 passed by Honorable Chief Justice, the bench headed by Justice Shri. A.M. Khanvilkar turned down the request for the reason that Advocate Shri. Miland Sathe the Amicus Curiae appointed to assist court was not present and matter was postponed to 11/3/2013 and thereafter to 22/3/2013. In the mean time Honorable Justice Shri A. M. Khanvilkar was promoted as Chief Justice of other High Court.

14 Petitioner states that he being practicing Architect and town planner over last 45 years and being conversant with building rules and byelaws and having knowledge and study of law, this PIL was drafted argued and pleaded in person by this petitioner and FOUR ORDERS were passed by Honorable three benches. This petitioner fails to understand even after stating before the Honorable Bench presided over by Justice Shri. A.S. Bobde that the area of land under 'D' portion of layout is 39817 Sq. Yrds. and the out of required 15% of said land comprising of part portions of many survey number mentioned in the petition is illegally sold and encroached up on by the respondent No.01, 02, 03 but the Honorable Bench without allowing me to further explain the procedural aspect passed the order dated08/12/2011 stating that "the petitioners have preferred this petition on the bases that the reservation of land bearing Survey Nos.23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 158, 159 and 161 to 164 at Ghatkopar is green and is left open for a garden and recreation ground. According to petitioners, this reservation is reflected in Resolution of the standing committee…….." which misconceived and away from the ground reality.

15 Petitioner states that similarly on 28/06/2012 when Sr. Advocate for Respondent No. 04 the Municipal Commissioner was not present a/w. Ms. T. H. Puranik was present and she was asking adjournment but this petitioner insisted to allow arguments to be started in the matter and in the course of forwarding arguments explained the procedural part of approval of building proposals and requirements of large subdivision of plot layout wherein holding more than 2500. Sq. Yrds. in area, require 15% Garden (ROS) as amenity open space for the benefit and use of residents of such layout development irrespective of amenities provided by planning authority of local self government bodies for the agglomeration in terms of Development Plan finalized by local body as per MRTP Act 1966.

16 Petitioner states that in the said entire Sanghani Estate layout approved under file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 the Garden portion 'B' which includes then non-build able area of plots No. 09, 10 which might have been shown as plots but in the course of continued scrutiny of the layout proposal , the approving authority of Respondent No. 04 must have directed the then Architect C.K.SANGHANI to amend plans and include the non buildable area with irregular shape under plot No.09 and 10 to meet the Garden (ROS) requirement and originally shown trapezoidal area with out access to get direct frontage to garden from 30Ft. wide internal road of the layout, presently called as Gaondevi Road.

17 Petitioner states that the main layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/51 and files containing concurrence given by the then Standing Committee in four ('A' to 'D' portions) phase wise development are intentionally lost or allowed to be destroyed hand in glows with then concerned officers and instead of depending on approved layout plans and permissions under the seal and signature of then Municipal officers of Municipal Commissioner, the layout plan prepared and required to be amended in the course of scrutiny of the layout proposal but not as final approved plan by building proposal depart or then City Engineer is certified by the Architect under his seal and signature as "certified true copy of layout plan" which the building proposal engineers have been illegally and highhandedly accepting as valid document of approval of layout by then Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC).

18 Petitioner states that in the absence of Respondent No. 04 exerting hard to trace out the finally approved layout wherein the then considered to be irregular land and made part of the Garden B shown on the plan which, in the course of scrutiny of layout proposal, found having no access from Gaondevi road was required to be amended by increasing the originally inadequate trapezoidal ‘B’ Garden area and providing road frontage to thus increased entire garden ‘B’ which, in fact, is the area position shape size of Garden ‘B of supposed to be final approved layout the files of which are intentionally lost or destroyed to avail criminal benefit by encroaching up on garden and illegally making the unbuildable area buildable by illegally executing GIVE AND TAKE of adjoining property.

19 Petitioner states that the scrutiny department of building and layout proposals of respondent No.04 before it is sent to Standing Committee for concurrence / sanction must have insisted in the file N0.GB/259 of 28/08/1951 and directed to extended portion of Garden ‘B’ in unbuildable shape fronting the 30Ft. wide internal Gaondevi Road to facilitate the adjoining development to provide their 15%% Garden (ROS) touching the extended Garden ‘B’ in combination to make rectangular Recreational Amenity open Space for the locality as suggested in final approval to layout plan. Late Shri .Navnitlal Nyalchand Seth being founding trustee of respondent No. 01, then Gardens (ROS) at different places in the layout were donated or sold to the respondent No. 01 at Rupee one or for negligible amount including selling Garden(ROS) ‘A’ to the Swami Lila Shah C.H.S..Ltd., when around twenty plots in the layout were sold to the said society.

20 Petitioner states that on similar lines the certified copy of the conditions imposed by the then Town Planning Engineer is also tampered and after deleting the some of the important conditions from the main condition letter and certifying such tampered Xerox copy as certified by Architect is attached with the Affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer Building proposals which is in the main petition.

21 Petitioner states that Advocate Shri. Milind Sathe was unilaterally appointed to assist the court and the petitioner was prevented from putting forth the administrative and procedural aspect with legality involved as Amicus Curiae was appointed without the written consent or requirement of the petitioner No. 01 vide order dated 28/06/2012 of Honorable bench presided over by Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde. the said order dated 28/06/2012 is on the record of court in W.P.No.658 of 13.

22 Petitioner states that the area of land under plot No. 09 and 10 initially being unbuildable and irregular in shape and size must have been directed as part of garden 'B' abutting on the internal 30Ft. wide Gaondevi Road as such, in the course of scrutiny of the layout; the area under plot No. 09 and 10 was required to be incorporated in the inadequate trapezoidal attach rear portion of garden initially proposed abutting plots all around with on the adjoining west side of trapezoidal garden being property out side layout boundary; as such the as per the amendments suggested in the course of scrutiny of proposal of layout, before finally the entire layout was approved by incorporating the area under plot Nos. 09, 10 and forming one complete side of garden on south side abutting the 30Fr. wide internal present Gaondevi Road. Hence the land under plot Nos. 9, 10 is not only access but part of garden 'B'.

23 Petitioner states that Advocate Shri. Milind Sathe appointed by the Honorable Bench presided over by Justice Shri. S.A. Bobde as "Amicus Curiae" against the will ,wish, necessity or demand express by this petitioner without written consent may be with noble intentions but the said Amicus Curiae appointed to help the court to understand the techno legal and procedural part of functioning in giving approval to building and layout proposals by respondent No. 04, has infect betrayed the Honorable Court as he had no time and interest in understanding the intricacies of the issues raised in the petition in public interest excepting taking papers from this petitioner, he never had give time and appointment to this petitioner to explain the issue from my techno legal angle and refused to go into the payers other than status of the layout which also he has not given justice as he was found to be blank and unprepared on 09/04/2013 before Honorable Chief Justice though the matter was scheduled on 08/04/2013 before Honorable Bench presided over by Justice Shri. Chandrachud when Shri.Milind Sathe was present.

24 Petitioner states that the petitioner though practicing Architect and Town Planner was restrain and stopped from pleading in person as techno legal man on the techno legal and procedural issues raised in the petition along with the "Amicus Curiae" who was appointed to assist court but was not adequately prepared for the reasons best known to him.

25 Petitioner states that it would have been ideal to allow the petitioner to explain before the Honorable Court the techno legal and procedural part with vast experience over 45 years, of according approval to building and layout proposals and the Amicus Curiae to substantiate the same with additional law points. In the absence of this the Amicus Curiae appointer aught to have taken instructions from this petitioner on the points which have become untied ends in the order dated 09/04/2013 passed by Honorable High Court.

26 Petitioner states that the petitioner is not relying up on the plan attached with the petition but challenging the authenticity of the said layout plan which is supplied by the Respondent No. 04 here to from their records on the bases of which and in the absence authentic approval to said layout with seal and signature of Respondent No. 04 with them and authentic City survey records from Respondent No. 05 how approvals on Garden (ROS) reservations and on other plots in the layout are given.

27 Petitioner states that the contention of the Advocate for Respondent Nos. 01, 02, 03 mentioned in order is not correct to the extent that the litigation in the City Civil Court Mumbai was filed under Section 90(1)a as Public Interest litigation but there also this petitioner being in person the inadvertence on procedure of in filing the petition made this petitioner to seek withdrawal of said petition. Copy of the order granting withdrawal of the PIL Suit filed is in the reply to the Affidavit filed by respondent No, 02.

28 Petitioner states that the first crime of constructing on part Garden portion on land under plot No. 09, 10 which were in the stage of scrutiny of the layout but being then unbuildable and required to compensate the deficiency in required Garden and to have such Garden with road frontage the land under initially proposed plot Nos. 09, 10 though merged and made part of Garden 'B' marked on the plan of which the original Sanction copy being destroyed or lost for ever the layout plan copy made by the then Architect is illegally and criminally adopted as approved plan which has no legal status but is the part of conspiracy of then developer of layout, Architect of layout and the concerned municipal engineers responsible for scrutiny of building and layout proposals thus the crime committed more than thirty years back and now continued by demolishing the old earlier crime cannot be pardoned in the absence of authentic documents towards approval of layout having seal and signature of Respondent No. 04 the Municipal Commissioner.

29 Petitioner states that similarly the land under plot No. 14, 15, 16 was a open land on site hence in the terms and conditions of the letter dated 19/06/1953 of Asst. Engineer Town Planning under their authority had put the condition No. 11 to said piece of land comprising of plot No. 14 to 16 admeasuring 1944 Sq. Yrds. In the course of typing the letter it is inadvertently mentioned that the said piece of land admeasuring 1944 Sq. Yrds is on the South Side of plot No. 24, 25 instead mentioning on the North side of the plot No. 24, 25 which will be factually correct as South side boundary of plot No. 24, 25 is the extreme boundary of the entire layout holding. Out of these three plots admeasuring together equal to said 1944 .Sq. Yds. the plot No.14 was illegally encroached upon by with the knowledge of Architect R.M. Vora and the engineers of Building Proposal department and the plot Nos. 15, 16 were open ground till 2011 when through this PIL resident to layout were awaiting justice.

30 Petitioner states that there is no dispute about the fact that the 'D' portion has 36 plots including plot no.23, and plot numbers 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 but the plot Nos.14.15.16 being vacant land as also the entire layout consisting vacant agricultural land under 'A' to 'D' portions out of entire Sanghani Estate layout, comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions was submitted under one layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 the status of said ENTIRE LAYOUT approved by Standing Committee of Respondent No. 04 as i)_Approvable or ii) Approved is missing, lost or destroyed but appears to have been allowed to be developed by allowing phase wise separation , of A , B, C, D phases, under different resolutions at different time through different Architects and by different developing agencies to save N.A. charges.

31 Petitioner states that the entire Sanghani Estate layout of which part developments called Sainth Nagar and Sarvyodaya Nagar consisting of around 104 plots and Recreational Open Spaces at different places, was approved under one layout file No. GB\259 of 28\08\1951 subject to additional conditions imposed by the then Town planning Authority of then Bombay Province through Assistant Engineer (T.P.-Sub.) on deputation on then B.M.C. The said entire lay-out proposal files No. GB\259 of 28\08\1951 is lost, stolen or destroyed by the vested interest persons. Standing Committee of BMC passed the resolution under No.454 in its meeting of 18\06\1952 for layout submitted by R.S.Sanghani for 29 plots with plot No. 29 as Garden (R.OS.) plot wherein mention of layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 is made in the terms and conditions of approval-concurrence by Standing Committee of Respondent No. 04.

32 Petitioner states that the portion, out of entire layout called Sarvyodaya layout of 18 plots. Submitted by Architect R.S. Sanghani was given concurrence for separation with plot No. 12 admeasuring about 4500 Sq. yrds., and marked as community open space abutting L.B.S. Marg is later encroached upon by constructing Cinema Theatre called Shreyas Cinema. A copy of the said layout with name of the Architect as R.S. Sanghani is attached herewith and mark as Exhibit – "F".

33 Petitioner states that the portion out of entire Sanghani Estate layout, presently called as Sainath Nagar submitted through Architect M/S. K.D. Shah was given concurrence for separation for 27 plots and 1440Sq.Yrds., as Garden (R.OS.) plot on the then Municipal Commissioner's letter No. A.E./C-4161-Sub., of 21\10\1952 by Standing Committee passing the resolution in its meeting under No.1297 of 31\10\1952 wherein Under Memo of Terms and conditions at (11) says that the Garden (ROS) will be 1440. Sq. Yrds., as marked on common layout bearing No.G.B./259 OF 28\08\1951. The said resolution No. 1297 of 31\10\1952 is in the main petition file.

34 Petitioner states that similarly the 'D' portion is also the part of entire lay-out earlier approved under No.G.B./259 of 28\08\1951, of which phase wise concurrence for separation as part 'D' through Architect M/S, Suvarna Patki Vora, on the then Municipal Commissioner's letter No.A.E.-18914-Sub.,of 16\04\1953 was given by Standing Committee under resolution No. 148 of 22\04\1953. In this portion of the entire Sanghani Estate layout, technically scrutinized time to time and approved, of which plans and other relevant papers and permissions are lost, the Municipal Commissioner must have considered the un-build able waste land, in 'D' portion layout, under plot No. 09, 10 as Part of Garden provided and extending back up to plot No.17 which is abutting on Gaondevi Road to this entire garden 'B' of the layout with additional area of 1944 Sq. Yrds., under plot No.14, 15, 16 insisted by imposing condition to that effect by Town Planning authority. A copy of the said resolution No. 148 of 22/04/1953 red with Condition letter dated 19/o6/1953 of Asst. Engineer Town Planning Sub is the main W.P. File.

35 The petitioner states that as per building Rules, Regulations and Byelaws prevailing then, procedurally in the course of scrutiny, of the layout proposal submitted to department dealing with the approvals to layouts and building proposals under the control and authority of the Municipal Commissioner then, must have directed the then Architect of entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions, to amend the plans submitted time to time on different objections raised such as to the extent of providing required 15% Recreational Open Spaces (Gardens) at different places in the 'A' to 'D' parts.

36 The petitioner states that it is not true that Recreation Ground is sought for petitioners hereto as their personal property or exclusive privilege but are beneficiary to the vast amenity of ROS (Garden) along with hundreds of other resident in the locality who have been provided with the amenity open spaces (Gardens) at different places in the holding of one entire layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions as per Rules and Regulations famed by the government and approved under one single proposal file No.GB/259 OF 28/08/1951.

37 Petitioner states that the contents of the PIL filed under No.31 of 2011 and thereafter converted in to W.P.(O.S.) No.658 of 2012 are applicable for this Review Petition.

38 Petitioner states that the present Review Petition with in the period of limitation.

39 The petitioners state that the cause of action for filing this petition has arisen in Mumbai and this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India to try and entertain this petition.

40 The Petitioner/s state that the period of limitation is not applicable to this petition as there is continuous cause of action

41 The petitioners are paying fixed court fees for the purpose of this petition.

42 On the background of aforementioned facts narrated hereinabove petitioner pray as follows :

a)The Review Petition be allowed.

b)The order dated 09/04/2013 be recalled and the

petition be heard in detail and depth.

c) Such other orders in terms of prayers of the PIL

W.P. (O.S.) No. 658 of 2012 kindly be passed in

favor of Petitioner in public interest as deem fit in

as facts of the circumstances of the case.

Solemnly affirmed.

On this 08th Day of May 2013.

At Mumbai. Madhav G. Deshpande ( In person)

President of FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust)

V E R I F I C A T I O N

I, Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, age71 year, President Forum for Justice the Pitiioner No, 01, residing at 07, Kaustubh-dham C.H.S. Ltd., 23, Sanghani Estate ‘D’ portion layout, Gaondevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086, the petitioner above named do here by solemnly declare that what is stated in para 01 to 37 is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraph numbers 38 to 42 are stated on the information gathered, and I believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai. )

On this th day of May 2013. )

(Madhav Gajanan Deshpande ( In person)

President

FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust).

Review Petition on r

2013-05-18T23:09:00.001-07:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O.O.C.J.

REVIEW PETITION No. OF 2013

P.I.L. PETITION W.P.(O.S.) No.658 OF 2012

In the matter of Article 26 0f

Constitution of India

AND

In the matter of Maharashtra

Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966

AND

In the matter of Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act1888 and Building Bye-laws

AND

IN THE MATTER OF REVIEW OF

ORDER OF THE HONORABLE

HIGH COURT DATED 09TH APRIL2013.

WRIT PETITION No. W.P.(O.S) 658 OF 2013.

1) FORUMFOR JUSTICE (Trust) through)

Madhav Gajanan Deshpande,President )

Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )

Having his residence at: )

7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No. )

23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )

Mumba-086 AND ONE ANOTHER) …Review Petitioners /

Original petitioner No.01

V/s.

1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi )

Jain Shravak Sangh Plot No. 7, )

Sanghani Estate ‘D’ Portion Lay-out, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), )

Mumbai - 400086. )

2) Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia(Partner)

AVI Housing (Builders & Developers )

Unit No.2, Gr. Fl.,Vadani Industrial )

Estate, Opp.Shani Niketan, L.B.Shastri )

Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.)

3) Jai Neminath Kripa Co-op. )

Housing Society Ltd. Plot No.14, )

'D' portion Layout Sanghani Estate, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West) )

Mumbai-400086. )

4) Municipal Commissioner, )

Municipal Corporation of Greater )

Mumbai Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )

Mumbai – 400 001. )

5) The Government of Maharashtra )

through the Chief Secretary )

Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, )

Mumbai – 400 032. )

6) The Senior Inspector of Police )

Surya Nagar Police Station, )

Off. L. B. Shastry Marg, )

Vikhroli(West), Mumbai-400083 )…………….Respondents

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The Respondent No.1 hereto is a religious charitable trust,

registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and managed

by the Managing committee Members trustees appointed /

elected time to time.

The Respondent No.2 is the Partner of M/S. AVI HOUSING (Builders/ Developers) appointed by the defendant No. 01

The Respondent No.6 hereto is the Sr. Inspector of Police, Suryanagar Police Station, off L.B. Shastri Marg Vikroli (W), Mumbai-400083.

a) The Honorable court has not considered that Petitioners

hereto have no personal interest.

a) the FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust) as Petitioner No. 01 through its President Madhav Gajanan Deshpande (In person).

b) the litigation to be kept under P.I.L. No.31 of 2011, be considered and allowed. A copy of the said application under affidavit dated 17th Oct. 2012 is in the main petition.

