Editor: Najmudin Bookwala (Manoj) cell No : 9322246090
details of Mumbai Assambly Election 2014
South Central Mumbai
Uttar Madhya Mumbai
Uttar Purava Mumbai
Uttar Paschim Mumbai
You want example how Goverment is working the see letter Dated 15th august 2012 yet not reply by any department
Dear All Readers
Hon Chief Minister of Maharashtra
I Was asked for BMC NOC and Group leaders meeting / why not the
other Party they ask For NOC-group leader meting and issue the annexure II
SRA closed the file saying NOC / Annexure II is not submitted
therefore your file is closed in 2000.
In this case there was several meeting in one meeting Concern
minister said the officer is miss guided me and call for action and to be
present in front of him order was again pass by concern minister in front of all
officer saying give me full reports thou the ward officer / Colony officer/ rent
collector did nit gave annexure II for reason known to them.
In one letter BMC officer writing that the Shashtri Nagar Welfare
Association Artictetch is doing correspondent to us since 2002
· The SRA itself accepting our file was there from 1996 and we have file number too.
I was asked to build 50 % of Land for BMC office? Why not to other
Party this is a clear loss of around 200 Cr. To BMC which officer does not want
to benefit the BMC..
When there was Government order to give Annexure II to my company
why BMC office did not gave to us?
Why BMC did not comply order of SRA letter and reply by to SRA by
Mr Ratnakar Gaikwad then BMC dy. commissioner that this is a reserve plot
for BMC office? In that condition annexure II cannot issue, in this condition
why there was two different opinion and bias on other project, how can they give
annexure to others? As they denied to me where I was ready to comply all
condition of BMC as per Rule?
· I am working on this project since 1996, for slum dwellers, I have submitted time and again the entire document as ask by the concern department, Sir, it was also discuss in Maharashtra Assembly for the same project and Verbetem was passed by House.
It is the SRA also directed to Mumbai BMC h /Ward Officer submit Annexure II but then also the Ward officer had issue the Annexure II to some other party.
SRA was asking NOC from BMC Mumbai, we had many meeting with the concern department and various ordered by either Minister either Government official but to my surprise I did not got Annexure II for same project
Sir, I as Social activist, I fell something wrong in Ward office, SRA closed my file saying due to Annexure II and not submitting NOC we are closing this file
It means I have to get Annexure II from BMC so then I
contacted BMC and it higher authority in many meeting Purposely the ward officer
did not attended meetings even after the ordered of Then Minister for Housing.
Subject : How
things’ have happened and ward office turn the papers?
RE: justice and inquiry on said project why my right was deprive instead of all documents was submitted time and again, nearly more than 10 times it was order to me for submitting the new file, which officer does not want to clear for reason not known to him, Maharashtra Assembly has verbetem for project suddenly they passed order for closer of file by which high hand politician? Is a matter of inquiry I hope for justice?
Representation for consideration of proposal for development of the property bearing CTS No. A/96 to A/105, A/107 to A/113, A/115 to A/123, A/125 of Village Bandra admeasuring 64481.5 sq. mtr. or thereabouts in the Registration District of Mumbai and Sub-District of Bandra, Mumbai Suburban and situated at Near Bandra Railway Station, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 to be developed under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme for SHASTRI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION FOR SLUM DWELLERS CHS LTD. (PROPOSED) and under D.C. Regulation 33 (10) on the basis of the proposal submitted on 16/10/1996 under Ref. No. Dy.CE/SI/739/ SRA/738.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:-
1. The Appellants are the representatives of the Society and duly authorized to file this representation and also to bring the facts on record for kind consideration of your Honour in terms of grant of approvals, sanctions and permissions to the scheme of rehabilitation undertaken of the slum Dwellers residing on Plot bearing CTS No. A/110 (part), A/96 to A/105, A/107 to A/113, A/115 to A/123 of Village Bandra, admeasuring 64481.5 sq. mtr. or thereabouts in the Registration District of Mumbai and Sub-District of Bandra, Mumbai Suburban and situated at Near Bandra Railway Station, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 known as SHASTRI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION FOR SLUM DWELLERS CHS LTD. (PROPOSED) in H / West Ward, under D.C. Regulation 33 (10). The facts are as under:-
a) That the Society through their architect Harshad K.D. submitted proposal on 16th October 1996 bearing Reference No.Dy.CE/SI/739/SRA/738 and wherein documents were submitted in a statement termed as Statement “A”. The copy of the proposal dated 16th October, 1996 submitted by the Society through the Architect along with Statement A is annexed
b) b) The proposal of the society was duly accepted by the Dy.CE SRA. The Ex. Engg, Building Proposal (SRA) vide his letter dated 18/11/1996 to the architect Harshad K.D. stated that the proposal cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned therein and to contact the undersigned.
