ARJUN THAKURDAS NIHALANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT in this complaint has sought issue of occupancy certificate in respect of his house and for damages under various heads. Complainant was allotted a plot on leasehold in Navi Mumbai under an agreement dated 21.9.1979 when he paid lease premium of Rs. 48,000/-. Complainant could not complete the construction within the period of three years under the agreement. On his paying an additional premium of Rs. 7,200/- time of construction was extended for two years. Since complainant remained on duty on sea, he being a Seaman, he appointed his friend one Gunwantbhai Hirani as his attorney to make construction on the plot.

(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant the construction was completed on the ground and first floor and the said attorney applied for occupancy certificate to City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) who had granted lease deed. Complainants attorney applied for occupancy certificate separately for the ground flood and the first floor. Complainant says though occupancy certificate was granted for the ground floor but was refused the same for the first floor stating that some work had yet remained to be completed. Then the complainant says his attorney illegally occupied the first floor and the process of litigation started with him, even his filing the criminal complaint against his attorney. Meanwhile a show-cause notice was again issued by CIDCO as to why agreement of lease be not terminated under the provisions thereof. Complainant replied to the show-cause notice informing the CIDCO of illegal occupation of the first floor by Gunwantbhai Hirani and his civil suit pending in the Thane District Court. It is not necessary to give further facts except to note that orders were passed by the CIDCO cancelling the agreement and also issuing eviction orders against both, the complainant and Hirani. This order was challenged by the complainant in the Court of Joint District Judge Thane and by order dated 11.7.1997 the eviction order was set aside. Complainant says he continued to pursue with CIDCO for issuance of the occupancy certificate and even had to go to the High Court of Bombay for the purpose.

(3.) DISPUTE , however, did not end there as objection was raised regarding the building constructed on the leased land. This, it appears, led the complainant to file this complaint on 23.2.1999. First order in the complaint is dated 15.2.2001 which we reproduce as under : "Our attention has been drawn to a letter dated 13.2.1998 issued by the Asst. Estate Officer, CIDCO to the complainant stating that since he has paid all the dues and has withdrawn the case filed against the Corporation, it had no objection to the complainant in getting the Occupancy Certificate from the Town Planning Officer, NMMC, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, General Development Regulations and New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975. The case of the complainant is that in spite of this letter, the complainant has been unable to get no objection to the Occupancy Certificate from the Town Planning Officer, NMMC. He has referred to a letter dated 26.11.1999 which has not been annexed and has drawn our attention to the harassment to which he was subjected to. Issue notice in this case to the NMMC who particularly deals with the complaint about the non-issuance of Occupancy Certificate to the complainant. Sd/- .............. J. (Suhas C. Sen) President Sd/- .............. J. (C. L. Chaudhry) Member Sd/- .............. J. (J. K. Mehra) Member Sd/- .............. J. (Rajyalakshmi Rao) Member"