37 Petitioner states that the contents of the PIL filed under No.31 of 2011 and thereafter converted in to W.P.(O.S.) No.658 of 2012 are applicable for this Review Petition.

38 Petitioner states that the present Review Petition with in the period of limitation.

40 The Petitioner/s state that the period of limitation is not applicable to this petition as there is continuous cause of action

41 The petitioners are paying fixed court fees for the purpose of this petition.

42 On the background of aforementioned facts narrated hereinabove petitioner pray as follows :

a)The Review Petition be allowed.

b)The order dated 09/04/2013 be recalled and the

petition be heard in detail and depth.

c) Such other orders in terms of prayers of the PIL

W.P. (O.S.) No. 658 of 2012 kindly be passed in

favor of Petitioner in public interest as deem fit in

as facts of the circumstances of the case.

Solemnly affirmed.

On this 08th Day of May 2013.

At Mumbai. Madhav G. Deshpande ( In person)

President of FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust)

V E R I F I C A T I O N

Solemnly declared at Mumbai. )

On this th day of May 2013. )

(Madhav Gajanan Deshpande ( In person)

President

FORUM FOR JUSTICE (Trust).

Mahanghar Issues 18-24 (6 March to23 April 2003)

2012-11-25T09:49:00.001-08:00

Mahanghar issue 18-20 (23-29 jAN 2003)

2012-11-25T09:01:00.003-08:00

2012-11-25T09:01:00.002-08:00

Mahanghar Issue 11-14 (12 to 18 Dec 2002

2012-11-25T07:07:00.000-08:00

2012-11-25T05:54:00.001-08:00

2012-10-31T13:02:00.000-07:00

2012-10-31T12:41:00.001-07:00

MAHAN-GHAR ISSUE-2TO 4

2012-10-31T12:23:00.000-07:00

2012-10-31T12:01:00.001-07:00

2012-10-31T12:00:00.002-07:00

2012-10-28T10:47:00.001-07:00

2011-08-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

UNDER

CENTRAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005.

First Appeal under Section 19(1)

Madhav Gajanan Deshpande.. President

Forum for Justice, 7 Kaustubhdham CHSLtd.,

23, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar Mumbai-86…..Appellant

V/S

Smt. U. S. Srivastava, Master and Asstt. Prothonotary

And Public Information Officer High Court Mumbai..Respondent

In response to my application under Section 6(1) of Right to Information Act 2005, the Public Information Officer is expected to furnish me the particulars of information solicited by way of the copies of the observations, findings, of the enquiry made in to my complaint letters dated 05th and 08th June 2009 in respect of supposed to be duty bound role and functions performed by parties involved in seeking and parting the justice in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 and the Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 and thereafter number of Notices of Motion moves and Chamber summons and Affidavits etc filed in the course seeking truthful and fair disposal of the said suit etc.

It is observed that after persistent pursuing, even after 30 days, the specific information on the serious lapses amount to criminal acts, mentioned in my complaint, it appears no serious cognizance is taken on different concern levels. Please note that I have considered it necessary to bring to the notice of judicial authority and administration "my knowing of crime being committed as not informing to supreme authority (here the judiciary), is I consider to have committed crime".

This exercise is with intention to streamline a) Judiciary Administration b) Parting of Justice System c) reliving uncalled for load on the Judges so that they will have time to go through the matters before them in details and only take the opinion of Advocates of the both the side before they reduce their studies finding in the forum of orders/Judgments.

1. In this case, it is unfortunately, is observed that the Judges who have handle this matters for the purpose of parting justice, due to overload, have not gone into the merits and facts mentioned in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 wherein the plaintiff No.1 Mrs. Haleema widow of late Mr. Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga had prayed that Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 made in this suit by the plaintiff to support her, are the only legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga, who are entitled to inherit the movable and immovable property as per Mohmedian Law.

2. After the defendants received copy of suit and Notice of Motioned filed, through belief in the month of Sept.1996, to defend them and disprove the Plaintiff No.1, the defendants aught to have filed, on or before the completion of sixty (60) days from receipt of suit papers filed i.e. before end of Nov.1996, their written statement and the documents along with list of additional documents they wish to ‘RELY UP ON’ by getting the submissions duly verified by the then High court Associate Shri. Trivedi and there after as per the procedure of the court, the affidavit etc should have gone through the Prothonotary & senior Master, registrar / Registrar General and their office for presenting the Suit file before the Honorable Justice, called for when the matter is on his board.

3. The defendant No.2, MS. Jaitoon Baig is the sister of the deceased and the defendant No.1 MS. Roshanara A. Baig is Advocate and daughter of defendant No.2 who were given shelter by the deceased on humanitarian grounds of which they are trying to take undue and against the law advantage by claiming the property owned and funds in the bank accounts and due from his employers M/S Ralliwolf Ltd and Provident Funds Authorities etc.

4. The said Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 and Petition dated 10.06.96, to obtain leave under Clause XII of the letters Patent to institute the suit in this Hon’ble Court as one of the property is situated out of Mumbai limit. The

Petition dated 10.06.96 first came for hearing before the Justice Dr. Shreemati P. D. Upasani on 13.06.1996. Honorable Justice Dr. Shreemati P. D. Upasani on 13.06.1996 passed orders for leave under Clause XII of the letters Patent. The judicial administration hurriedly transferred the Suit to long cause.

5. The Notice of Motion No.2052/96 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 filed by the Original Plaintiff was heard by the Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel on 23.07.96, where in the advocate of the plaintiff Miss L.C.Wadwani orally made a mention of evidence with her in respect of registered sale deed for shop at Mumbra dated 17-06-1993, Urdu divorce dated 27-12-1977 and will dated 11-05-1994 signed by the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga to prove that the Plaintiff has no legal right over the deceased’s property but same was not brought on records by defendant No.1 and 2’s Advocate Miss L.C.Wadwani though she was holding Affidavit in reply dated 20.07.96 etc in her hand dully verified by Associate Trivedi on 20.07.96.

6. It goes without saying that the said defendants’ Affidavit in reply , written statement along with documentary evidence and the list of additional documents they wish to RELY UP ON etc, in reply duly verified by associate on 20.07.96 aught to have been immediately produced in original before Honorable Justice J.N.Patel on 23.07.96 which she did not do and did not file the same and intentionally kept with her as a part of their strategy of confusing and misleading the Hon’ble Justice in chair time to time.

7. Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel passed the order that the Affidavit in reply is to be filed by Defendant 1 and 2 within two weeks time also directed to Defendant NO.4 M/S Ralliwolf Ltd, employer of deceased AKM Aga not to pay any amount to any party/person also directed Defendant 1 and 2 to give particulars of the amounts received from defendant No.4 Ralliwolf Ltd.

8. The Notice of Motion was further heard by Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel on 06.08.96 and in the absence of defendants 1 & 2 filing the Affidavit etc. which intentionally was not filed till the matter had come for hearing on 06.08.96 with the full knowing that as Defendant No.1 and 2 had no valid legal documents to substantiate their Affidavit and advocate Miss. L. C. Wadwani not remaining present, Hon’ble Justice J.N.Patel confirmed his previous order dated 23.07.96 of granting injunction to Defendant No.4 till further orders. If Defendant No.1 and 2 would have been compelled to file the Affidavit ect and documentary evidence before Justice J. N.Patel on 06.08.96, the matter would have ended with the order on Notice of Motion No.2052/96 and the Suit would have been ended there and there only with orders for criminal proceedings against the all involved in fabricating fraudulent documents and conspiracy hand in glows with officers and clerical staff of sub register office thane etc. as also some of the members of advocate fraternity involved.

9. As the part of criminal tact ticks, the Affidavit, written statement along with documentary evidence and the list of additional documents they wish to RELY UP ON, duly verified by the court associate was intentionally not brought on judicial record by moving leave petition for condoning delay in filing the affidavit etc beyond permissible sixty (60) days limit i.e. after end of Nov.96, and without getting delay condoned, all with the connivance some of court staff. On the basis of the information gathered about the Provident Fund account and super annuation amount with L.I.C.of India the Original Plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.905/96 on 09.09.96 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 before Justice S. H. Kapadia same was heard on 11.09.96 and granted the prayers in Chamber Summons and added Defendant No.5 P.F. Office and Defendant No.6 LIC, Mumbai.

10. In continuation to order passed on Chamber Summons by Ho’nble Justice S. H. Kapadia On 11.09.96 matter had come for hearing before Ho’nble Justice K.G.Shah who passed order that the Defendant No.5 Provident Fund office to deposited the amount at credited of deceased AKM Aga in the custody of Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court. The Defendant No.6 LIC, Mumbai submitted their say stating that amount due was handed over to the beneficiary, on records, of late Aga accordingly the same was given to Defendant No.1 by Cheque.

11. It was criminal and fraudulent on the part of Defendant No.1 to project herself with Society at Mumbra for transferring the share certificates of shop, on the lines what the Defendant No.1 did while getting M.S.E.B. electric meter transferred in the name of Defendant No.1 Miss Roshanara Baig, and approach along with her request letter dated 16.06.97 to transfer the maintenance payment receipts in her name for shop by attaching Xerox copy of said incomplete and fraudulently registered agreement to sale dated 17.06.93 with the deceased AKM AGA as if Defendant No,01 Miss Roshanara Baig is owner of the shop under agreement to sale.

12. In the mean time on going through the so called registered agreement to sale the Society Authorities smell something fishy in the said copy of the agreement and the office bearers of Society at Mumbra observed that the agreement to sale document attached with her request letter dated 16.06.97 was not having the registered eleventh (11^th) page and with Xerox copy of receipt irrelevant and without Thane sub register’s registration stamp for the said receipt as eleventh (11^th) page, attached to the said agreement submitted to society. To bring these criminal activities to the knowledge of original Plaintiff and to safeguard the interest of genuine heirs of deceased AKM AGA in their legal fight, society office bearers took out Xerox copies of the letter and accompaniments before the said letter and accompaniments were returned to her on her demand.

13. Based on the above information and to restrain the Defendant No. 1 and 2 from their Criminal and fraudulent activities and to stop the society authorities from issuing and transferring any of the receipts in the mane of Defendant No.1. The Original Plaintiff moved the High Court by filling Additional Affidavit dated 25.06.97 in respect of above criminal act, in the said Notice of Motion no.2052/96 of Suit No. 2051 of 1996.

14. In response to the above Affidavit which had come for hearing on 27.07.97 before Justice S. H. Kapadia, Defendant No.1 and 2 vide their Affidavit in reply filed in this respect, denied that they had ever requested the society of shop at Mumbra to transfer the Maintenance receipt in her name owner of the shop under agreement to sale. In the light of above the pray(b) of Notice of Motion 2052/96 through the Affidavit dated 25.06.96 filed by the Original Plaintiff, was granted by Justice S.H. Kapadia vide an order dated 27.07.97 where by all other concern authorities Agencies etc, were ordered not to transfer any of the assets to any party or person.

15. The Defendant No.1 Roshanara Baig refused before Justice S.H. Kapadia to have applied to Society for transfer of Maintenance receipt etc, and refused to have written any letter to Society. She realized the gravity and seriousness of her blatant lay before court and order dated 27.07.97 of Hon’ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, she rush to the office of the Society at Mumbra and requested the society Authority to give back her letter dated 16.06.97 Addressed to Society along with the enclosure such as the said fraud Agreement and receipt from M.S.E.B. Mumbra for payment received towards transferred of Electric Meter in her name.

16. Based on the information & copies received from society the Plaintiff hereto moved and filed another Additional Affidavit dated 24.07.97 in the Notice of Motion No.2052/96 attaching said copy of the letter give to the Society and withdrawn there after by Miss. Roshanara Baig along with the documents attached by the Defendant No.1. The matter was heard before Justice S.H. Kapadia on 30.07.97. As the part of judicial administrative procedure it is expected of Defendant No.1 to file their Affidavit in reply to the Additional Affidavit dated 24.07.97 filed by the Original Plaintiff which came for hearing on 30.07.97 before Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia but as per the continued tactics and style of Defendant No.1, the required Affidavit was not filed to mislead the Hon’ble justice in the chair and irrelevant documents were produced before seating Justice.

17. This time also she played same tactic and so called Registered Agreement & copy of Payment receipt to MSEB Mumbra along with Affidavit was not file and Defendant No.1 produced the Said false, fraudulent Registered Agreement which was not taken on record as the same was not submitted in this matter being heard before Justice S.H. Kapadia on 30.07.97. The incomplete Agreement for sale dated 17.06.93 fraudulently got registered by the Defendant No.1 Roshan Baig. Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia did not verified whether such document was so taken on records to understand the and produced hurriedly before him with the original, if at all submitted, to understand that it is genuine and relevant. The defendants had shown the copy of of the Agreement for sale to give impression as if the said agreement is for leave and license of the shop premises and the said request Letter dated 16.06.97 was given by Defendant No.1 in her person capacity to Society at Mumbra.

18. Unfortunately Hon’ble Justice S.H. Kapadia without going in to the contents of the Agreement fallen prey to the Criminal tactics of defendant no.1 when her advocate Miss Sarkhot hurriedly showed the said fraud Agreement for sale in a style to give the impression to the Justice that the agreement shown in court is an agreement for leave and license. Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia order dated 30.07.97 was based on the false documents produced as mentioned above resulted into wrong and unjust orders passed which did great injustice to the Plaintiff No.1 In the said order dated.30.07.97 Justice S.H. Kapadia on the said Additional Affidavit dated 25.07.97 of Original Plaintiff ordered that the plaintiff is free to come back to this Judicial forum if Defendant No.1 intention are to request the society to Transfer the share certificate and Defendant No.1 was scot-free to continue on judicial arena her criminal illegal activity to misleading the judiciary. Thereafter matter had come for hearing on the Notice of Motion No.2052/96 in Suit No.2051/96 before Justice A.Y. Sakhare on 18.11.97. While hearing the matter about Defendant No 4 Provident Fund authorities refusing to obey and act on the order passed by Justice K.G. Shah dated 24.09.96 in respect of P. F. Amount in the credit of AKM Aga to be handed over in the custody of Prothonotary & Senior master. Justice A.Y.Sakhare Passed order against indifference shown by P.F. Authorities in transferring said amount in custody of Prothonotary & senior master and directed Defendant No.4 P.F. Office to forthwith transfer the said amount in custody of Prothonotary & Senior master failing which the P.F. office will have to pay 18% interest for the delay time period.

19. In the said proceeding before the Justice A.Y.Sakhare Adv. Miss Sarkhot of defendant No.1 and 2 produced Xerox copy of Registered Agreement to sell for shop owned by the deceased AKM AGA at Mumbra which, intentionally and criminally, was not brought on record of court through court associate and knowledge of prothonotary and senior master’s office by Adv. Miss Sarkhot of defendant No.1 and 2 by taking due leave from court for delay in submission of Affidavit etc after sixty (60) day of receipt of main Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and attachments etc through belief as the main evidence by way of said agreement to sale, being forge and fabricated document the said incomplete document was fraudulently registered at Sub-Registered office at Thane though brought to the notice of all previous judges before whom this matter had come up for hearing which included Justice J. N. Patel and Justice S. H. Kapadia and Justice K. G. Shah. It is surprising to note how Justice A. Y. Sakhare had not gone into the basic details of the case such as:

a) It is to note that the Defendant No. 1 and 2 and had not filed their Affidavit in reply, written statement and the documents along with list of additional documents they wish to ‘RELY UP ON’ etc by getting the authenticity verified by court associate to form the same as court’s record for the benefit of the Honorable Justice before whom will appear for deciding and disposal within the permissible period of 60 days from the date of issue summons in this matter for filing their Written Statement and affidavit and reply, list of documents they want to rely it is clear that the written statement should have been filed by end of November 1996 but the same was filed at their will, wish & leisure on 20.02.97 without getting leave for the condoning of delay beyond 60 days from the receipt of copies of Suit and Notice of Motion under summons dated.....Sept 1996

b) Order passed by Justice J. N. Patel on 23.07.96 and 06.08.96 where in reply to the point raised by Original Plaintiff regarding late AKM Aga had not given divorce to Original plaintiff and their was no Will executed by Late AKM Aga and even if a Muslim Person wants to prepare a will his entitle to make will of only 1/3 of his wealth/ assets for the Purpose of giving same strictly to charity to stranger who is not related to him while replying to this two points raised before the Justice J. N. Patel the Defendant No.1 and 2’s Advocate Miss Sarkhot did not Agree to it and said that there is a will & divorce given to Original Plaintiff the Justice J. N. Patel given two week time to the defendant No.1 and 2 to file Affidavit and reply with facts of documents as the same was not filed by the defendant No.1 and 2 as per their style of functioning Justice J. N. Patel passed the order that the his order dated 23.07.96 continue till further order.

c) While the matter was heard before Justice S. H. Kapadia on 27.7.97, in response to the Additional Affidavit dated 24.06.97 heard before him the matter regarding forged and fabricated Agreement to sell documents was produced by the Defendant No.1 and 2 which without going into details of the Agreement it was hurriedly and inadvertently considered as leave and license Agreement and on the strength of leave and license agreement the Defendants No.1 was considered to have been asking for maintenance receipt in her name which was considered as safe for plaintiff as well as the Co-op. Society though in fact the said Agreement to sell submitted to Society was having the clause empowering the purchaser of the said shop to apply for transfer of share Certificate.

d) In Written Statement filed without the leave granted for the delay, the documents to be RELIED UP ON are required to be filed after the authenticity is verified by court associate, the procedure had not been completed by the court associate and the declaration in the form of documents RELIED UP ON is not verified and list of documents with misleading title of ‘DOCUMENTS RELATED UP ON’ is verified by the associate which shows the negligence on the part of Judicial Administration to favor the defendant if the fraud wording ‘DOCUMENTS RELATED UP ON’ goes unnoticed for the time being and if ultimately later on the agreement to sale dated 17.6.93 is proved to be fake then commitment in absence of RELIED UP ON will save the defendant and their advocate from the clutches of law as the irrelevant phrase call ‘DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON is used with ulterior criminal motive to escape if matter goes against the Defendant No. 1and 2 and their Advocate on noticing the meaning of RELIED UP ON & RELATED UP ON with complete knowledge implication of Law in the absence of what is pointed above.

20. Justice A. Y. Sakhare on his own risk and overconfidence without going into the above referred details accepted the copies of Agreement to sale, fraudulently registered without the signature of the seller to the Agreement of sell of late AKM Aga on page No11 of consideration of Rs.120000/- received as also the latter dated 16.06.97 from society and payment receipt to MSEB, passed his order without verifying the said agreement which only relevant in this case amongst the above mention three documents submitted. The said agreement fraudulently registered had no signature of the seller i.e. late AKN Aga, for total consideration of Rs.1, 20,000/-.