c) The Society’s architect had several correspondences with various government authorities towards admission of the redevelopment proposal of the subject property which are as follows:
2. We had various meetings at various levels in Mantralya in which the details of our scheme were discussed and directions were given for approval of the scheme. In the meetings held with M.C.G.M. for providing land and building for M.C.G.M. office as per D.P. reservation, the M.C.G.M. wanted us to take-up redevelopment of the complete land for development reserved for BMC office and handover 50% of the area to M.C.G.M. and remaining 50% area to be developed for slums.
3. We have to state that we had undertaken efforts for obtaining the Annexure-II for the scheme submitted by us in 1996 and submitted revised scheme thereof as per the instructions of M.C.G.M. We further state that the SRA scheme has been recorded by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
4. We have to further state that an appeal was filed to MCGM and SRA for consideration of our scheme therein objecting that :
i) As per the SRA Guidelines and Rules framed therein no NOC is required to be submitted and the reason given by SRA for closing our scheme was our failure to obtain NOC of Chief Engineer (D.P.) which is incorrect.
ii) Whether, the CEO (SRA) had given orders for closing the file after receiving the detailed report from concerned department, if such order is not given then on what basis our file was closed.
iii) Without following due process of law our file was closed, as such the same required to be reopened and action taken by SRA.
5. We have to state that the SRA has accepted proposal of the subject property in parts and in the name of the other societies. The M.C.G.M. through their Asst. Commissioner, H/West Ward has issued the Annexure-II for such societies despite writing letter to the society’s architect. The schemes accepted by SRA & Annexure-II issued thereof by M.C.G.M. on same plots are without considering the original conditions of M.C.G.M. to construct a Municipal office under the Composite Scheme.
6. We have to further state that discussions were held in Maharashtra Assembly on the SRA scheme submitted by us. The matter of the SRA scheme was discussed in Maharashtra Assembly on several occasions with Ministers, SRA officials, BMC officials, Collector, Society’s architect and Developer from time to time. The matter was discussed in detail and the complete proceedings of Assembly including the reply given by several Ministers in the presence of approving authorities
7. The slum dwellers on the subject property had re appointed and confirmed the appointment of the society on 4.11.2011 under a General Body Meeting of the slum dwellers in respect of development under Slum Rehabilitation scheme. Accordingly, in the General Body Meeting of the slum dwellers they had reconfirmed the appointment of the developer passed Resolutions in favour of the AAVAS Corporation with more than 70% consent of the slum dwellers and M/s Samoon & Associates appointed as the Architect along with Harashad K.D. to develop the subject property.
8. The proposal was submitted by the Society on 16th October 1996 and accepted by the SRA on 29th October, 1996. The Society through the architect have been making several representation before the S.R.A. & BMC for granting the necessary permission, sanction and approval and which were delayed on one pretext or the other and inspite of the fact that no NOC was required as a prerequisite for issuance of Annexure II, the non submission of NOC was the ground for rejection of our proposal.
9. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority in consideration that the subject property, B.M.C. had issued photo passes and therefore censused structures, the scheme was required to be accepted immediately and necessary permission and sanction in terms of LOI and IOA should have been granted but the same has not been done which shows that the officers of the S.R.A. and BMC had not desired that the society should initiate the scheme of rehabilitation of the members on the subject property. Without prejudice to the aforesaid facts the scheme should have been accepted as at par with other proposal which had been approved. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay in the case of Om Sai Darshan Co-op. Housing Society and others V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.910 of 2005 reported in 2006(5) All M.R. 323 have clearly stated in ratio A and Ratio B that Slum means censused slum and for the purpose of sanction of slum redevelopment scheme issuance of notification u/sec. 3 C (1) of the Slum Act not a condition precedent for sanction of slum redevelopment scheme governed by Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai 1991 Regulation 33
10. The Society through the Architect was called upon to submit from time to time Annexure II and all other requisite documents for the subject property and the same had been complied with. The other developers project has been considered (papers obtained under the RTI) though requisite documents had not been submitted by him as per the letter dated 29th October, 2009.
