Few news items, which caught my attention this Monday of Apr 2019.
1 Some times I feel the courts have become so insensitive to normal citizen of the country that it seems that normal person has got no sympathy or support from the justice system. Today I read a news item, which I want to elaborate—the case relates to 100s of flat owners of 20 odd buildings in Virar, a small city near Mumbai which comes under Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation (VVMC). Some times back flat owners received notice from VVMC stating that they should vacate the building, as the building is illegal, as the buildings have been constructed on the plots meant for roads and play grounds.
The flat owners formed a group and submitted petition to Bombay High court challenging the order of VVMC. The flat owners advocates argued in the court that their clients have bought the flats with registered agreements, the buildings have all the requisite permissions, banks have granted them loans and they are paying property tax regularly to VVMC, then how can their building become illegal. But the HC bench consisting of two justices said ‘they will not tolerate and construction or unauthorised activity at the site meant for road and play ground’. The further added that you can not be selfish. We will not put you on the road. If the building is affecting the Development Plan (DP), that part will be slashed and cut.’
As per HC’s replied to petitioners ‘ you should have checked with DP about the site’s legality’. My contention is how a common man is going to check whether the said site’s legality in DP. A flat buyer will always see that whether Municipal has given their consent to construct, approved the plans made by architect and given all other required permissions. Based on these documenst banks grant the loan to prospective buyers. In the end whether developer has obtained the Occupation Certificate from Municipal Corporation, is last of flat buyer/owners worry.
The Judges further added ‘that those residing in VVMC limits are entitled to basic amenities and can not be deprived of them by some unscrupulous persons who construct buildings on reserved plots. All those dealing with such persons with public officials are all guilty of a systematic fraud on the public at large.’
The bench has sought an undertaking from the developers cum land owners assuring that they will get buildings vacated and rehabilitate occupants with families ‘in your property and not any body’s property within time frame’.
But the bench never spoke about the corrupt govt officers, except of a passing remark. In my opinion in these type of cases Municipal Corporation and concerned officials should be held responsible for playing with innocent public’s basic need of housing, for which public spend their life time saving or keep on paying housing loan EMI’s for many many years. If you ask me the court in these type of cases should pass an order stating that the flat owners should give a similar accommodation in same area, and the cost of the same should be equally borne by developer /govt officials / Municipal Corporation. Unless some such drastic step are taken, this malice will keep on happening in future.
Mumbaikar will remember the similar famous case of ‘Campa Cola society’ situated at Worli in Mumbai. The case went to SC, and even SC gave the order of demolition. But at the last minute in the review petition SC stayed their earlier order, and on the day of their revised order Municipla corporation’s Bull Dozers were standing outside the gate, and there was live telecast of this incident on various TV channels. The matter is still sub-judice
2 Congress President Rahul Gandhi, today filed his response to the SC’s notice on his comments on the sub-judice case of the Rafale deal, saying he had made the ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ comment in the heat of the moment. BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi had sought contempt action against Rahul Gandhi for mis attributing his remarks to SC. Rahul said he got carried away while campaigning and unfortunately the media mingled his words. He expressed regret for dragging the SC’s name in the comment he made some time back. Rahul assured the SC bench that he will not attribute his political views to court unless it made any statement it self. The BJP claimed that Congress Chief’s apology was proof of vindication in the case, and that Rahul stands exposed on his blatant lies and false claims. The petitioner Meenakshi Lekhi claimed that ‘it is an admission of guilt and this contempt. Considering the need to protect the integrity of the court in these testing times, such an admission is a vindication of the petition. I hope and pray that it is responded with strictest rebuke by the court.’ Let us wait for the final outcome of this petition.
Waiting for your comments/views/feed backs.
Anil Malik
Mumbai, India
22nd Apr 2019
R. N. Mungale.
1.Regarding VVMC’s failure I agree with Mr. Malik.
2. Rahul is guilty of contempt of court.
J H Sachdev
Very correct. In fact the Govt should have all information before registering the agreement. And the person who is dislodged should get back whatever he has paid i.e. stamp duty, registration charges and also the municipal taxes.