21. It is surprising to note that Defendant No.1 and 2 Advocate Miss. Sarkhot had called Adv. A. S. Oka as counsel who had submitted this copy of Agreement for sell and the letter & Receipt of MSEB, related to shop at Mumbra Adv. Shri. A.S. Oka who now is seating judge had not gone into the genuineness of said Agreement for sell and said uncertified copy of Agreement with last Registered page No.11 for receipt produced before Justice A. Y. Sakhare who did not through it necessary to see whether the duly verified by then court Associate copy of the said agreement produced before him by Shri. A. S. Oak is on judicial records i.e. in the said Suit file for comparing said documents with the copy of Agreement in the Suit file. This raises finger toward the functioning and intention of then seating Ex-Judge Justice A. Y. Sakare and then Ex-conceal and present seating Judge Shri. A. S. Oka.

22. If the above two points would have been considered by Justice A. Y. Sakhare then there was no other go for him but to direct the defendant No.1 to apply for the leave before the court to consider condoning of delay in filing the Affidavit in reply and written Statements along with documents etc, on which Defendant No.1 and 2 were to rely upon. It was unjust on the part of Justice A. Y. Sakhare to illegally accept the Xerox copies of the documents produced before the Justice S. H. Kapadia, without going into the Suit file for comparing documents submitted by defendants. 1) Request letter dated 16.06.97 to society 2) Copy o the illegally Registered incomplete documents of Agreements to Sell of shop at Mumbra 3) Receipt in her name for payment she had made for transfer of Electric meter to MSEB, Mumbra.

23. While disposing of Notice of Motion 2052 of 1996 on 1811.97 Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare rejected the prayer of appointment of Court Receiver of properties of deceased as he had not gone through the documents on Court records and even after repeatedly pointing out by the original Plaintiff about the submission fraudulently register of incomplete documents, by the Sub-Register office, at Thane, Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare fail prey to the gimmicks and blatant untruth projected before him and has passed the orders rejecting all the prays of the original plaintiff through Notice of Motion No. 2052 of 1996 and given the possession of the properties of deceased AKM Aga , in the said order Justice A.Y.Sakhare directed Defendant No. 1 and 2 to file undertaking of they have got the possession of properties of deceased.

24. This has resulted into great injustice to the Original Plaintiff and she had no other alternative but to file another Notice of Motion 1752/99 dated 21.06.1999 covering the points which where overlooked by Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare as had not gone into the genuinely of the Xerox copy of the Agreement for transfer produced as registered documents before the Hon’ble Court with intention that the Court should take cognizance of serious allegations and charges levied against the defendants in the course of disposing of this Notice of motion 1752 of 1999 filed on 21.06.99.

25. In the said Notice of motion 1752 of 1999 in addition to the fabricated documents came before the Hon’ble Court but as the cognizance of the same in proper perspective was not taken with due consideration for following .

A). Along with deed of Agreement to transfer was fraudulently attached and irrelevant stamp receipt for payment received(Rs. 1,20,000/-) towards consideration of the deed of transfer of shares of property. This irrelevant receipt was having forged signature of the deceased AKM Aga the transformer to the Agreement to the said fraudulently registered incomplete Agreement. Now the Handwriting Expert report of CID, Pune has also confirm that the signature of transformer to the Agreement Mr. AKM Aga is a forged signature this adds to the further seriousness about the forge documents mentioned in this Notice of Motion 1752 of 1999.

B). The fraudulently disparity in wording of I) Declaration by Defendant No.1 in the presence of Advocate K.Z. Azmi dated 01.06.96 filed along with said fraudulent incomplete documents registered. II) Irrelevant Receipt attached with the said Agreement , to have received the consideration amount Rs. 1,20,000/ for the Agreement dated 17.06.93 in the above the declaration made is for the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Builder as against what is mention in the above vide the said fraudulent receipt is for payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- made to the transformer late AKM Aga this fraudulently disparity created is to mislead the court and avail illegal benefits by depriving the Legitimate rights of Original Plaintiff

C). In response to the order passed By Hon’ble Justice A.Y Sakhare on 18.11.97 Defendant No.1 had falsely declared to have withdrawn Rs. 11,000/- from Syndicate Bank, and other withdrawals from the same bank by the Defendant No.1 as also had not disclosed in the affidavit in reply dated 02.12.97 about the withdrawals made from accounts of deceased in Bank of India, Bombay Mercantile Co-O- Bank Ltd as also amount due towards NSC this all together work out to be as Under.

I) Syndicate Bank Rs,50,000/- not disclosed

II) Bank of India Rs75,000/- not disclosed

III) Bombay Mercantile Co-O- Bank 90,000/- not disclosed

IV) NSC Rs. 20,000/- not disclosed

thus in all Sum of Rs, 235,000/- withdrawn by the Defendant no.1 where fraudulently not declared in the Affidavit in reply dated 02.12.97 on the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare dated 18.11.97, thus the Defendant No.1 have made contempt of court which is made unseen by the Hon’ble Justice D.K. Deshmukh when the Notice of Motion 1752 of 1999 was heard and decided without going into the details of “the some of the documents” which Hon’ble Justice had accepted to have fabricated as alleged by the Original Plaintiff.

D). In the Written Statement filed by Defendant No.1 and 2 have irresponsible and with a view to misguide the Hon’ble Court, has made false and baseless statement that the Defendant No.3 hereto Mr. Mehmood Aga is not son of deceased from his first wife Latifa.

26. On the lines of the above so many falls statements and deeds against the law are committed by the Defendant No.1 and 2 I) Like transferred the Gas Connection in Defendant No. 2 name. II) Illegally transferred Electric Meter in her name of shop at Mumbra and documents from Gas agency and MSEB Mumbra in this respect are also brought on record which ought to have been gone through while deciding the Notice of Motion No. 1752 of 1999 by Honorable Justice D. K. Deshmukh on 28.02.01.

27. The Original Plaintiff Haleema to the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 thereafter expired on 12.01.04 as such Defendant No.3 son of deceased AKM Aga filed Chamber Summons No.927 of 2006 dated 25.07.2006 filed for transportation of Defendant No.3 Mr. Mehmood Aga as Plaintiff No.1 in the said suit No.2051 of 1996 the said Chamber Summons was decided by the Hon’ble Justice D.G. Karnik on 08.06.2008 and said Chamber Summons was granted prays of Mr. Mehmood Aga son of deceased AKM Aga as Plaintiff to Suit.

28. The Said exhaustive Notice of Motion Containing around 620 pages giving documents evidences in respect of misdeed and illegal acts to grab the said property in question by the Defendant No. 1 and 2 in Suit No. 4170 0f 2008 had come for hearing before Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude on 05.03.09 at about 1.30PM where the Advocate for Defendant No. 1 and 2 Miss Sarkhot was not present but the Plaintiff in-person Mr. Mehmood Aga was present Who brought to the Notice of Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude that the copy of the Agreement dated 17.06.93 on record of the Court is forged and fabricated as also illegally with conspiracy registered with the Sub-Register Office at Thane, he also brought to the notice of Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude that the irrelevant receipts for payment of consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- for the Fulfillment of Agreement is not as per the records of the Sub-Register office at Thane and said receipt not bearing Registered Stamp as page No.11 of said documents Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude was surprised by the statement of the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga and he was kind enough to compare the copy of Agreement and the said receipts on the records of court and that of collected by the Plaintiff from the Sub-Register Office at Thane as certified copy with Sub-Register stamp

29. After going through the page by page of the said copy of the documents on court record in the said suit filed and the certified copy produced by the Plaintiff Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude realized that the charges made by the Plaintiff on Defendant No.1 and 2 of fraudulently submitting number of forged and fabricated documents on records of the Court and he passed the order as follows.

I) No. order at this stage because the earlier order was passed in 1997. Assuming that the allegations are truthful, still ad-interim stage no order can be passed.

II) The Notice of Motion shall be listed for final hearing in due course.

Sd/- Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude

Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude who had sense the pulse of the case and realized that the all allegations made by the Plaintiff are truthful the said Notice of Motion was come for hearing on due date was to as per his order, Plaintiff moved precipe for bringing the matter early on the board on hearing the precipe on 18.03.09 Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude kept the matter for final disposal and hearing on 20.04.09 to the misfortunate of the Plaintiff Hon’ble Justice A.V.Nirgude was transferred to other seating /bench on 06.04.09 and matter was first heard by Hon’ble Justice A.P.Deshpande on 20.04.09 at about 1.15PM the Plaintiff In person Mr. Mehmood Aga had brought to the Notice Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that the order passed by Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude on 05.03.09 with due consideration to the following emphasized by the Plaintiff in person allegation of forged and Fabricated documents are submitted by the Defendant No.1 and 1 on the record of the High Court and pointed out to the Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that allegations of Criminal nature made on Defendants No. 1and 2 by the Plaintiff such as submitting below.

a) Incomplete documents without consideration receipts bearing Page No. 11 of the documents have no signature of the transferor and still fraudulently registered as part of Criminal Conspiracy between the defendant no. 1 and 2 and their Advocates at different stages and the concern office and staff of the Sub-Registrar office, at Thane

b) Submitting forged and fabricated irrelevant receipts for Rs. 1,20,000/- to have received toward as consideration amount by the transferor AKM Aga who expired on 15.05.96 in J.J. Hospital that is before the date of registration of this documents on 01.06.96 without the letter of probate acquired by the legal heirs of the deceased AKM Aga.

On hearing the stunning statements of Plaintiff in person and after going through the order passed by the previous Hon’ble Justice A.V. Nirgude in this matter on his order that the allegations of regarding submission of forged and fabricated documents are fraudulently , Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande realized the seriousness of the matter and could envisage the repercussions on the I) Judicial System II) Judicial Administration through Court Associate, Prothonotary & Senior Master. III) Registrar/ Registrar General IV)Judges of High Court in chair V) some of Advocates involved in such Acts and Activities amounting to mislead the Hon’ble Court.
.

30. As result realization of involvement of all mentioned in above categories on account of what is pleaded in person by the Plaintiff which is nothing but the blatant truth . It appear that the Hon’ble Justice A.P.Deshpande wanted to save the persons in above categories as such he insisted upon the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga to appoint an advocate for this case instead of appearing in person. It is interesting to note in this Suit that the Advocate appointed and appeared for Original Plaintiff before a) Hon’ble Justice S.H.Kapadia b) Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare c) Hon’ble Justice D.K. Deshmukh have miserably failed as they had fails to study and understand the issues came up before above Hon’ble Judges time to time in the course of hearing given to Notice of Motions as also Affidavits filed in the Notice of Motions.

In the light of above the Plaintiff as had through study in details about the case decided to plead in person so as to bring all illegalities and irregularities committed due to indifference or overconfidence shown by concern individual at different stages. It appeared to Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande that truth is coming out, due to 'in person pleading' of the Plaintiff Mr. Mehmood Aga, is bound to bring numbers of individual and officers of the Court into awkward position and this only can be overcome by managing with the Advocate if appointed by the Plaintiff to this Suit must be the intention of the Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande in insisting upon Plaintiff to appoint Advocate for this case which is highly objectionable and against this reviling of truth before the judicial forum.

It appears that Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande wanted to study the case is always welcome. If any seating Judges shows interest in understanding matter in details and gives adjournments for 10 to 15 days before the matter is heard by him as seating Justice.

It is unfortunate that the seating Judge was not showing his willingness to hear the Plaintiff in person Mr. Mehmood Aga , Who has fully studied the case and has been pointing out illegalities committed by the defendants No. 1 and 2 and involvement of all others, knowingly or unknowingly, in this act of illegalities. Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande advising Mr. Mehmood Aga to appoint an Advocate to plead his matter on 05.05.09 when matter was heard before Hon’ble Justice A.P. Deshpande, needs through investigations.

Some time back around fifty Judges of Ahmadabad High Court where asked to step down for their handling the matter before them on different ground on which they fails to perform in parting the justice. On this background it is worth while to refer to the Supreme Court judgment given by the bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B.Sawanth in the Civil Appeal No. 994 of 1972, D/27.10.93, S.P. Chegalvraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. –Appellant Versus Jaganath (dead) by L. Rs. Appeared in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853, in the said matter bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B. Sawanth have given clear cut direction that “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One, who comes to the courts, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court; he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. “A litigation, which approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If withhold a vital documents in order to gain advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party.” We are constrained to say that more often than not process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, Tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the courts process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”

Similarly matter in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (O.O.C.J.) Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Chamber Summons No.220 of 2005 moved in Suit No. 1780 of 1993 where in M/s. Vijay Enterprises …. Plaintiffs. Versus Gopinath Mahade Koli & Ors… Defendants. While deciding the matter the Hon’ble Justice S.U. Kamdar Vide order dated 20.04.06 under Para 6 has concluded and opined that “Now the time has come when the litigants are utilizing the fabricated documents rampantly. Now the time has also come where people are making statements on oath and in Court precedings which are blatantly false to their own knowledge. Now a days parties are using false documents with a view to achieve orders which they desire to obtain. It is needless to state that justice delivery system has to be pure and should be such that the persons who are approaching the Courts and filing the proceedings must be afraid of using fabricated documents and also of making false statements on oath . We are a Court of Law sitting here to ascertain the truth and give justice in accordance the Law to establish truth and not being mislead by the advocates and the parties in the various directions so as to make it almost impossible to give effective and truthful justice to the litigants at large. In my opinion keeping in mind the aforesaid position it is high time that where the people have blatantly used the fabricated documents for the purpose of achieving the desired result even by misleading the court and/or by making false statement and by using fabricated documents cannot escape the penalties.”

The matter, bearing Suit No.2051 of 1996 in High Court O.S. Mumbai is being tossed and the Plaintiff is sent from pillar to post in the course of his demand for Justice, is required to be looked into and dealt with on the above sighted cases. The above explained detailed study of Suit No.2051 of 1996 and Zest of the case put forth by the undersigned is a part of forum of justice’s complaint in public interest in general and the interest of gearing up of the justice to the Plaintiff in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and to set right the judicial Administration and break criminal tendency growing up through the sort of criminal rackets of some of the members the Advocates’ faculty in and around prestigious compound of Mumbai High Court in particular and other High Courts and Courts in general.

The above studied elaboration about the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 and related Notice of Motion No. 4170 of 2008 with 620 pages covering all misdeeds of defendant No.1 with criminal conspiracy will help in carrying out the through investigation on the lines of orders passed by Supreme Court bench of Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh and Hon’ble Justice P.B. Sawanth as also Hon’ble Justice S.U. Kamdar of Bombay High Court.

Madhav G. Deshpande, President

FORUM FOR JUSTICE

(Appellant)

On this 08th Decembe 2010.

At Mumbai.

******************************************************************

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

UNDER

CENTRAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005.

First Appeal under Section 19(1)

Madhav Gajanan Deshpande.. President

Forum for Justice, 7 Kaustubhdham CHSLtd.,

23, Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar Mumbai-86………………….Appellant

V/S

Smt. U. S. Srivastava, Master and Asstt. Prothonotary

And Public Information Officer High Court Mumbai……..Respondent

It is observed that after persistent pursuing, even after 30 days, the specific information on the serious lapses amount to criminal acts, mentioned in my complaint, it appears no serious cognizance is taken on different concern level. Please note that I have considered it necessary to bring to the notice of judicial authority and administration "my knowing of crime being committed as not informing to supreme authority (here the judiciary), is consider to have committed crime".

In the light of the above I request the Appellate Authority to direct the Public Information Officer to furnish me with information about, if any, action taken and investigation conducted or so motto criminal action taken on those who are party to crimes, of different nature, connected with this Suit, within judicial administration and or out side parties organizations (Bar Council of India) connected with this Suit. It is expected to get point wise information on the 32 points as per my earlier Rejoinder and 33 to 42 points under this Rejoinder of my complaint as mentioned below which may please be considered as my additional rejoinder to the reply given by the Public Information Officer. This exercise is with intention to streamline and that the a) Judiciary Administration b) Parting of Justice System c) releasing uncalled for load on the Judges so that they will have time to go through the matters before them in details and only take the opinion of Advocates of the both the side before they reduce their studies finding in the form of orders/Judgments d) Bar Council of India will function within the guidelines and powers given under the constitution of the said body and will not give lame excuses like " Matter is before Honorable High Court" etc and help and assist the courts by providing their finding to courts for speedy justice and due action on Advocates.

In this case, it is unfortunately, is observed that the Judges who have handle this matters for the purpose of parting justice, due to overload, have not gone into the merits and facts mentioned in the Suit No.2051 of 1996 with Notice of Motion No.2052 of 1996 wherein the plaintiff No.1 Mrs. Haleema widow of late Mr. Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga had prayed that Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 made in this suit by the plaintiff to support her, are the only legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Abdul Kadar Moosa Aga, who are entitled to inherit the movable and immovable property as per Mohmedian Law.

Points No. 33 to 42 under Complaint dated 08/06/2009 tkaken for this Rejoinder:

33. The Defendants in this matter in general and Defendant No.1 in particular who is the practicing Advocate and by Law suppose to be officer of the Court it appear to have been involved in criminal acts and misleading judicial forum, in, connivance with sum of her Advocates associates in this matter and some of the judicial members/staff/officers as mentioned in above mention paragraphs also in connivance with the staff and officer of following Governments and Semi Governments Organizations etc.

a) Syndicate bank, Byculla “ E” Branch : In the record of above bank the Defendants in this matter have change the name of original nominee who now Plaintiff in this matter and being son of deceased was on record declared as his nominee. In the course of this criminal act on the part of Defendants they have issued letter dated 16.09.95 to the said Branch Manager on which appear signature similar to that of account holder of account no.3267 who now deceased . It is to note here that as per law, change of nominee or addition in name of nominee is effected by filing the prescribed form of variation in nomination and accordingly this form become the attachment of the original form. The bank authorities have not followed this legal procedure and hand in glows have illegally taken the Defendants no.1 Miss Roshan A. Baig sole Nominee, and allowed her to withdraw cash amount of Rs.50,000/- with thump impression of late AKM Aga. The necessary documents in respect of criminal acts and silence shown by J.J. Marge Police Station authorities in investigation in this respect even through numbers of complaints lodged by this plaintiff in respect of several criminalities done by the Defendant No. 1 all documentary evidences with correspondence made and reply received from banks and other authorities are part of 620 pages of Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008. Similar criminal authorities in respects of banks of deceased with Bank of India of Nagpada Branch and Bombay Merchentile Co-op Bank Ltd at Kara Tank Road Branch are played criminal activities by the Defendants No. 1 and 2. The documentary evidences and other related papers at page No. 430 to 484 for Syndicate bank, Byculla “ E” Branch, Bank of India of Nagpada Branch and Bombay Merchentile Co-op Bank Ltd at Kara Tank Road Branch, the accompaniments in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996.

