Goregaon court 8212; HC pulls up govt

MUMBAI, August 6: A public interest petition - filed following an expose in the Express Newsline - on a developer reneging on his promise...

MUMBAI, August 6: A public interest petition 8211; filed following an expose in the Express Newsline 8211; on a developer reneging on his promise to construct a court for the state in Goregaon, took an interesting turn on Friday when the Chief Justice8217;s bench insisted that the government file an affidavit on the interaction between the government and the developer, Aditya Constructions and Developers Pvt Ltd, from 1983 to 1999.

The petitioner, Bhagwanji Raiyani, had argued that private, residential and commercial constructions on the land at Yashodham, Goregaon E had been sanctioned by the government in 1983 on the understanding that the developer would construct a court building on it for the state.

However, while the developer exploited the terms of the agreement and the plot, the court buildings remained on paper. 8220;Sixteen years passed, nine chief ministers have changed, more than a 100 officers came and went, nothing happened,8221; Raiyani pointed out.

State Advocate General C J Sawant claimed onFriday that the matter had reached a stalemate since earlier rules had made it incumbent on the developer to give 10 per cent of the constructed floor space index FSI to the state government. But, the Supreme Court8217;s judgement in the Shantistar case stating that the state need get only five per cent had complicated the issue and required time to be resolved.

The developer8217;s counsel clarified that under the new negotiations, it had been decided that five per cent of the plot would be for the court building. It was also resolved that the state government would give the developer the recent district schedule rates for constructions which had come in only in February this year with fresh plans for the building.

8220;If the building plans are given to us, we will construct it in a time bound programme. In any case, I have kept the plot free of encumberances all these years at my cost,8221; the developer submitted.

Raiyani, however, alleged that the developer should not be paid the fresh rates because he hadalready made huge profits on the earlier agreement. The bench allowed the petitioner to file any rejoinder he wanted to the developers and the government8217;s affidavits.