RUNWAL TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the owner of larger plot bearing Cadastral Survey No. 233 of Malabar-Cumbala Hill, Division 91, Lady Laxmibai Jaghmohandas Road, Nepeansea Road, D-Ward, Mumbai, out of which an area of 404.44 square yards being the setback affected area (hereinafter referred to as 'the setback land') of a public street was acquired by respondent no. 2 as far back as 17/4/1969 and thereafter it become a part of a public street. The entire plot was originally owned by one Meghji Gopalji and his wife and under the conveyance deed dtd. 12/8/2011 and another conveyance deed dtd. 30/12/2010, registered on 6/1/2011, the entire plot including the right in respect of the setback land was transferred to the petitioner no. 1. There was exchange of correspondence between officers of the Corporation and the erstwhile owners of the said property for payment of compensation for acquisition of the setback land. By the letter dtd. 29/6/1976, addressed to the Corporation, the erstwhile owners of the said property informed the Corporation that they did not receive any compensation for the setback land and they requested to inform them of the status about compensation that was to be paid to them. In response thereto officer of the respondent no. 2 informed the erstwhile owners of the said property to depute their representative to the office of the Corporation on any working day. It appears that the erstwhile owners then informed the Corporation that instead of compensation they would like to have the benefit of FSI. By the letter dtd. 22/5/2006, the erstwhile owners again informed the Corporation that they did not receive any compensation for the land or reconstruction of compound wall even though the possession of the land was taken over as indicated in the letter dtd. 2/4/1973. The erstwhile owners, by their letter dtd. 23/12/2009 again reiterated their demand for payment of compensation in the form of FSI. The compensation, however, was not paid.

(3.) The issue of payment of compensation in the form of FSI was continuously pursued by the erstwhile owners of the land but it appears that no benefit of FSI as demanded by them was made available to the erstwhile owners. According to the petitioners, the internal notings of the officers of the Corporation which have been filed on record disclosed that the setback land was taken into possession on 17/4/1969 but no record regarding payment of compensation in any form for acquisition of the setback land was traceable.