34. In respect of the complaints made to J.J. Marg Police Station, the documentary evidence and other related papers are at page No. 565 to 579 as accompaniments in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 , where J.J. Marg Police Station had not registered FIR or not taken cognizes against accused Miss. Roshanara A. Baig and others.

35. Attitude of Hand writing expert C.I.D. Pune :

The Hand writing Expert CID, Pune has hand in glows with the Defendants No.1 in Suit No.2051of 1996 who is accused in case filed by Plaintiff at JMFC, Naupada Court , Thane case No. OMA 106/2002 (Present case RCC No. 214 of 2004) has conveniently refused to give their comparison and expert opinion on signature of Registration page No.11 of forged and fabricated Registered Agreement of transfer dated 17.06.93. The same if investigated by the High Court by passing orders by going through the documentary evidence related papers on page No.264 to 342 Mentioned in the Notice of Motion No.4170 of 2008 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996.

36. The defendant No.1 hand in glows with MSEB Mumbra authorities has illegally and by using the said fraudulent agreement got the electricity meter bill transferred in her name when Suit is Pending in High Court Original side Mumbai .

37. The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare in his order passed on 18.11. 97 has specifically made mention in para 5 of his order that “the Agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed dated 01.06.96 are relied upon”. While relying upon the agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed 01.06.96 the Hon’ble Justice A.Y. Sakhare should have seen agreement for transfer dated 17.06.93, before him, is a complete document dully registered by Sub-registrar office at Thane for all the relevant 11 pages with registration stamp and also verified by the High Court associate while admitting the same as record as proof of evidence relied upon by the Defendant No.1 and 2 . The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare has seen logical calculation while he found to be correct but failed to see the said logical calculate are primarily multiplied by zero that is by producing fraudulent and incomplete documents which was got registered by part of criminal conspiracy by Defendant No.1 at office of sub- registrar office at Thane thus has led to wrong orders doing injustice to Plaintiff. The Hon’ble justice A.Y. Sakhare while relying upon agreement dated 17.06.93 and confirmation deed dated 01.06.96 had skipped the absence of 11^th page of said transferred document, which forms the consideration receipts for consideration amount to give validity to the agreement. Then Hon’ble Registrar General and present Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Mrudula Bhatkar while giving hearing on the Plaintiff’s complaint, passed order dated 27.08.08 that “ Applicant’s grievance regarding missing of one page i.e. Page No.11 in one registered document dated 17.06.1993 may be correct. However, for disappearance of missing of this one page, Court staff cannot be held responsible because there is no proof or evidence to show that the said document when tendered and taken in record was a complete document with page no.11, Hence , complaint is filed”.

38. Above orders passed by Hon’ble Justice Mrs. Mrudula Bhatkar are surprising and reflect badly on functioning of the Court associate and office of the Prothonotary and Senior Master. In other ward there is no all proof system in receiving the documentary evidence submitted by the Defendant No.1 in their defense and which they rely upon. It goes without saying that in such type of administration functioning, one who has excess and influence, can tamper the record and change the submitted documents /papers as he likes or benefits. This required through investigation scanning and remodeling of judicial administration responsible for accepting and mentioning documents on judicial record.

39. Regarding Approach of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa :

Approach of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is to protect the Advocate Miss Roshanara A.baig Defendant No.1 in Suit No. 2051 of 1996. It is expected of practicing Advocates, who are considered to be officer and guides of the Judiciary, to be transparent in their functioning as professional persons and are expected to be free from other misconduct on every walk of life.

40. In the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 Miss Roshanara A.Baig is Defendant No.1 and by professional in practicing Advocate she is represented and assisted by one Advocate Miss. J.A Sarkhot in the above mentioned Suit. In this Suit Mr. Mehmood Aga was Defendant No.3 in the initial stage, now is Plaintiff in Suit No. 2051 of 1996 which is before High Court , Mumbai since 1996 and very recently had come for hearing on 05.05.09 Hon’ble Justice A. P. Deshpande with reference to the above matter and the number of acts amounting to criminalities observed. The then Defendant No.3 and presently Plaintiff who, in his personal capacity, had complainant to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 25.10.1999 against other misconduct of Advocate Roshanara A. Baig for her involvement in forged and fabricated documents for her personal benefits in relation to the Suit No. 2051 of 1996 where she is Defendant no.1. The issues raised by the complainant in his complaint are on the record of the Bar Council of India, the matter was heard before the Advocate V. A.Gangan , Member for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa where Advocate V. A.Gangan on 04.05.2000 appraised Miss Roshanara baig of charges made against her by the complainant and asked her explanation on the forgery and fabrication of documents etc, to which she had no reply, Advocate V. A.Gangan, Member for Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa found prima fascia substance in the complaint referred the matter to Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

41. The matter was before Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for about one year due to non cooperation of respondent Adv. Miss Roshanara A.Baig the matter was ultimately transferred to Bar Council of India both parties where heard before the Bar Council of India in detail and relied seriousness and gravity of the charges against respondent Adv. Miss Roshanara A. Baig by the complaint even of Bar Council of India was reluctant to go into merits of the case and Shirked their responsibility under the guise that the matter where in Advocate Miss Roshanra A Baig is defendant No.1 is pending before High Court and other matter where is Defendant no.1 Miss Roshanara A. Baig is accused before the JMFC, Naupada Court at Thane .

42. An Advocate fraternity consider as helping hand to office of Judiciary and their independent decision in respect of their functioning of their members without a drop of his conduct in their professional practice the above mentioned matters High Court and JMFC, Naupada Court at Thane has no relevance in proceeding further in the complaint and Bar Council of India’s findings and decision on the complaint in respect of misconduct, If any, of the Respondent Advocate will act as helping hand to the Judicial platform at High Court level and as also at JMFC , Naupada Court at Thane level which will strengthen their hand if the independent body like Bar Council of India decide the complaint and forward the copy , if necessary to the Judiciary platform.

Directions should be given to the independent body like Bar Council of India which is primarily made to stop the misconduct of their advocate members in the professional practice of Advocates and the grievances of their clients.

With highest regards to this Appellate authority and the Judiciary which has remained the only hope for common citizen facing torched of the corruption penetrated almost every walk of life.

On this 06th May 2011.

At Mumbai.

Madhav G. Deshpande……. President

FORUM FOR JUSTICE

(Appellant)

2011-07-30T08:27:00.000-07:00

2011-07-24T07:29:00.000-07:00

2011-07-24T05:43:00.000-07:00

APPLICATION FOR PRAYING URGENCY PIL nO.31 OF 2011

2011-07-22T21:02:00.001-07:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O.O.C.J.

[Rule 4(c) of Bombay High Court P.I.L. Rules-2010]

P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011

In the matter of Article 226, of the Constitution of Indiaetc.MRTPAct,BMC Act

1) Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, )

Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )

Having his residence at: )

7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No.)

23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out,)

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )

Mumbai-400 086 and One other ) ………….…. Petitioners

V/s.

1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi

Jain Shravak Sangh Ghatkopar (West),

Mumbai-400086. AND Five others )…………..Respondents

To

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT

THE HUMBLE PRAYER IN THE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

The Petitioner here to request URGENCY in this petition for taking it HIGH ON THE BOARD on the fixed date preferable within WEEK'S time so as to restrain the Respondent by considering injunction prayed in the petition for following reasons and grounds :

1. Illegal sale of compulsory Recreational Open Spaces of Sanghani Estate Layout approved under No.GB/259 in 1953 by original Developers of said lay out to Religious Charitable Trust (Respondent No.01) registered with Charity Commissioner Mumbai.

2. In turn the Said Charitable Trust selling the said Recreational Open Spaces, against the orders dated 30-08-2003 passed by City Civil Court Mumbai, to AVI -DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (respondent No. 02) with the consideration of Cash and constructed area.

(2)

3. Conspicuously, almost immediately after approval of lay out under No.GB/259 OF 1953, Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4) had been continuously approving building proposals, in the absence of approved lay out with terms and conditions etc papers on the individual plots and land and plots reserved for Recreational Open Spaces.

4. Municipal Corporation the Respondent No.4 hereto, not informing the theft of the said lay out file with approved plan and other scrutiny reports and orders passed. Also conspicuously not insisting original Developers to produce the owner's copy with plans and papers duly signed by the then Municipal Commissioner and or his powers delegated officers for the purpose of office records.

5. In the absence of owner's copy of approval to layout with the owners also, the Municipal Corporation, Conspicuously, not insisting the original Developers to the lay out to submit fresh or amended plans of lay out for the purpose creating valid records of the approval to said layout. Also, over period even after repeated representations , not forcing the plot holders to collectively submit layout plans for fresh approval and failing which informing the plot holders of they facing disconnection of water supply to all the plots, as fate-accomplish.

6. The Collector (Mumbai Suburban District) and Respondent No. 05 hereto, with out having the copy of approved lay out of Sanghani Estate from Municipal Corporation, and with out authority had been not insisting incorporation of said entire lay out approved under No.GB/269 OF 1953 in Collector's records,

7. Sub-divisional Officer of the Collector had been giving Non Agriculture (N.A.) status to individual plots without verifying sanctity and legal status of documents submitted as proof of ownership.

8. The concerned City Survey Officers, time to time in the position, had been not been going in to the authenticity and legal validity of the documents submitted towards ownership and had been surveying individual plots on the applications of individual plot owners or so called plot owners and issuing separate stratus to such plots in collector's records by way of issuing Separate Property Cards, maps of the such plots and area certificates.

9. Registrar of Documents, without verifying the legal ownership had been registering agreements of sales and conveyances of the individual plots.

(3)

10. The Charity Commissioner's office, without going in to the authenticity and legal validity of documents submitted towards

11. ownership of he applicant trust, giving their permission for sale of Recreational Open Spaces.

12. The Urban Development Department of Government of Maharashtra, without going in to the factual details have blindly accepted the fraudulent contention and interpretation that the existing internal layout roads of said Sanghni Estate lay out (CB/259 OF 1953) as Development Plan roads, though the same were in first Development Plan as Existing Roads and Lay out.

13. No steps were taken by Municipal Corporation since 1953 to take over the ownership of said Sanghani Estate Internal Roads.

14. As per provisions in law the Roads which have Existing Roads status can only be prescribed widening line after the said Existing Layout roads are owned by Municipal Corporation by completing legal formalities like paying compensation etc and completing formalities of HANDING OVER and TAKING OVER of possession of the entire road length of such internal roads. In the Development Plan the Municipal Authorities can propose additional connection to or extension to such roads.

15. The AVI - Developers and Builders with the concurrence of Shri Ghatkopar Agra Roqd Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh the Charitable Trust and hand in gloves with the Municipal and Collector authorities going ahead with the Construction of Building on Recreational Open Space meant for the benefit and recreation of the resident of said layout.

In the light of above submission the petitioner hereto is legitimately praying for urgency to restrain i) Respondent No. 02 from continuing with the Building Construction activity above or below ground level. ii) Respondent No. 02 from withdrawing the permission of Building Construction granted and not to approve any sort of Building Proposal in the said A.B.C,D, portions of Sanghani Estate layout approved.

At Mumbai

On this 14th Day of July 2011.

(Madhav G. Deshpande)

(Petitioner – IN PERSON)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

AT MUMBAI ( O.O. C. J. )

[ RULE 4(e) OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

P.I.L. RULES-2010 ]

P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011

Madhav G. Deshpande

And ONE other ……….Petitioners

V/S

Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road

Sthanakwasi Jain Shravak Sangh

State Government Maharashtra

Through Chief Secretary AND

FOUR others…………Respondents

APPLICATION OF URGENCY

Dated this 14th day of July 2011

IN

P.I.L. W R I T P E T I T I O N

Madhav G. Deshpande

(PARTY-IN- PERSON)

7, Kaustubhdham C.H.S.Ltd.,

23, Sanghani Estate, Gavdevi

Road, Ghatkopar (West),

Mumbai – 400-086.

Tele.:2500 49 78. / 9819762677.

PIL No. 31 of 2011 Mumbai High Court before Honorable Chief Justice on 28-7-2011 for admission

2011-07-22T20:59:00.000-07:00

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

O.O.C.J.

[RULE 4(e) OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT-P.I.L. RULES2010]

P.I.L. PETITION NO. 31 OF 2011

In the matter of Article 226, of the Constitution of India

AND

In the matter of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966

AND

In the matter of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act1888 and Building Bye-laws

1) Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, )

Aged: 70 years, Occu: Architect )

Having his residence at: )

7,Kaustubhdham C.H.S.L.,Plot No.)

23, D Portion’ Sanghani Estate Lay out,)

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (W), )

Mumbai – 400 086. )

2) Ketan Praful Shah, )

Aged 37 years, Occ: Business, )

Residing at: 8, Kaustubhdham )

Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., )

'D' portion, Sanghani Estate layout, )

Gaondevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), )

Mumbai- 400086. ) ……. Petitioners

.

V/s.

1) Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Sthnakwasi

Jain Shravak Sangh Plot No. 7,

Sanghani Estate ‘D’ Portion Lay-out,

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), )

Mumbai - 400086. )

2) Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia(Partner )

AVI Housing (Builders & Developers)

Unit No.2, Gr. Fl.,Vadani Industrial

Estate, Opp.Shani Niketan, L.B.Shastri

Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086.

3) Jai Neminath Kripa Co-op. )

Housing Society Ltd. Plot No.14, )

'D' portion Layout Sanghani Estate, )

Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (West) )

Mumbai-400086. )

4) Municipal Commissioner, )

Municipal Corporation of Greater )

Mumbai Mahapalika Marg, Fort, )

Mumbai – 400 001. )

5) The Government of Maharashtra )

through the Chief Secretary )

Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, )

Mumbai – 400 032. )

6) The Senior Inspector of Police )

Surya Nagar Police Station, )

Off. L. B. Shastry Marg, )

Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400083 )…………….Respondents

To

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND OTHER HON'BLE PUISNE JUDGES

OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioners are the citizens of India having their permanent place of residence at the respective addresses mentioned in the cause title. The Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are the residents of the building of Co-op. Housing Society called Kaustubhdham Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., Plot No.23, situated at ‘D Portion, Sanghani Estate layout at Gavdevi Road, Ghatkopar (west), Mumbai-400086.

Petitioner No. 1 is the President of an NGO called FORUM FOR JUSTICE, which is a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 having its registered office at his residential address shown in the cause title. Petitioner No.01 is an Architect and Town Planner by profession and practicing for the past over forty years and as such he is conversant with the building Bye-laws and Development Control Rules (D.C.R.-91)as also development, planning and designing aspects of buildings for different purposes. As such The Petitioner No. 1 is filing the present petition in his personal capacity along with two other petitioners being the residents of ‘D' Portion Sanghani Estate Lay out and the beneficiary of the Recreation Open Space provided for the benefit of all the residents of the Sanghani Estate Lay out, more particularly, the ‘D' Portion and in general the 'A' to 'D' portions of total Sanghani estate.

2.

The Respondent No.1 hereto is a religious charitable trust, registered under Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and managed by the Managing committee Members trustees appointed / elected time to time.

The Respondent No.2 is the Partner of M/S. AVI HOUSING (Builders/ Developers) appointed by the defendant No. 01

The Respondent No. 3 is a Co-op. Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-op Societies Act, having its office and building on plot No.14 of 'D' portion of Sanghani Estate layout situated at Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai.400086.

The Respondent No. 4 is the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai, Mumbai (M.C.G.M) who is responsible for functioning of administration of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and approves building plans, subdivision of plots, and takes decision on provisions for Recreational Open Space, Garden and such other amenities to be provided in various plots of lands through his powers delegated authorities in Director (ES&P) / Chief Engineer (D.P.) /Dy Chief Engineer (B.P.)/ Executive Engineer (B.P.) to accord approvals to buildings and sub-divisions / amalgamations etc of holdings in Greater Mumbai Limits.

The Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Secretary and as such the administrative Head of the Government of Maharashtra whose powers are delegated upon the Collector of Greater Mumbai Suburban District who in turn, through Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District and City Survey Officer under the Control of Superintendent of Land Records, incorporates changes in revenue records.

The Respondent No. 6 hereto is the Sr. Inspector of Police, Suryanagar Police Station, off L.B. Shastri Marg Vikroli (W), Mumbai-400083.

3. The Petitioners are the residents of the premises commonly known as Sanghani Estate Layout comprising of 'A' to 'D' portions approved under one layout File No. GB/ 259 OF 1951 of 28/08/1951 of continuous holding of original developers with phase wise development permitted under different Resolutions at different time periods from 1951 to 1953 by the Standing Committee of Municipal Corporation (M.C.G.M.) then known as B.M.C, more particularly ‘D’ portion being part of Survey No. 162, Hissa No. 6 (pt) Survey No. 31 (Pt), Survey No. 62, Hissa No.4, Survey No. 159, Hissa No. 3, Survey No. 161, Hissa No.45 i.e. C.T.S. Nos.123, 124, 125, 2263, 2265 etc., at Village Ghatkopar- Kirol, L.B.S. Marg, Mumbai Suburban District, Mumbai, hereinafter referred to as “the said 'D' Portion Layout holding, admeasuring approx. 39817.0Sq.Yards i.e. 33292.089Sq.Mtrs., of Sanghani Estate. Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT – "A" is a true copy of the said Layout.

4. The 'D' portion of said Lay-out initially consisted of total 36 plots out of witch i) then unbuildable Garden plot Nos. 09, 10 forming the part of continues Recreational Open Space 'B' Garden (R.O.S.) marked on the plan and deriving access from internal 30 Ft wide Gaodevi road ii) triangular Garden 'A' (R.O.S.) behind plot Nos. 28 to 33 and iii) portion 'C' out of total 15% Garden (R.O.S.) on plot Nos.14,15,16, admeasuring about 1944.Sq.Yards. (1625.43Sq.Mrts.) and insisted by Assistant Engineer (Town Planning) as the part of condition No..11 imposed while approving said layout under resolution No.148 of 22nd April, 1953 by Standing Committee, marked on the plan is the corner Garden (R.O.S.) deriving access from 30 Ft wide internal roads, for the benefit of plots at the rear side of layout portion.