11. As per the remarks of the BMC dated 3.3.2005 under its letter no. CE/145/WS/3.3.05 the developer had to obtain i) NOC from the concerned authority since the proposal fell within the boundaries of MMRDA before commencing any development, ii) EEDP’s remarks for user of the plot, iii) Joint demarcation of road/reservation and zonal boundary along with SEDP, EETC, SETP & SE., Survey to be obtained and not yet submitted. Despite non submission of the said documents the SRA is proposing to issue LOI to the developer.
12. The grounds of submission are that the other developer’s proposal dated 6.5.2005 is without the NOC of the land owning authority i.e. MMRDA. The Developer is merely a contractor under the SRA Scheme and the developer cannot be considered as being appointed as Developer until and unless the Annexure III is completed and this is part of the guidelines of the Slum Rehabilitation of the Authority for submitting and processing of the scheme. The contents of clause 6 of the procedure for submission, processing and approval of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is required to be complied with and admittedly without the NOC of the land owning authority the proposal cannot be accepted.
13. Further the other developer has tried to bye-pass the legal compliance and the procedure/guidelines issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Om Sai Darshan Co-op. Housing Society V/s. The State of Maharashtra has clearly stated in ratio C that once a scheme submitted by proposed society is in process the members who are in minority cannot form another society and submit their own proposal. The judgments of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay are binding upon your Honor and all other lower court and authority in lieu of the provision of article 141 of the Constitution of India and non-acceptance of the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court would amount to violation of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and which can lead to contempt of court. The slum dwellers of the subject property on 4.11.2011 have reconfirmed the appointment of the developer, AAVAS Corporation and the architect and hence your goodself should give us an opportunity for hearing and presentation of our claims and right to development of the subject property and without giving proper hearing not to issue any further approvals or permissions to the other developer, M/s. Grace Property India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Neo Modern Architects.
13. The Society submits that the letter dated 11.1.2000 has been issued that the proposal has been closed at this stage is on the ground that “the above proposal is hereby closed as considerable period has lapsed and you have so far not obtained and submitted specific N.O.C. from Chief Engineer (D.P.) of M.C.G.M. even in the view of reservation of plot under reference as Municipal Head Office in D.P.” Than how has the proposal of the other developer accepted without obtaining NOC from the concerned authority? The Appellant Society is ready and willing to bind by any condition for development of the property and for rehabilitation of the Slum dwellers and the proposal of the Appellant Society cannot be snatched away by some persons claiming to have power to do illegal act and form a bogus society consisting of the members of the Appellant society to submit the proposal and this is required to be stopped otherwise the very purpose of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme would fail and it would leave to unnecessary vexatious and multiple litigation. The preamble and object of the Slum Act is for speedy implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation scheme and accordingly the C.E.O., SRA has been given wide powers incorporating the powers under certain provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act and the same is by notification of 1997. The Appellant Society therefore prays:-
a) That the Representation of the Appellant society be accepted and examined and called for a hearing of all the parties concerned including the government bodies who were in the process of giving approvals to the Appellant society.
b) That by an appropriate order the proposal of Grace Property India Pvt. Ltd. be cancelled and recorded and it be clarified that the Appellant Society which have submitted the proposal prior in time are only entitled to develop the said property under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and under D.C. Regulation 33 (10).
d) That by an appropriate order and direction the proposal submitted by Maharashtra Nagar 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D CHS and Grace Property India Pvt. Ltd as aforesaid be stayed until the final order passed by your goodself and until pending the final hearing of this application.
d) That pending the final hearing of this application for ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) above be granted;
e) For such other and further reliefs as in the nature and circumstances of the case may require.