LexM/S VEENA CORP.THROUGH RAJAN BABULAL MEHTA versus ASHOK ARJANBHAI JOLIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 675 ~~ M/S VEENA CORP.THROUGH RAJAN BABULAL MEHTA V. ASHOK ARJANBHAI JOLIA & ORS. Special Leave Petition (C) No.158~3 of 2008 MARCH 19, 2009 · [ALTAMAS K,;BIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] J Slum Rehabilitation Scheme: Development control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - Regulation 6.24 - Rehabilitation of flour mill - Developer obtained sanction of amended plan from Slum Reh.abilitation Authority - Later ( raised objection to the raising of construction as per amended plan contending that same was contrary to Building Rules and not capable of being acted upon - Held: Objection-not tenable. The question which arose for consideration in the [ present Special Leave Petition, was whether having applied for and obtained sanction of the amended plan from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for rehabilitating the flour mill of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner- developer can object to raising the construction as per E= the amended plan upon contending that the ~dme was contrary to the Building Rules and was not, therefore, ,. ~. capable of being acted upon. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court HELD: 1. Upon adjudication by the SRA, it was F established that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were eligible for a residential-cum-commercial structure measuring 275 sq.ft. under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. A space -4 measuring 225 sq.ft. was kept apart in the main structure for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and possession thereof G was made over to the SRA, but since the same was not conducive to the operation of a flour mill in terms of the Building Rules, the same remained vacant and a direction 675 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R. A was given to provide the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a structure detached from the main structure for running the flour mill, in keeping with the Building Rules. [Para 15] [684-B-E] 2. Under the amended provisions of Rule 51(xvi) of 8 OCR, 1991, operation of a flour mill is permissible in a residential zone if it is being operated in a single-storyed detached structure or a semi-detached structure. In view of this, an amended plan was submitted by the petitioner to the SRA for sanction of a detached structure which was C situated in a portion of the area meant to be kept as open space, upon relaxation of the Building Rules. Despite recognition of their right to be provided with at least 225 sq.ft. for operation of their flour mill within the SRA Scheme and sanction having been granted to the amended plan, D till ·date such space was not provided to the said respondents on one pretext or the other. The eligibility of the respondents for being included in the said scheme was decided by the SRA in 2001, but on account of the recalcitrant attitude of the petitioner, the Respondent E Nos.1 and 2 were unable to obtain possession of such area for running their flour mill. [Para 16] [684-F-H; 685-A] 3. Under the Regulations related to the Slum Development Scheme, the SRA was vested with authority to grant sanction to schemes upon relaxation of the F Bu11ding Rules in order to further the policy of slum development. The present case is one of those cases where such power has been exercised by the SRA to provide suitable space to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were eligible and entitled to receive the same under G the scheme in question. In any event, the sanctioning authority/SRA, has been vested with powers to relax the Building Rules under Regulation 6.24 to give effect to the policy of Slum Development and Rehabilitation. It cannot be ignored that it was the petitioner itself which submitted H the amended plan for the approval of the SRA in order to M/S VEENA CORP.THROUGH RAJAN BABULAL MEHTA 677 V. ASHOK ARJANBHAI JOLIA & ORS. _ _,, provide suitable space to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to A set up and run their flour mill in consonance with the Building Rules. [Para 17 & 18] [685-B-E] 4. It is not for the petitioner to question the approval granted to the amended plan as the SRA was fully B competent in law to grant such approval. The plea, which has now been taken on behalf of the petitioner, had not been raised earlier and the petitioner had, in fact, agreed .. to provide the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 with a separate accommodation for setting up and running their flour mill. It can only be presumed that a sudden change in attitude c has occurred only with the object of trying to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.