5. The Petitioners state the Sanghani Estate layout of 'A' to 'D' portions of was prepared by M/s. Suvernapatki & Vora, Architects of the owners Jayantilal and Others, the original Developers, of the said holding and the file containing the plan of Sub-division of 'D' portion Layout of Sanghani Estate holding being part of File No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 was forwarded by the then Municipal Commissioner vide his letter No.A.E./18914/Sub dated 16/04/1953, to the Standing Committee of the then Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.M.C.) for its sanction.

6. While submitting the original proposal of Layout under No. GB/259 dt. 28.08.1951 the then Developer had earmarked a total portion admeasuring approx: 2264 sq. yards i.e. 1892.99 Sq. Mtrs. which marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ as “Recreational Open Space”, the break-up of which was Garden 'A' approx: 1035 sq. yards i.e. (865.39Sq.Mtrs.) + Garden 'B' 1229sq.yds (1027.60Sq.Mts.)

originally trapezoid shape fronting with unbuildable plot No. 09, 10 (617+667 Sq. Yards. i.e. 1073.587Sq. Meters)and deriving access from 30Ft. wide internal road, now called Gaondevi Road, respectively, for the said two portions of which original approved layout plan is neither with Municipal Corporation nor with the owner of layout. Thus the status of plot Nos. 14 to 16 and unbuildable land under garden plot No. 09, 10 which is continuous part on South side of 'B' portion Garden (R.O.S), the Respondent No.4 while scrutinizing the proposal from Aug. 1951 to April 1953 for sanction, must have found that the aforesaid area marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ with continuous unbuildable land, under Plot Nos. 09 and 10 in the Layout as Recreational Open Space, was much less compared to the requirement of the layout; taking into account the total area of the Layout and to give access from internal roads for the connivance of residents on the plots Nos. 17 to 27 at the back side i.e. towards North, to get direct access from the internal roads, it was then considered necessary by the Respondent No. 04 Municipal Corporation that an additional recreational area of approx: 1944 sq. yards i.e. (1625.43Sq.Mrts.) continuous to the area marked as ‘B’, on East side of Garden 'B', including Plot No.14 and stretching further on plot Nos.15 and 16 i.e. up to East-West 30 Ft. internal road and flanked by Plot.No.17 and another 30 Ft. wide internal road running South to North, shall have to be provided adjacent to the proposed 30 feet vide internal road and opposite to plot nos. 24 and 25. The said additional recreational area of approx. 1944 sq. yards(1625.43Sq.Mrts.) is a rectangular portion consisting of plot Nos.14, 15, 16 of 'D' portion lay-out marked as ‘C’ in the layout annexed hereinabove.

7. The Petitioners states that at the material time i.e. in or around the year 1951 to 1953, since the present Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 was not in existence, which came into force from the year 1966, the decision making and the approval of the layout was vested solely with the Standing Committee under the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, then known as Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.M.C.). Thus after considering the entire proposal submitted by the then Developer, and duly scrutinized by insisting amendments over a period of Aug. 1951 to April 1953 by the Respondent No.04, the Standing Committee meeting, by virtue of its powers vested under the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, accorded CONDITIONAL approval by directing the original developers and their Architects M/S Suvarnapatki & Vora to under take to reserve and earmarked the said additional area of 1944.0Sq.Yards(1625.43Sq.Mrts.) as more particularly mentioned hereinabove, which is marked as ‘C’ in the copy of the layout plan annexed hereto and shown with red dotted lines, as

additional “Recreation Open Space”. Accordingly, the Respondent No.4 Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution in its meeting of the Standing Committee held on 22nd April, 1953 along with the additional terms and conditions prescribed by the Town Planning Authority, more particularly the Asstt. Engineer-(Town Planning) and Asstt. Engineer Grade-I (Sub.). Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT- 'B' and 'C' respectively are true copies of (1) Extract from the proceedings of the Meeting of the Standing Committee held on 22.04.1953 and (2) the terms and conditions regarding portion ‘D’ on Survey No. 23, 24, 155 and 158 i.e. C.T.S. Nos.123, 124, 125, 2263, 2265 etc., of Village Kirol Ghatkopar (West) and bearing lay-out Plan File No. GB/259 of 28th August, 1951.

8. The Petitioner states that as per Condition No. (11) of the terms and conditions passed by the Town Planning authority, it was specifically provided that the plot to the North (factually to the South) of Plot No.24 and 25 admeasuring about 1944 sq. yards, equivalent to 1625.43 sq. mtrs., shall be reserved as “Garden” ( R.O.S.), in addition to what was shown at 'A' and 'B' in the layout Plan File No. GB/259 dt. 28/08/1951.

9. The Petitioner states that vide the aforesaid Resolution No.148, it is specifically provided that the open spaces (R.O.S.) have been reserved at 2 places for “Recreation” purposes, i.e. the portion marked as ‘A’ and ‘B’ in the layout annexed hereto admeasuring 1035. sq. yards (865.39Sq.Mtrs.) and 1229 sq. yards (1027.60Sq.Mtrs.) plus unbuildable Garden area of plot No. 9 and 10 admeasuring about (617+667) Sq. Yards. i.e. 1073.587Sq. Meters areas respectively. Clause (3) of the said Resolution further provides that the said layout is in order and that there is no objection to the same provided, subject to the terms and conditions prescribed by the Asstt. Engineer (Town Planning) and Special Engineer Grade-I for suburb, are agreed and undertaken to be complied by the original owners and the Architects of the layout.

10. The Petitioner states that as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Special Engineer of the Town Planning, a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-'C' above, vide condition-11 thereof it is provided that Plot to the North (factually to the South) of Plot No. 24 and 25 shall be reserved for a “Garden” admeasuring approx.1944 sq. yards., shown on Plan No. GB/259 dt. 28.08.1951 and the Petitioner therefore states that so far as plots reserved for “Recreational Open Space (R.O.S.)” as per the Resolution and also as per the terms and conditions respectively as mentioned hereinabove, the total area, of Recreation comes to approx. 5972.55 sq. yards

i.e. 4996.81 Sq. Meters which is about 15% of the total holding of the 'D' Portion Lay out.

11. The Petitioners therefore states that so far as the present petition is concerned, the Petitioners are interested in protecting and preserving the aforesaid area earmarked for Recreational Open Spaces purpose i.e. portion marked as ‘A’, and ‘B’ along with then unbuildable area equal to (617+667=1284Sq.Yrds. i.e. 1073.587Sq. Meters.) of plot No.09 and 10 on south as well as area earmarked for Garden (R.O.S.) i.e. portion marked ‘C’ consisting of plot Nos.14,15,16 (1944.Sqyds.) the area of which on final demarcation is 2018:0 Sq. Yards i.e. 1625:43Sq. Meters vide the aforesaid Resolution, totally admeasuring approx:(617+667+1229+1035+1998)=5546Sq. Yards i.e.(4637:16 Sq. Mtrs). As the same are common amenities such as Recreational Open Spaces (R.O.S.) reserved and earmarked for the benefit and use of the residents in the 'D' portion layout as per the provisions of law, more particularly as per the relevant provisions of building Bye-laws which necessitate 15% Recreational Open Space for a lay-out of sub-division of plots.

12. The petitioner/s state that it is the responsibility of the Respondents No.04 and to bring before this Honorable Court by vigorously searching all the old records layout plans directed to be amended, time to time, by Respondent No. 04 to provide and incorporate the required 15% Recreational Open Space (Garden), in the course of scrutiny to see that the said proposal was technically in order before the same was sent by the then Municipal Commissioner on 16/04/1953 to the Standing Committee of then B.M.C. for administrative sanction to layout under No. GB/259 dated 28/08/1951.

13. As per clause (f) (ii), (iii), (v) of Rule 3(1), (Chapter-I) with regard to “Layouts” of the Building Bye-Laws, it is the mandatory requirement that “in any such layout or sub-division, 15% of the entire holding area shall be reserved for recreational space which shall as far as practicable in one place and centrally situated, provided that the layout is for an area of 0.45 hectares or more”; Clause (f) (ii), (iii), (v) further provides as under:-

Clause (f) (ii) of Rule-3 (1):- In any such layout or sub division, 15% of the entire holding area shall be reserved for a recreational space which shall be as far as practicable in one lace and centrally situated, provided that the layout is for an area of 0.45 Hectares or more.

Clause (f) (iii) of Rule-3 (1):- No such recreational space shall measure less than 375. Sq. Meters.

Clause (f) (v) of Rule-3 (1):- Every such plot and recreational space shall have and independent means of access.

Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT 'D ' is a copy of the said Chapter-I Clause (f) (ii), (iii), (v).

14. The Petitioner/s state that the Respondent No.04, in early days of sanction of said subdivision layout, conspicuously hand in glove with original developers and their Architects misplaced, permanently lost or destroyed or allowed it to be destroyed the Subdivision of Plots layout file No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951and conveniently hand in glove, the Respondent No.04 solely depended upon statements, plans and copy of layout submitted by the Architect for individual approval on different plots or on the copy of layout he used to provide under his signature as "True Copy of the Layout" which was hold good for approvals to building proposals submitted by other Architects. It is on records that the plot No.13 in this layout was own by Shri. M.R.Vora the then Architect but he was not the Architect for building on plot No.13 but was the Architect for the building on adjoining plot No.14 as the said plot, as per terms and conditions of said layout, being part of required R.O.S., of witch he was in the knowledge of and getting approval on plot No.14 was matter of confidence and hand in glove act with then Municipal Officers.

15. The Petitioner/s state that the Recreational Open Spaces provided and marked at 'A' on the layout plan, annexed to this petition, as also R.O.S. at 'B' along with then unbuildable land under plot Ns. 09 and 10 also part of R.O.S., was made rectangular by illegally carrying out 'Give and Take' of equivalent or more area of part of land of plot No. 09 and 10 of S. No. 25 part and adjoining S.No.162 H. No. 07 of village Ghatkopar. In the process of 'Give and Take' the Recreational Open Space 'B' continuous to plot No. 09, 10 as R.O.S. and some what in triangular (trapezoid) shape was also made rectangular with the help and blessings of local politicians, Municipal and Collector's office The Architect of original layout submitted in 1951 being expert in managing approval with the connivance of Respondent No.4, the Municipal officers, got the approval to building on Garden (R.O.S.) plot No. 09 and 10 and blocked the entry of layout residents to balance portion of Garden 'B' (R.O.S.) behind plot Nos. 09 and 10.

16. The petitioner/s state that it is the responsibility of the Respondents No.05 to bring before this Honorable Court by vigorously searching all the old records in respect of aforesaid 'Give and Take' taken place in the presence of representatives of owners to layout and of Revenue department of

Respondent No. 05 with all due legal process adopted and completed in the presence of representative of Respondent No. 04 on site with remarks and approval given by the concern Dy-Collector etc of revenue department.

17. The Petitioners therefore state that in the absence of the said Layout Plan File No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 managed to be lost / misplaced or destroyed as such the vacant land originally under Garden is required to be reinstated by stopping construction activity of Respondent No.1 and 2 in the interest of resident of the locality. The arithmetic calculations show that, if, as per original approval, the land under Garden at plot Nos. 09, 10 and continuous to plot Nos. 09, 10 land up to boundary of plot No.17 plus additional Garden instead by Respondent No.4, on plot Nos. 14, 15, 16 and Garden 'A' on S.No. 26 (pt) in lay out, are calculated together, there is very miner short fall of 356:649 Sq Meters to complete required 15% Recreational Open Space required for 'D' portion Sanghani Estate layout holding which admeasures 39817.0 Sq. Yards i.e. 33292.089 Sq.Mtrs, and the 15% works out to 4993.81 Sq.Mtr. and provided is 4637:16 Sq. Mtrs thus the deficit of 356.649 Sq. Mtrs.

18. The Petitioners state the Recreation Open Space insisted and compelled to be provided by the Municipal Corporation and earmarked in strict compliance with the mandatory requirements contained in the aforesaid legal provisions, as such, the Respondent No. 04 are duty bound, not to approve any proposal of building construction of any type and Respondent No. 05 not to make any changes to give separate subdivision status and certification of areas in an isolated manner for individual plots unless approved copy of the subdivision of plots layout from Respondent N0.4 is supplied and said entire layout of Sanghani Estate 'A' to 'D' portions is entered in Collector's City Survey Records. Respondents Nos. 04 and 05 are responsible / liable to protect and preserve the said open spaces, in its form shape size and for joint ownership of all the residents to said layout in the name of the Association to be formed by the residents, in the over all public interest of 'A' to 'D' portions layouts in general and in the interest of the occupants of the said ‘D' portion layout of Sanghani Estate in particular.

19. The Petitioners further state that the owners and the Architects, had also undertaken in writing to abide by the conditions and had taken responsibility of communicating the said conditions to prospective buyers of plots in said 'D' portion of Sanghani Estate layout sanctioned under No.148 in particular and 'A','B' portion under No.1297, 'C' portion under No.454 by Standing Committee in general.

20. The Petitioner states that some time in the year 2001 / 2002 the Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No.01 hereto approached the Hon’ble City Civil Court at Mumbai by filing a suit Bearing S.C. Suit No. 2921 of 2001 as Plaintiff No.01 wherein the Respondent No.1 hereto, in the capacity of Plaintiff No. 01, falsely claimed, inter alia, the ownership of the portion marked ‘B’ of Recreational Open Space of 'D' Portion of lay-out. In the said suit they further falsely claimed that the said premises allegedly purchased on 01.04.1971 for valuable consideration of Rupee One (Re.1/-) from original Developers to lay-out and that they were allegedly in peaceful and exclusive possession of the same. They therefore sought for decree of permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants in the said suit who were the said plot holders / Societies in the layout abutting to the said ‘B’ portion garden.

21. The Respondent No.01 hereto and Plaintiff in the said Suit, suppressed the facts regarding the specific terms and conditions of the layout imposed by the then BMC Standing Committee dated 22.04.1953 and thereby sought for mandatory injunction praying for restoration of the compound wall and such other relief as more particularly prayed therein. As soon as the Petitioner/s came to know about the said suit, the Petitioner No. 01 herein being a practicing Architect and a resident of the 'D' portion layout of Sanghani Estate had submitted an application as Intervener with the intention that the suit premises being a public garden cannot be sold and the Plaintiff therein i.e. the Respondent No.01 hereto has illegally and fraudulently purchased the suit premises for a consideration of Re. 1/- for a piece of land admeasuring 1229 sq. yards.(1027.60Sq.Mtrs.) from the original developers of 'D' portion lay-out.

22. However, the Petitioner No. 01 hereto was called as a witness for the Defendant No. 02 to 06 therein. As a result whereof the Petitioner No.01 hereto had deposed before the trial Court as witness of Defendant No.02 to 06 as also as an intervener in the said S.C. Suit No.2921 of 2001. The Petitioner No.01 herein produced certified copy of the layout plan approved by the BMC being Exhibit 'A' to the present petition, certified copy of the conditions of the layout being Exhibit 'B and 'C' herein and a letter addressed to the Defendant No.02 therein the S.C. Suit No.2921 of 2001, by Executive Engineer (B&P) Eastern Suburban of M.C.G.M. regarding the Sanghani layout. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the Petitioner No.01 herein, in the capacity of witness, the Hon’ble City Civil Court was pleased to dismiss the said suit, vide order dated 30.08.2003. A copy of the said judgment is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit "E".

23. In the said Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2003, appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the Ld. Judge came to a conclusion, inter alia, that the suit land is not salable, it is a public property reserved for Recreation ground in the sanction plan passed by the BMC. In view thereof if any Sale Deed so executed by the Plaintiff is ab-intio, and therefore the title itself is defective. So the title of the suit land cannot be transferred in Plaintiff’s favor. The Plaintiff cannot be called owner of the suit land. In view thereof the issue No.1 “whether the Plaintiffs’ are the owners of the said property” came to be answered in the negative.

24. The Ld. Judge Hon'ble Shri. A.T. Vaidya further held that Rule-23 of the Development Control Rules state that every plot meant for Recreational Open Space shall have an independent means of access, unless it is approachable directly from every building in the lay out. Ownership of such Recreational space shall vest, by provisions in a Deed of Conveyance, in all the sub-divided plots' owners on account of whose holdings the Recreational space is assigned and the Recreational space shall be kept permanently open to the sky and accessible to all owners and occupants as a garden or a playground etc.

25. The Ld. Judge further observed that no evidence was produced by the Plaintiff Trust to show that the suit premises is a private property of the erstwhile vendor conveyed the title of the same to the Plaintiff, and as such an evidence was missing. Secondly the Plaintiff, being a public trust ought to have obtained permission from the Charity Commissioner, Bombay, for acquiring any property much less immovable property. Such permission from the Charity Commissioner was also not produced by the Plaintiff. All these facts led the Court to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs’ Vendor had no right, title and interest in the said property and therefore the plaintiff's vendor cannot transfer and/or to sale the suit property to the Plaintiffs, and when the Plaintiffs’ Vendor had no right to sell the property, what right can he further transfer and/or sale to the Plaintiffs. Therefore plaintiff cannot claim or prove any legal right thereto.

26. The Trial Court finally came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his claim; the Plaintiff may be in possession of the suit property but the possession should be in consonance with the legal right of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to prove that his vendor had right, title and interest in the suit property to be conveyed to the Plaintiffs. When this fact could not be proved by the Plaintiff trust, automatically the court will have to come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff’s claim could not be

established by them. Basically the ownership right over the suit property was required to be established. Merely by entering and executing Sale deed in favor of plaintiff , will not suffice to establish the title of the property since the sale Deed itself is bad in law and defective. Consequently mere possession over the property cannot suffice the purpose. If the title does not get to the Plaintiff thereto will be of no legal possession. In view thereof, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs failed to establish their apprehension, their title to the property and as such the said suit came to be dismissed.

27. The Petitioner/s state that the Plaintiff in the aforesaid suit had also taken out a Notice of Motion No. 2270/01 in S.C. Suit No.2921 of 01 wherein the City Civil Court have passed an order dated 29/04/2003 restraining the Respondent No.01 hereto and the Plaintiff therein, from using the said recreational open space for their religious functions and also from preventing the entry of residents of the locality to the said Recreational Open Space.

28. The Petitioner/s state that in spite of the above judgment passed by the trial court in respect of ownership of the Recreational Open Space, the Respondent No.01 hereto in connivance with the powers vested officers of Respondent No. 05, who intentionally and as a part of corrupt practices and without verifying the authenticity of documents produced, with the original sanctioned layout plan (GB/259 of 51) for Sanghani estate 'A' to 'D' portions from Municipal Corporation, issued the property cards and area certificates for plot Nos. 07,09,10 10 and plot Nos. 15, 16 and 'B' portion Recreational Open Space admeasuring 1229.Sq.yrds., in the name of Respondent No.01 who on the strength of such false and illegal documents entered in to CONVEYANCE CUM DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT on 30/01/2010 for development on the said recreational open space plot Nos. 09, `10 including Recreational Open Space 'B' of 1653.03 Sq. Mtrs., with Respondent No. 02 hereto. Hereto annex is the copy of the Conveyance cum Development agreement corruptly registered against the provisions of law and without verifying whether the proof of ownership is genuine or not, the copy of the said agreement dated 30/01/2010 is marked as Exhibit "E-1".

29. The Petitioner/s state that on or about 22.01.2010, the Petitioners came to know that the Respondent No.2 AVI HOUSING (Builders & Developers), before execution of said agreement dated 30/01/2010 had planned to perform Bhoomi Pooja on 24.01.2010 at 10.00 a.m. onwards for commencement of construction jointly with the Respondent No.01 hereto on the said exclusive Recreational Open Space. Since the said act on the part of the Respondent

No.01 and 02 amounting to an offence punishable under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 and under I.P.C., the Petitioner No.01 approached the Respondent No. 06 i.e. the then Sr. Inspector of Park Site Police station , Suryanagar Vikhroli (W) and reported the matter to them along with a written complaint dated 22.01.2010. The Petitioners had also annexed along with the said complaint copies of the order dtd. 30.08.2003 passed by the City Civil Court Mumbai, copies of the Resolution and Condition Letter of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, as stated hereinabove. As the Respondent No. 06 was reluctant to take action on complaint dated 22/01/2010, this Petitioner again visited the Respondent No. 06's police station with written COMPLAINT to lodge First Information Report (F.I.R.) in the register of police on 09/05/2010 in respect of entering in to fraudulent conveying for compulsory Recreation Open Space by way of area of plot Nos.14 to 16 of the said 'D' portion layout. Hereto annexed is copy of complaints dated 22/01/2010 and dtd. 09/10/10 duly translated in English by this Petitioner and collectively marked as Exhib "F".

30. The petitioner/s further state that, even after repeated enquiry with the office of the Respondent No.06, there was no response about the action taken on the complaint made this petitioner sought the information through application under R.T.I. Act-05. The application dated 26/08/2010 and the information dated 28/09/2010 received are together annexed herewith and marked as Exhb.'G'.

31. The Petitioner/s state that the plot No. 15, 16 where the construction was proposed to be carried out by the Respondent No. 2 is a part and parcel of 1944. sq. yards (1625.43sq.Mtrs) of additional Recreation Open Space provided for the ‘D’ Portion layout of Sanghani Estate vide Resolution dated 22.04.1953 of the Standing Committee of the then Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Respondent Nos. 01 and 02 are falsely claiming ownership and possession of 'B' portion (R.O.C.) and said Plot Nos. 15, 16 and assertion on the part of the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are in violation of the conditions of approval of layout given to the ‘D’ portion layout of Sanghani Estate by Respondent No.04 and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is fully responsible and duty bound for protection and preservation of the said status as Recreation Open Space by enforcing the provisions of law but the powers delegated officers of Respondent No. 04 have corruptly and against the observations of trial court, in judgment dated 30/08/2003, have considered the false and fabricated documents produced by Respondent No. 01 and 02 towards ownership as valid and have committed the crime punishable under sections 120-B, 218, 420 etc.

32. The Petitioners state that despite pointing out the above facts, the Respondent No. 06 being the Sr. Inspector in charge of the local police station failed and neglected to prevent such committing of crime by the Respondent No.01 and 02. The Petitioners further state that the Respondent No. 06 ought to have taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in the Petitioner's complaint dated 22.01.2010. However, the Respondent No.6 failed and neglected to perform his duty in stopping the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The Petitioners further state that instead of preventing the construction on the plot No. 15 and 16 the Respondent No.6, conveniently termed it as civil matter and acted mala fide by not preventing the security guards, posted on plot No. 09, 10, 15, 16 and 'B' garden portion between plot Nos.9, 10 and 17 of the ‘D’ portion layout, from entering into the Recreation Open Space.

33. The Petitioner/s state that the Petitioner from the platform the Public Charitable trust, under the President ship of Petitioner No. 01 hereto, known as FORUM FOR JUSTICE, thereafter brought the above facts to the notice of concerned officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, such as E.E. (B.P) and the Dy. Chief Engineer (BP), Eastern Suburb by forwarding the said complaint letter dated 22/01/2010 with copies of enclosures, addressed to Sr. Inspector in charge of the local police station to lodge compliant under M.R.T.P. Act 1966. But no action of filing complaint under M.R.T.P Act was taken by the powers vested officers the Dy. Ch. Engineer (B.P.E.S.) of Respondent No. 04 Municipal Commissioner/s of M.C.G.M .

34. The Petitioners state that after persistent perseverance of this petitioner, the Municipal authorities concerned with the building proposal department then and now, under Chief Engineer (DP), who, in turn, is under control of Dir. (ES&P) and M.C., were knowing fully well about the theft or misplacement and /or destruction of the layout files bearing No. GB/259 of 28.08.1951 along with necessary documents and approved layout plan of sub-division of plots and the conditional letter bearing No. AE/18914/SUB dated. 19.06.1953, the department ultimately directed the owners or their legal heirs to produce the original approved layout plan with conditions imposed along with relevant documents and in the absence of the same to get the amended sanction to the lay-out originally approved under Lay-out Plan File No.GB/259 of 1951 afresh, as per the site conditions and proposed composite development and to send the same for approval for concerned authorities. Hereto annexed is copy of the letter of then Dy Ch. Eng.( BPES) dated 26/09/2003 and marked as Exhibit"H".

35. The Petitioners state that in addition to encroachment of the Recreational Open Space the Respondent No.1 is also claiming to be the owner of Plot No. 07 wherein the Respondent No.01 has carried out unauthorized constructions on the pretext of religious ritual functions in violation of the conditions No.07 of the condition letter dated. 19.06.1953.

36. The Petitioners state that the claim of the Respondent No. 01 for ownership of plot No. 07, 09 and 10 is also illegal. The Respondent No. 01 the Trust, by so illegally claiming ownership of the said property, has encroached up on and covered side open space around the Upashray Building on Plot No.07 and has further more appointed the Respondent No.02 as the Developer for illegally and fraudulently constructed Building on plot No. 09 and 10, which practically is the part of Recreational open Space portion as mentioned in para 14, 15 for construction of a new building by demolition the existing building illegally got approved and under construction on the other side of 30 feet vide internal road and opposite Upashray Building.

37. The Petitioners therefore state that the Original Owners to layout and their Architect have thus illegally and in violation of the sanctions and conditions laid down by the Municipal Authorities, have sold Recreational Open Space in four parts i) Garden area comprising of unbuildable plot No. 09 and 10 ii) Garden 'B', iii) Part of Garden area insisted by Standing Committee i.e. Plot No. 14, iv) Remaining part of Garden area insisted by Standing Committee i.e. Plot No.15 and 16, and the Respondent Nos. 01 and 03 have fraudulently purchased the same as explained on the copy of the lay out drawing annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit "I"

38. The Petitioners state that surprisingly the original approved Plan of layout of plots and condition letter are allegedly lost and are reportedly neither traceable at Mumbai Municipal Corporation's end nor Owner-Architect's end, conspicuously, almost immediately after the approval. Demarcation papers of entire Sanghani Estate layout holding with plots, internal roads and recreational open spaces are also not traceable at the end of Respondents No. 04 and 05 still majority of plots are developed over the period with the meaningful blessings and hand in glove with the Municipal officers, in the absence of original sanctioned layout of plots, only on the strength of blue print/ammonia print copies submitted of lay out issued under the signature of Shri. R.M. Vora Architect to layout from 1951 onwards.

39. The Petitioner/s state that there being no approved plans and conditions letter on the records of the Building Proposal Department and owner-Architect, the Petitioner No. 01 hereto had procured the certified copy

of the said resolution N0.148 along with copy of the condition letter passed by Standing Committee of B.M.C. from Municipal Secretary Department, and had handed over the same to then Dy.-Ch. Eng.(B.P.-E.S.). The Owners-Architects by meaningful understanding with Municipal officers have taken advantage of illegally developing of plot No.14 for Jai Neminath Kripa C.H.S.Ltd., the Respondent No. 03 hereto, though the said plot No.14 was out of additional Recreational Open Space, along with plot Nos. 15, 16, insisted as par the condition No. 11 of condition letter dated 19/06/1953 bearing No.A.E./18914/Sub., & of Asstt. Engineers (T.P.) and Grade (I) Sub.

40. The Petitioners state that the owner's Architect to layout in 1951-53, being also Architect of the said Jai Neminath Kripa C.H.S.Ltd., knowing fully well that the plot No. 14 is out of required additional Recreational Open Space insisted under condition letter dated 19/06/1953 of approval of subdivision layout of plots, had hand in glove with the owners of the layout and the Municipal Officers illegally and intentionally encroached upon the Recreational Open Space by getting approval and constructing building of Respondent No. 03 and thus blocked entry to the original triangular part of continuous Recreational Open Space and cut off the area under plot No. 15, 16, the rectangular portion of continuous Recreational Open Space which in all is supposed to be (1229+1284+1944)=4458. Sq. Yards. i.e. (3727.454Sq.Mtrs.). A copy of the layout plan at Exhibit "I" of the continuous Recreational Open Space comprising of original triangular portion (1229. Sq. Yrds.) (R.O.S.) and attached to it and deriving access from plot Nos. 09, 10 for front plots and from plot No. 14, 15, 16, for plots 17 to 28. It be referred as the subject property i.e. i) plot No.14 to 16, ii) Garden 'B' and iii) plot Nos.09 and 10 unbuildable plots presently vacant, as a result of demolition of building thereon.

41. The Petitioner/s state that the planned criminal conspiracy, of the original owners-developers and Architect to layout, and Respondent Nos. 01 and 03 hereto, of illegally selling the above mentioned Recreational Open Space in four parts, is in following manner :-

1) Plot No.14 sold to Jai Neminath Kripa C.H.S.Ltd., which is out of 1944. Sq. Yards., additional Recreational Open Space insisted under condition letter A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953 with which the said 'D' portion of layout of Sanghani Estate was accorded sanction by Standing Committee.

2) Illegally sold Plot No. 15, 16 which is out of 1944. Sq.Yards. Additional Recreational Open Space insisted under condition letter bearing number A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953 and without authority, to Shri Ghatkopar Agra Road Jain Shrawak Sangh, Respondent No. 01 here to.

3) The Recreational Open Space (Garden) reserved on Plot No. 09, 10 fronting the 30 Ft. wide layout road and in continuation to 'B' portion Garden marked on layout plan are sold to Respondent No.01.

4) Original trapezoidal Recreational Open Space admeasuring 1229 Sq. Yards., later on made rectangular (55'-076"X197'-3") by illegal "Give and Take" of land from S.No,162 H.No.7 and S.No.162 H. No. 4(pt) was sold illegally for Rs.1/- under so called Conveyance dated01-04-1972 to Defendant No.1 which, now, is declared by the City Civil Court vide orders dated 30/08/2003 in Notice if Motion No.2270 of 2001 in S. C. Suit No.2921 of 2001 passed by honorable Judge A. T. Vaidya as invalid and bad in law with direction to keep the Recreational Open Space accessible and for the benefit of resident of 'D' portion layout.

In support of the above facts, is the copy of resolution No.148 and condition letter dated 19/06/53 of Asstt. Eng (T.P.) with this Petition at Exhib. "B & C".

42. The Petitioner/s hereto state that all these facts were brought on record in Notice of Motion No. 2270 of 2001 in S. C. Suit No.2921 of 2001, on the strength of which, honorable Judge A. T. Vaidya passed orders dated 29/04/2003 restraining the petitioner in S. C. Suit No.2921 from using the said Recreational Open Space for their religious functions and restraining from preventing the entry of residents of locality to the said Recreational Open Space. In spite of these orders the defendant No. 02 of AVI HOUSING (Builders and Developers) performed BHUMI PUJA, amounting Contempt of Court orders, in the hands of father of the Respondent No.02, Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia hereto for starting construction, jointly with the Trustees of Respondent No. 01 hereto on the said exclusive Recreational Open Space and they have committed the crime, of illegal activities of construction, under M.R. & T.P. Act-1966 etc. A copy of said order dated 30/08/2003 is at Exhibit "E” of this petition.

43. The Petitioner hereto state that in spite of the Municipal authorities in general and the Building Proposal department under Chief Engineer (D.P.) in particular, were full aware about theft or misplacement amounting destruction of the said layout file No.GB/259 of 28/08/1951, with approved

layout of subdivision of plots and the condition letter No. A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953, it was corrupt practices the Building Proposal department has been nursing for last more than forty years that resulted in illegal approval & development that has taken place in 'A' to 'D" part of the layouts in Sanghani Estate in perticular and other such private layouts in Greater Mumbai in general.

44. The Petitioner/s hereto state that even after Petitioner hereto bringing this anomaly to the notice of then E.E.(B.P.) and Dy. Chief Engineer (B.P.) Eastern Suburb and in response to this request, Building Proposal authorities directing the heirs, administrators, and assignees of original owners to produce the original copy of layout plan and condition letter, as the same was not traceable in municipal office and in the absence of the same at owner's records, to get the entire holding of 'A' to 'D' layouts surveyed fresh as per the site conditions and send for approval to E.E.(B/P.) E.S.; the response of owners was indifferent as they may be afraid that their misdeeds of selling the Recreational Open Spaces would come out and will have to face the consequences. The copies of the letters addressed to 1) owners dated 26/09/2003, 2) the petitioner hereto 21/12/03 and 3) letter dated 24/08/01 addressed to the Trustees of Defendant No.1 hereto by E.E. (B.P.-E.S) are attached herewith and together marked as Exhibit "J".

45. The Petitioner/s state that the Respondent No. 01 is claiming to be owner of plot No. 07 where an UPASHRAY for religious rituals and functions is constructed against the condition No. 07 of condition letter No. A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953 with which sub-division layout is approved; as such owning plot Nos. 07, 09, 10 by them is also illegal. The said religious Trust and Respondent No. 01 hereto has illegally covered the compulsory open spaces around the UPASHRAY building on plot No. 07 and has appointed the Respondent No. 02 Shri. Paresh Virajlal Chabhadia Partner of M/S AVI Housing (Builders & Developers) hereto as developers for plot No. 09 and 10 for the construction of single building by demolishing existing building situated on the other side of 30 Ft. wide internal road opposite UPASHRAY building on plot No.07.

46. The Petitioner hereto state that in the light of what is express earlier, it is in the interest of the residents of the layout to restore the Garden (R.O.S.) on plot No 09 and 10 which is now vacant, towards required physical Recreational Open space and the excess Floor area used by illegally covering the open spaces around the UPASHRAY building on plot No. 07 by passing orders to demolish the same.

47. The Petitioner/s hereto state that similarly, the deficiency in Recreational Open spaces area of 'A' to 'D' portions of Sanghani Estate layout be made good by directing Municipal authority to make available to the resident of all the 'A' to 'D' portion of Sanghani Estate layout by blocking and reserving the number of plots which were given on lease by original owners of the said layouts and many cases the lease period is expired, to match the required 15% Recreational Open Space (Garden) of total continuous holding of all the Sanghani Estate layouts. Also by restraining the heirs, administrators, assignees of original owners of the layouts from entering in to new lease agreements for area which will match the total Recreational Open spaces equal to 15% of total area under continuous holding of all the 'A' to 'D' portions of Sanghani Estate layout together.

48. The Petitioner/s hereto state that the technical officers (Engineers) holding position of Chief Engineer (Development Plan) and heading Building Proposal Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another officer in Director ( Engineering Services and Projects) for Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had in principal accepted the fact that the layout plan files and ducuments of Sanghani Estate layout 'A' to 'D' portions are not traceable and Recreational Open spaces provided are not 15% as required by law and they have also accepted that the internal roads in Sanghani Estate private layout are prior to preparation and declaration of FIRST Development plan in 1967. Prior to 1967, Bombay Municipal Corporation (B.MC.) and number of other Local self government bodies, with the help of Town planning department of State Government, had been undertaking Town Planning Schemes. With this background of planning of road pattern and reservations of public amenities, old layout roads existing much prior to the drafting of First D.P. were shown in colour Burnt Siena in first (1967) Development Plan along with proposed D.P. roads, and all proposed as new Development Plan Roads were shown separately. The then power delegated Engineers of Respondent No. 04 hereto, without the knowledge of the Urban Development (U.D.) of State Government, unilaterally and fraudulently had been considering the old existing layout roads as D.P. ROADS and have been giving F.S.I. advantage of such intenal layout roads to parties and giving advantage of natural sub division of property and thereby advantages of F.S.I. of D. P. roads was given to developers. In the course of finalizing the Second Development all such layout internal roads, hand in glove with the Urban Development officers of State Government the Respondent No. 05, were fraudulently considered as Development Plan roads in Greater Mumbai and all the internal roads of private and Government layouts in 'N' ward Municipal limits were treated

and illegally accepted by Respondent No. 05 as D.P. Roads to give F.S.I. advantage to Developers. Builders vide order No. TPB/4392/5675/CR-189 /UD-11 (RDP) Dated 26/03/1993. Annexed hereto is the copy of information dated 07/02/2011 given by Executive Engineer (D.P.) on application under R.T.I. Act 05 and marked as Exhibit "K".

49. The Petitioner/s hereto state that in the above sequence and in continuation of technocratic jugglery in Local self government bodies, the senior most officers i.e. Ch.Engr. (D.P.-B.P.) and Dir (E.S.P.) of the competent authority misled through their internal reports, the Municipal Commissioner to commit number of irregularities willfully under so called discretionary powers for the reasons best known to the officers and the then and present Municipal Commissioners themselves. Following are the salient features of the functioning of engineering and administrative giants in local self Government (MCGM) and some of the past and present I.A.S. officers, managing the appointment as Municipal Commissioners, by openly flouting provisions of law by twisting the same under so called "Discretionary powers" they assume themselves :-

With reference to the Directors letter No. Dir/Es & P/4125/II dated 18-12-2002 a report dated 25-7-2003 was prepared by Executive Engineer (B.P.)ES/AN. After more than 7 months the said report was made to then Dir (ES&P) through then Dy. Ch. (BP) ES and C.E. (D.P.) Shri. Sane. The then Assistant Engineer (B.P.) had taken such a long time of 7 months to 'understand' the developer and ultimately made segmentation in favor of the developer through then E.E. (B.P.) ES. The salient features 'A to 'T' below of the multipurpose master copy and master piece report designed to hold good as "president" for new in coming Municipal Commissioners and for junior officers/engineers who will grow senior and acquire senior officers' positions.

1) A] C.T.S. record and P.R.C. are difficult to be obtained. To have the proposal made viable, he has requested to allow the development, pending required clearance from City Survey authorities. In lieu of F.S.I. one and additional T.D.R. loading.

B] is from approved Sainath Nagar layout vide copy of Standing Committee Resolution No.1297 approved on 31.10.1952 at pgs. C37-C41. The plot is in 'R' zone and affected by widening of 13.4 Mts wide Sainath Nagar Road, which takes entry from 30.48 Mts.

C] As the C.T.S. plans are not available, unauthorized sub-division will be regularized by charging penalty.

D] The major advantage of this proposal is clearing of built-up setback.

E] The separate P.R. Card of setback area will be insisted in the name of M.C.G.M. before occupation of the building.

F] The copies of Standing Committee resolution establishing authenticity of layout under reference No.AE/C-4161/Sub dt. 21st October 1952 may please be seen at pgs. C37-C41.

G] Affected by two village boundaries with two C.T.S. Nos. as stated. P.R. Card & C.T.S. plan for Ghatkopar village is available and is attached at pgs. C27 & C39 other one is not available with C.T.S.

H] The plot is from approved Sainath Nagar layout the layout is not implemented in revenue record as such; 7/12 at pgs. 221 - 225 (M/F) is still in the name of Shri Chandulal ValchandGandhi vide 7/12 at pgs. 221- 225 [M/F). P.O.A. and agreement with Shri Virendra Vora,

I] as submitted above, there are difficulties in sub-division of separate P.R.C. in words for plot under reference and separate C.T.S. plan. Architect has requested to allow development initially to 0.75 F.S.I. pending clearance from City Survey Authority & getting separate P.R. Card.

J] Separate P.R. Card in words & City Survey plan can be obtained in due course of time. As the bldg. is required to be reconstructed, part development may be allowed and part restriction may be levied to get record updated and to arrive at a stage of normal plot.

K] Plan may be approved considering plot area as per last existing area.

L] Submission of separate P.R. Card "for other plot will be insisted" before granting C.C. up to plinth & CTS plan of other plot under reference will be insisted before granting further C.C.

M] Considerations are requested to allow built-up area of building as per subdivision which is 405.44 Sq. Mtrs. and put up restrictions in phase-wise manner, concurrent with submission of revenue documents.

N] The plot under reference is from approved Sainath Nagar layout approved under S.C. Resolution No. 1297 dated. 29th August, 1951. The copy of approved layout terms & conditions [without plan] may be seen at pgs. C37/C41.

O] These conditions have become absolute and not relevant. Even amendment of layout by single plot owner is not possible.

P] In this case, it is submitted that layout is already developed and buildings were constructed in the early sixties & there is no further scope of providing R.G. The R.G. i.e. plot No. 6 is completely vacant. As there are constraints in provision of layout R.G. due to developed

layout, further R.G. provision may not be insisted upon another deficient R.G. [2104.10 - 1204.10 = 900 sq.mts) is required to be condoned.

Q] The physical R.G. as per D.C.R. 23, shall be proposed in plot admeasuring more than 1000 sq. mts, when it comes for development. ( as per sanctioned layout of Sanghani Estate there is no individual plot more than 800.Sq.Mtrs.)

R] The roads are now become D.P. Roads and adequate as per D.C.R. 22, table.

S] The layout owners are not traceable. The present proposal is submitted by individual plot owners for which sub-division order is received at pgs. C33-C35.

T] Considerations are requested not to implement layout term & conditions and not to insist amendment in layout and process the proposal as per D.C.R. 91 & tolerate the existing roads / R.G. as a fait-accompli.

Allow development:

i) In the absence of copy of approved layout plan.

ii) C.T.S. records and P.R. Card from City Survey Office.

iii) Additional salable component in lieu of F.S.I. ONE & T.D.R. loading.

2) Sanctioning and implementation of plotting of approved layout of plots on the holding of Sanghani Estate layouts of which Sainath Nagar is the 'A' portion and with reference to favoring approval to developer

who also had taken a plot for redevelopment in 'D' Portion of the

said layout.

3) The misleading interpretation of legal opinion sought about 'whether it was necessary to send the proposal for amendment of 'A' to 'D' layouts or any development in Sanghani Estate to Standing Committee after coming in force of M. R .&T. P. Act 1966 under which D.C. Rules 1991 are framed' for granting the permissions for subdivisions, layouts and building in M.C.G.M. .

4) The opinion given was misused, and was broadly in favor, interest of developer, to get rid of conditions imposed by the then Town Planning Department of Maharashtra with the intention to facilitate the approval by Standing Committee in 1953. In support of the above elaborations, attached herewith are the copies of i) Legal opinion dated 18/08/2003 given by the Municipal Law officer ii) Report bearing No.CHE/1588/DPBP/ES dated 08/09/2003 of then Chief

Engineer(Development Plan) iii) report No.CE/6130/BPES/AN dt.24-25/07/2003 of Dy. Ch. Engr. (B.P.-E.S.) submitted to then Municipal Commissioner through then Director (E.S.& P.) M.C.G.M. and the bunch is collectively marked as Exhibit "L".

5) Without getting, the holding of the entire layout transferred and reflected in the City Survey records of Collector Mumbai Suburban District as per the provisions of M. R. & T.P. ACT 1966, in terms of subdivision of plots, roads and Recreational Open Spaces approved by Standing Committee marked, amounts to defrauding the law and provisions there under made and enforced by state government and failing in duties / responsibilities of jointly demarcating on the holding and thus incorporating the same in the City Survey records with due revenue to government paid, it is illegal in functioning of Municipal departments under the authority and leadership of Municipal Commissioner to declare the internal roads of private layouts in existence prior to 1966 and shown in the first development plan (1966-67) the 'Internal roads of private layouts in existence' to be shown as Development Plan Roads in subsequent Development plan under the garb of condoning under discretionary powers is high handedness on the part of Municipal administration and is illegal.

6) For any reason the records in respect of sanctions and approvals accorded by the Municipal authorities is misplaced and/or lost or destroyed and even the authentic records are not available with the owners and then Architect, in that case it is obligatory on the part of Municipal administration to request / force the layout owners /plot holders to submit the fresh amended subdivision layout of plots with amendments if any and get the fresh amended approval as a part and extension of earlier approval accorded by Standing Committee in 1953. The owners and present plot holders refusing to respond and come forward to set the records right, the Municipal authority is duty bound to stop further development in the said holding of subdivision layout of plots and terminate the occupation given to the buildings in the layout and further stringent action of disconnection of Municipal water supply etc to buildings in the layout.

In support of 3) above, attached herewith are copies of i) Letter No.CE/3064/BSIII/AN dated24/08/2001. ii) CE/1532/BPES/AN dated 20/08/2001. iii) CE/8077/BPES/AN dated26/9/2003. iv) DyCh.E/10900 /BP/ES/dated21/12/2003. v) Letter dated 11/12/2003., the bunch is collectively marked as Exhibit "M".

50. The Petitioner/s hereto and beneficiary of use of said Recreational Open Space along with all other residents in the said layout, have reason to believe that the defendant No. 01 to 03 fully knowing well the orders dated 29/04/2003 passed by Honorable Judge Shri. A.T. Vaidya of City Civil Court Mumbai in Notice of Motion No/2270 of 2001 and judgment dated 30/08/2003 in S.C. Suit No. 2921 of 2001, for the part portion of Garden, the Suit Premises ( 1229 Sq.Yds), illegally conveyed, out of total Recreational Open Space including plot Nos. 09, 10, 14, 15, 16, in the name of defendant No.01, have started the process of illegal construction on said Recreational Open Space plot Nos. 15, 16 which were sold though illegal transaction (Conveyance deed) between original owners of the ‘D’ portion of said layout and Respondent No.01 hereto and presently the party to "Conveyance and Development Agreement" dated 30/01/2010, the Respondent No. 02 in connivance with the Respondent No.01 and Respondent No. 04, has started construction of Religious public building on internal 30 Ft. road with the excuse that the Respondent No. 05 has issued property card and area certificate to the Respondent No. 01.

51. The Petitioner/s here to, believe that Respondent No.03 is guilty of being party to the sale purchase transaction with original owner/Developer of layout for plot No.14 as the orders dated 30/08/2003 passed by Honorable Judge Shri. A.T. Vaidya, for Garden (R.O.S.) portion behind unbuildable plots No. 09, 10 and plot No. 17 the "Suit Premises" of S.C. Suit No.2921 of 2001 can be considered to have been valid and the judgment passed by the Trial Court in the said suit is binding upon all the parties, as the land under plot Nos. 14,15,16 is also Recreational Open Space meant for the benefit of all the residents of said layout, the sale of plot No.14, by the original owners of the layout, to Respondent No. 03 hereto is therefore illegal as the land under plot No.14 is the part and parcel of additional Recreation open space admeasuring about 1944.Sq.Yds., i.e. (1625.43 Sq, Mtrs.) insisted in the condition letter No. A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953, while Standing Committee according approval to the layout resolution No. 148 on 22/04/`953.

52. The Petitioner/s hereto vide appeal / applications for redresser of grievance had number of times approached the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra, present and past, with copies to Respondent No. 05 and other senior officers of various departments in Mantralaya and also to Municipal Commissioners, but there was no courtesy of appointing independent officers to inspect and /or discussing the issue to understand the gravity of criminal act, involved in the said issue, with aggrieved complainant, the Petitioner No. 01 hereto, on the part of Respondent No.01 to 06 hereto. Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT- "N" are the true copies of letters dated 19/05/2010 addressed to Chief Minister of Maharashtra State the copy of the same was marked to the Respondent No 04 hereto for speedy action.

53. The Petitioner/s hereto state that from 2001 onwards number complaint letters were address on the said issue to the Municipal Commissioners but there was on response and/or feedback and despite of Petitioner request for appointment on the issue the then Municipal Commissioner Shri. K. Shriwastav preferred to discuss the said issue without calling this Petitioner, on 30/10/2003 with the political persons who were representing builder developer, i.e. Shri. Datta Dalvi, Standing Committee Chairman and local M.L.A. Shri. Prakash Mehta. Thereafter also there were no intentions of in coming Municipal Commissioners to face the truth and the appointment sought was avoided. Copies of letters seeking appointment dated 24/05/10 and 07/03/11 are annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit "O".

54. The Petitioner/s hereto believe that the Respondent No. 04 the Municipal Commissioner, along with his powers delegated authorities i.e. from Sub-Engineer ( Building Proposal Department ) to the level of Chief Engineer(D.P. & B.P.) and Dir.(E.S. & P.), exceeded their powers vested with them by and under law, and further exceeding the scope of their power and function under provisions in law delegated to the officers and Engineers in the course of execution, demarcation and incorporation of the said subdivision layout of plots in the revenue records of Collector (Suburban District of Mumbai). In the absence of original records containing sanctioned layout plans, conditions, the prototype report prepared after the repeated complaints from 2001 onwards of this Petitioner No. 01 about deficient Recreational Open Spaces, a proto type report No. CHE/1588/DBBP/ES dt. 08/09/03, based on the report No.CE/6130/BPES/AN dt.24-25/07/2003 of Dy-Ch.Eng. (BP-ES),which, at the same time was used for another proposal of same Developer Mr. Virendra Vora who was represented, in meeting on this issue with then M.C. Shri. Karun Shrivastva on 24/10/2003 in the absence of main complainant, in public interest, and Petitioner No.01 hereto, by Shri. Datta Dalvi, the then Standing Committee Chairman and Shri. Prakash Mehta M.LA. Thereafter approving the report submitted from Sub-Engineer (B.P.) level to the level of Director (E.S. & P.), Municipal Commissioner gave his conditional approval and on the same approval precedence was created for all such approvals thereafter. Copy of the said report at Exhibit “L” is strong enough to show the defying of their framework of functioning in the course of fulfilling their duties and obligations as public servant.

55. The Petitioner/s hereto have reason to believe that the Respondent No. 05 Chief Secretary the administrative head of State of Maharashtra, under who, with delegation of powers, work i) Commissioner and Registrar of Registration of Documents ii) Office of the Charity Commissioner and Registrar of Societies. The Charity Commissioner office and the office of the Commissioner of Registration of documents have, hand in glove with Respondent No. 01, 02 and 03 and such other plot holders who have approached them, have given their consent for and /or registered such faulty and bad in law documents amounts to authorities mentioned herein have failed in their duties and acted against the provisions of law is a cognizable crime under I.P.C. Section 120-B, 218, 420 etc. The Collector (Suburban District of Mumbai) and the administration under him and the powers delegated authorities/ officers, of the Collector i) Sub divisional Officer responsible for collection of revenue to State Government, issuing of Non-Agricultural use with due verification of ownership documents and subdivisions or amalgamation of plots approved by Municipal Corporations and or local self Government Bodies, and ii) the Superintendent of land records for the district through his Inspector of Land records as well as iii) the City Survey officers and the Tahsildars, for issuing Property Cards and area certificates on verifying the ownership of the entire holding of the layout and agreements to sale as also conveyance deed registered of individual plots sold in the layout and surveying the entire layout as approved by Municipal Corporation or local self Government bodies. All the authorities mentioned under District Collector have failed in their duties and against the provisions of law issued i) N.A. certificates and clearance ii) Issued property cardswith area certificates and ownership titles in favor of parties those cannot be lawful owners of subdivided plots reserved and approved by Municipal corporation in the Subdivision of plots layout as Recreational Open Spaces with conditions imposed while approving the layouts. Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT- "P" is true copies of orders passed by the then Resident Collector Shri. Soni and property card for plot No.15, 16 issued in favor of Respondent No.01.

56. The Petitioner/s hereto have reason to believe that the Respondent No. 06 the Senior Inspector of Police Park site Police Station, Surya Nagar Vikroli (West) had purposefully failed in his duties and favored the Respondent No. 01 & 02 by not taking action for performing Muhurta of such illegal construction on Recreational Open Space meant for the use and benefit of resident of the layout and further more not taking action for keeping hired security guards, to prohibit the resident of the locality from entering and using the Recreation Open Space., in spite of Petitioner hereto attaching all relevant documents including copy of condition imposed while

approving the layout under letter No. A.E./18914/Sub. Dated 19/06/1953 and copy of the order dated 30/08/2003 passed by the Honorable Judge Shri. A.T. Vaidya of City Civil Court Mumbai which amounts to helping the defendant No.1 & 2 for their action amounting to contempt of court and action amounting to crime under Indian penal code on the part of Respondent No.01 to 05 for not insisting on, jointly incorporating the layout approved by respondent No. 04 in the presence of representative of Respondent No.05, the Superintendent of land records and Sub divisional officer of Collector of Greater Mumbai District who have failed in their duties and have issued property cards and area certificate and property plans in favor of Respondent No.01 and number of such other plot holders in said layout and many such other layouts in Greater Mumbai and elsewhere.

57. The Petitioner/s hereto further state that a representation/ appeal dated 28/06/2010 was made in this respect with all necessary annexure but till date no reply or action taken is communicated to this petitioner by present previous Collectors of Mumbai Suburban District and the illegal individual subdivision of plots in the absence of certified copy of Sanghani Estate Layout 'A' to 'D' portions approved under Proposal File No. GB/259 of 28/08/1951 and false and fabricated sale documents in respect of Recreational Open Spaces are corruptly considered as valid and property Cards and Area Certificates are issued hand in glove with Municipal officers, Registrar of Documents officers etc. The 'A' to 'D' portions of layout technically scrutinized and made approvable by then Municipal Commissioner and phase wise concurrence is given by Standing Committee. Annexed hereto is the appeal dated 28/06/2010 and is marked as EXHIBIT-"Q".

58. The petitioner/ state that the City Survey Officer (Mulund) be restrained from incorporating layouts holdings and the individual subdivided plots in to revenue and city survey records of the Respondent No.05’s power delegated officers the Collector of Suburban District of Mumbai be restrain Also pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, the defendant No. 01, 02 are restrained, by an appropriate order and or injunction, to stop the construction on plot No.09, 10,15,16 and further restraining them from prohibiting the residents by illegally keeping custody through Security guards and by demolishing the illegal structures under construction above and under ground level.

59. The petitioner/s state that it is gross indifference on the part of state Government and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's style of administering the systems with indifference towards their prime most duties

for wellbeing of citizens and towards the oath taken while assuming the office of responsibilities and duties, as past over ten years this issue and such other issues are continuously being brought to the notice of administrative heads and the rulers supposed to be functioning under the provision of the Constitution of India but there being almost no response, which has forced petitioners to file this petition on the following amongst other grounds.

a) that vide number of complaints and representations/appeals in respect of tracing out the layout sanction file No.GB/259 of 51 which was lost or destroyed hand in glows with the then Architect-Owners and with the connivance of some of the Municipal Engineers/officers with ulterior motive of misuse of Recreational Open Spaces in the layout, required by law, is still not traced out or theft of the said file with approved layout map is not reported to police, by Respondent No.04 hereto.

b) that the sanction to layout of subdivision of plots granted by Standing committee of Bombay Municipal Corporation (MCGM) under Resolution No.148 dated 22.04.1953 is termed as "supposed to have approved layout" to nurse the corrupt practices.

c) That the existing layout road pattern approved in 1953 and shown in the First Development plan of Greater Mumbai in 1967, were fraudulently considered as Development plan roads in order to give illegal benefit of Natural Subdivision and F.S.I. advantage of supposed to be Internal Road deriving entry from Sanghani Estate 'D' portion layout, to the subsequent development came up in 1972 onwards on adjoining property bearing S. No.162 Hissa No.07, on the West side of Sanghani Estate 'D' portion property boundary i.e. S.No.162 H.No.2 (Pt) where Garden ( R.O.S.) 'B' is located.

d) That existing internal Roads of Sanghani Estate 'A' to 'D' portions have been high handedly termed as Development plan Roads and without completing proper acquisition procedure from original owner and / or plot holder owners of said layout and getting the ownership of land under such

existing internal roads, prior to first Development plan, of Sanghani Estate 'A' to 'D' portion layout, transferred in the name of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai at collector's revenue records, the Respondent No. 04 and the powers delegated Engineers/ officers of Respondent No. 04 have illegally termed the said roads as 40 Ft wide D.P. Roads and without having said 30 Ft. roads incorporated along with all the features of 'A' to 'D' portion layout, have fraudulently granted the F.S.I. of illegally widen width of road falling in such plots allowed to be developed. At Exhibit "K" of this petition is the copy of the remarks dated 07/02/2011 offered, by E.E. (D.P.) in response to application under R.T.I.Act05.

60. The petitioners have not filed any other petition before this Hon'ble Court or any other court , arising out of the subject matter of this petition and further say that there is no any efficacious and effective quick remedies available under the law otherwise than the remedy in writ jurisdiction.

61. The petitioners state that the cause of action for filing this petition has arisen in Mumbai and this Hon'ble court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India to try and entertain this petition.

62. The Petitioner/s state that the period of limitation is not applicable to this petition as there is continuous cause of action.

63. The petitioner seeks leave to add, amend and alter the writ petition if and when called up on by the Hon'ble Court and relied upon a list of documents which are annexed herewith.

64. The petitioners are paying fixed court fees for the purpose of this petition.

65. The Petitioner/s therefore pray that :-

a. i) The office bearers and members of Respondent No. 03 be restrained from entering in to any agreement to develop the

said plot No.14, with any developer/s till the final disposal of this writ petition.

ii) The Deed of Conveyance entered and executed between Respondent No. 01 hereto, and the original owners of the

layout taken on revenue records by Respondent No. 05 hereto, is ab-intio, fraudulent, bad in law. Further ownership Right of Respondent No.3 for the plot of Land bearing No. 14 and ownership Right of Respondent No.1 and 2 for Land bearing plot No. 09, 10, 15, 16 as also other plots in 'A' to 'D' portions of Sanghani Estate layouts and properties having common boundary with Sanghani Estate 'A' to 'D' layouts more particularly S. No.162 Hissa No.7, are invalid together with the N.A. permission so obtained and other changes that have taken effect on records including issuing of property cards and area certificate in favor of Respondent No.1 to 3 and others in the layout need to be cancelled and declared invalid on the lines declared by Honorable City Civil Court judge Shri. A.T. Vaidya vide his order dated 29/04 /2003 in the notice of motion No.2270 of 2001 and judgment dated 30/08/2003 in S. C. Suit No.2921 of 2001 at Mumbai.

b) The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct and order Respondent No. 05 to take necessary action against Respondent No.1 , 2 and powers delegated officers of Respondent No. 04 and -5 under the relevant provision of Indian Penal Code like 120-B, 118, 420 etc., for the offences committed which are punishable under the said act. The said Offences and/or act committed by Respondent No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are mention herein below;

i) for wrongfully restraining the residents of the said locality and lay-out by appointing private security guards.

ii) for starting illegal construction activity on the piece and parcel of land reserved as “Public Recreation” under M.R.T.P. Act against Respondent No. 01, 02 and concern officers engineers of Respondent No.4, 5.

iii) preparing false documents and with the Misusing of powers vested with said authorities and officers of Respondent Nos. 04 and 05.

iv) for effecting registration of documents without verifying the authenticity of documents produced before Registrar of Documents and Charity Commissioner's office the powers delegated authority of Respondent Nos. 05.

c) The Hon’ble Court may direct Respondent No.5 or appropriate authorities to register the cognizance of the act covered under the provision Indian Penal Code such as under Section 218 & 120-B etc against Respondent No.04. The Municipal Commissioners and concerned Officials with vested powers from Director (E.S. & P.) level to concerned Sub Engineer level for exercising the powers beyond the Jurisdiction together with the act of negligence for misplacing the approved Original layout plans and other important papers and files.

d) The Hon’ble Court may pleased direct Respondent No. 04 and his concerned officials with whom the powers so vested from Director (E.S.&P) level to concerned Sub Engineer level to issue stop work order to any further construction of building proposal and/ or activity on the said land specially on “D” portion of the layout, and further on the ‘A’ to ‘C’ portion of the layout in general. It may further directed to issue complete stop work notices for all the activities , till the amended layouts in which 15% recreational open spaces need to be reserved compulsorily and the same shall be approved by Respondent No.04, and accordingly the necessary provision shall be effected in the revenue records of Respondent No.05 by conducting the surveying of the entire holding jointly.

e) Pending hearing and final disposal of this Suit the Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to order and direct Respondent No.01, 02 and their representatives and/or their agents to stop all such activities related to construction of building on plot No. 07, 08, 09, 10 and plot No.15, 16, in ‘D’ portion of layout.

f) The Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to direct Respondent No.04, 05 to produce Original papers, orders, documentary proofs by way of plans, layout and resolutions passed etc. proving that the plot Nos. 09, 10 were need to be kept open and reserved as part of Recreational Open Space suggested by Municipal authorities (B.MC.) and insisted time to time in the course of scrutiny of lay-out plan under No.GB/259 of 1951 from 1951 to 1953 and continuous to

Recreational open space (Garden 'B'). Till the same is proved with documents by Respondent No.01, 04 and 05, the Respondent No.01 and 02 may be directed and ordered to stop the construction on plot No. 09, and 10. since plot No. 09, 10 are the part of Recreation Open Space, deriving access from 30 Ft. wide layout road called Gaodevi Road opposite Upashray building on plot No.07 , as in the absence of original approved layout plan, it goes with out saying that the said Garden (R.O.S.) Plots No. 09,10 have been forcefully occupied and fraudulently ownership records were created on the lines of plot No.15, 16 in favor of Respondent No.01, and to the original triangular portion of Recreational Open Space for the benefit of all residents to 'D' portion Lay-out.

g) that this Hon'ble court be kind enough further direct and order that Respondent No.03 to demolish the compound wall so constructed between plot No.14 and 15 and between plot No. 14 and triangular garden portion, converted into rectangular by illegal Give and Take with adjoining property, on Survey No.162 Hissa .No.2 i.e. C.T.S.Nos.123, 124 Village Kirol Ghatkopar at back side of plot No.14 for the benefit of residents of layout and their entry to the Recreational Open Space.

h) The Hon’ble Court may be further pleased to direct Respondent No. 04, 05 to block and reserve the leased out plots by the original developers admeasuring in all over 5000.Sq. Mtrs. of which the leased period is over in the ‘A’ to ‘D’ portion of said layout and restrain permitting any change over of ownership etc of such plots by Respondent No. 06 and the Respondent No. 04 not to approve or entertain any building proposal also direct Respondent N0.04 to be vigilant redevelopment on the said leased out plots.

i) that this Hon'ble court be kind enough to issue writ of mandamus or in the nature of writ of mandamus, ,writ of certiorari or in the nature of certiorari and / or any other appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, directing respondent No. 01 to 06 .

j) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition , the respondents No.01 to 06 and or their agents representatives

be restrained by an order of injunction of this Hon'ble court from :-

1) carrying out any act of construction activity on plot Nos. 07 to 11 and 14, 15, 16, on Garden 'B' (Recreation Open Space) of 'D' portion in particular and 'A' to 'C' portion of layout in general

2) to restrain Respondent No. 04, 05 from approving any proposal of building activity of any whatsoever nature till the amended layout with composite development proposed is approved by Respondent No.04 and the same is incorporated in the revenue records of Respondent No. 05, as stated herein above in prayer clause No. d.

k) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses a, b, c, d be granted;

l) Any such other and further relief as deem fit by this Hon’ble court.

Mumbai

Dated on this 08th day of June 2011.

(Madhav Gajanan Deshpande)

Petitioner No. 1 IN PERSON

(Ketan Praful Shah)

Petitioner No.2

V E R I F I C A T I O N

I, Madhav Gajanan Deshpande, age70 year residing at 07, Kaustubh-dham C.H.S. Ltd., 23, Sanghani Estate ‘D’ portion layout, Gaondevi Road, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086, the plaintiff above named do here by solemnly declare that what is stated in para 01 to 59 is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraph numbers 60 to 65 are stated on the information gathered, and I believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai. )

On this 08th day of June 2011. )

(Madhav Gajanan Deshpande)

(Petitioner No. 1 IN PERSON)

(Ketan Praful Shah)

Petitioner No.2

Letter to Ms. Soniya Rajiv Gandhi – All India Prersident

2008-12-06T21:51:00.001-08:00

FORUM FOR JUSTICE

TEL.25004978 / 22855159 (ANTI CORRUPTION DRIVE) REGN. NO. F-19491 (MUM.)7, KAUSTUBH-DHAM CO-OP. HSG. SOCY., LTD., 23, SANGHANI ESTATE, GAMDEVI ROAD, GHATKOPAR (W), MUMBAI-86. Email : forumforjustice@yahoo.com 09819762677

Date: 18th January 2007.

Ms. Soniya Rajiv Gandhi – All India Prersident

Indian National Congress,

10,Janpath, New Delhi.

Sub.: Time demands absolute majority to Congress Party on Municipal

Corporation level, the stepping stone, in the interest of survival of

Democratic functioning in political system of India.

Respected Soniyaji,

It is on record the role-played by me, as practicing Architect and Town planner since early sixties, in formation of SHIV SENA and installing Shri. Bal K. Thackeray as its chief –the SENAPATI, in 1966. My selfless devotion with self imposed decision of not to contest any of the elections and make the organization a force to reckon with for all political parties then on the sensitive issue catching up in Mumbai in particular and Maharashtra in general, as directing voice of Marathi ethos and Mrathi speaking population of Mumbai in particular and Maharashtra in general.

In the early days of Shiv Sena we had been supporting candidates of high integrity of different political parties like late S.G.Barve and after the sad demise of Shri. S.G. Barve his sister late Smt. Tarabai Sapre both of congress party then led by S.K.Patil as B.P.C.C. President where in I was the in charge of election campaign of both the above mentioned congress candidates from Shiv Sena side and both had got elected because of devoted efforts of Shiv Sena workers under my leadership.

On the issue of sons of the soil of linguistic state of Mahatashtra with Mumbai its capital, the political parties in India and their leader ship, for interest involved in Mumbai the Commercial and financial capital of India, could not understands the gravity of the issue of son of the soil and the started antagonizing Shiv Sena which gave rise to the necessity and the theory of contesting elections at different levels such as Municipal Corporation, Assembly, Parliament and last but not the least Gram Panchayat levels. Indifference shown and the injustice done to the legitimate right of just demand of preference and higher percentage in opportunities and benefit of achievements of the linguistic State to local linguistic population on the part of political parties, the Marathi masses gave directive to Shiv sena to fight / contest elections at all levels instead of supporting candidates of different political parties.

Once an organization formed for limited cause start broadening its base, it starts compromising with its main aims and objects as a part of vote and vote bank politics. It happened with leadership of Shiv Sena and issue of son of the soil went at backside. Realizing the danger of further loss to Shiv Sena, I took the firm stand of not to get dragged behind other political parties in Mumbai whose following in Mumbai was negligible as compared to Shiv Sena, and oppose the move of welcoming late Mrs. Indira Gandhi then Prime minister by showing black flags, along with other political parties, on her rout from Air port to Raj Bhavan.

In discussions with Mr. Ayub Saiyed Editor Current News paper, in his office in Fort Mumbai, I express to him, as my strategy to pears-wed Shri. Bal Tkackeray from joining agitation of showing black flags, that if Mrs. Indira Gandhi is ready to halt on her way to Raj Bhavan, near Kala Nagar junction at High Way and garland Shivaji bust statue in a covered pendol and give interview to Shri. Bal Thackeray at Raj Bhavan, then in that case Shiv Sena will withdraw from black flag agitation. Mr.Ayub Saiyed liked the idea and contacted Prime minister’s office next day. He was trying to contact me on 452115 from Prime minister’s office Delhi on my then residence at Dadar (w), Mumbai.

Due to some problem in getting through the line, the message was sent to me through Shri. Sethana Atomic Energy Chairman Mumbai, to contact Prime minister’s office urgently. Accordingly I contacted Delhi and the garlanding of Shivaji statue and interview to Bal Tkackeray at Raj Bhavan was confirmed and Shiv Sena withdrew from blackflag agitation on the day of visit of Mrs. Gandhi.

At my instance in the year 1975, Shri. Ramrao Adik’s candidature was supported by Shiv Sena. Mrs. Roza Deshpande C.P.I.Candidate was his opponent. Shiv Sena workers were working very sincerely for shri. Ramrao Adik and as apart of realization of hard work put in election propaganda by Shiv Sainik, Shri. Vasantrao Mengde the then B.P.C.C. Secretary under the directives of the B.P.C.C. President and my good friend Shri. Rajni Patel, came to my professional office (DESHPANDE & PRADHAN ARCHITECTS and CONSULTANTS) Fort, Mumbai with initial six figure amount for election expenditure for Shiv Sena workers working day and night. In those days working for Shiv Sena for monetary gains was not the culture under my decision making leadership in Shiv Sena as such I refused the monetary assistance offered. It was a great shock to Shri. Rajni Patel and was impress by my integrity. Shri. Rajni Patel narrated the incidence of refusing money on my part to late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, who expressed her surprise by saying that such selfless element less in percentage, is instrumental in maximum things to happen through many odd situations. I consider it as compliments to me.

Common family friend late Dr. Sundaram who, as you may be aware, was a man of confidence out side political arena, of first Prime minister of India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, was knowing my contribution and devoted efforts in building up of SHIV SENA by using my knowledge of Town planning and Architecture since 1965 and installing Shri. Bal K.Thackeray as its SENAPATI. After my withdrawal from leadership of Shiv Sena in 1980, as a matter of devotion to cause of Marathi Ethos I was reluctant to join any political part but Dr. Sundaram was continuously after me to join Mrs.Indira Gandhi’s party and used to assure me that Madam will happy to welcome me in Congress party. Ultimately in 1984 I gave consent to Dr. Sundaram to go ahead and express my willingness to join congress at Maharashtra level in the capacity of decision maker.

. In addition to the truthful information about me had with Mrs.Indira Gandhi, she asked then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Late Shri. Vasantdada Patil to collect information about me and give it to her at Raj Bhavan, when she was to be in Mumbai some where in the month of May1984. Accordingly she was in Mumbai and her arrival was informed to me, with the knowledge of Shri.Rajiv Gandhi, by then General Secretary. Shri. Mupnar.

On the said visit of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in the month of May 1984, the file containing information about me was not prepared by then Chief Minister Lte Shri Vasant dada Patil for the reasons best known to him, though he knew me since 1965. I was informed by Dr. Sundaram on the instance then Prime minister that my meeting with her was postponed to her next visit to Mumbai in the Month of Sept. /Oct. 1984.

Unfortunately the said month never came up in her life as Mrs.Indira Gandhi was assassinated on 31st July 1984 and my entry in congress, in the interest of Maharashtra and Marathi ethos, never took place due to political undercurrents in congress party then.

In present political mess-up; in the tersest of survival of democratic functioning of political system in India and in political parties, it has become duty and responsibility of every citizen of India, politically, socially aware or other wise, to come forward stand behind the major political force (party) and give political strength with absolute majority which was given in Dec, 1984 parliament elections to Shri. Rajiv Gandhi after brutal assassination of Mrs.Indira Gabndhi.

Today we feel election fever of Municipal Corporation elections in Mumbai in particular and all over Maharashtra in general, the electoral level day to day social needs and problems are tackled. In present political and social scenario and monetary freedom given to local self-government bodies in India, the fate of members to State level Assemblies and Parliament at national level is decided on the performance on Municipal Corporation level and in rural areas on zilha parishad (Z.P.) level elections.

For healthy democracy it is equally necessary to have healthy opposition. What w see today is the mockery of democracy in the hands of number of political parties playing with the religious sentiments of people and other small groups elected representatives crest terror and try to strike deal for power. Now is the time when major political party in congress should get absolute majority and this situation will open the eyes of other political parties and in future people will get the pleasure of being ruled by two major parties with substantial strength of elected representatives either to rule or to play the role of opposition effectively in the interest of citizens of the city.

In Mumbai and other cities in Maharashtra, administered by Municipal corporations, the challenge before Congress is of Shiv Sena B.J.P. and Rashtrawadi Congress. In such situation I humbly can say that my active role in propaganda by addressing rallies in different Municipal Corporation territories in Maharashtra, I am confident, will make Shiv Sena, B.J.P.and Rashtrawadi Congress ineffective and the truth spelled out by me will demoralize them to come out for election propaganda including Bal Thackeray and Sharad Pawar.

I had given this offer of coming out in favor of Congress in last Parliament and Assembly elections in Maharashtra by contacting Shri. Gurudas Kamat and Shri. Vilasrao Deshmukh (C.M.) number of times on my own in the interest of survival of effective democratic set up at all levels, but for the reason best known to themselves they avoided me all the times.

The above-mentioned attitude of present leadership of Maharashtra and that of leaders in sixties like S.K.PATIL has vast difference. In those days when Shiv Sena under my leadership had offered support to Congress candidates in Mumbai and when some element in Congress made hue and cry over the support, Shri. S.K.PATIL told that he was out to win the elections and would welcome support in favor of the candidates from all the corners and voters irrespective of status.

In the light of what I have stated above and want offer my participation in propaganda of forth coming elections in the interest to over come threat to democratic set up and preservation of Marathi Ethos in linguistic state of Maharashtra. As an Architect and Town planner I believe that in a multi storied building with FORTY TENEMENTS there can cordial relations with neighbors and they may be coming to rescue one another in difficult time and even helping monitorial and or loaning and sharing commodities with each other as also sharing maintenance repairs coloring etc. with harmonious relations with each other. If some of the members understand this good gesture as their right over neighbor and in early fine morning demolish the common wall dividing two tenements and start using neighbor’s Bed room, Kitchen, Living room toilet etc., as their constitutional right or go one step further and keeping all external walls intact and remove all the internal walls of eight to ten tenements per floor of all floor as every member is part of and equal owner of one Co-operative Housing Society. It is needless to say that this flowing so called unity flowing on complete floor and thereafter on all the floors with keeping external walls intact is ridiculous. If the multifarious Indian multi linguistic States and culture is no protected and from right to encroach up on neighbor, the state of affairs of India will go the lines chaos that would take place in above mention Co-operative Society’s building with forty members with families in forty tenements.

Waiting for your reply and personal interview in public interest.

With regards,

(Madhav G. Deshpande) President

FORUM FOR JUSTICE

SHIV SENA FOUNDER