The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Hiranandani Developers’
plea against the Bombay high court order, which restrains it from carrying out
any further development activity in Powai until it provides flats for the
weaker sections of the society. The real estate firm is behind the development
of the upmarket township in Powai, which has made the suburb a plush
residential-cum-shopping hub.
A bench of justices HL Dattu and Chandramauli K Prasad
said it cannot interfere with the February 22 high court order and prompted the
developer to withdraw its plea.
The high court order had stated that the development of
the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS) on 230 acres of land was meant for
affordable houses of 400 and 800 square feet, as per the agreement among the
state government, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and the
original landowners.
Apart from forbidding further construction, the high court
had also directed the MMRDA to prepare a statement detailing the total
construction done in PADS, the balance open land under the scheme, the number
and area of tenements constructed and a list of purchasers. It has posted the
matter for further hearing on April 19.
According to the high court order, the developer will
require to construct 1,511 tenements admeasuring 400 square sq ft and 1,593 of
800 sq ft tenements and sell them to the state government at a concessional
rate of Rs.
135 per sq ft.
The directives were issued on public interest litigations
filed by social activist Medha Patkar and city residents Kamlakar Satve and
Rajendra Thacker, seeking resumption of 240 acres of land in Powai and Tirandaz
villages, which were taken over by the MMRDA for providing affordable housing.
The petitioners alleged that it was a complete breach of
the agreement executed on November 19, 1986.
The developer blatantly breached conditions in the
agreement and state and MMRDa officials turned a blind eye towards the
violations. The petitioners had sought the prosecution of the government
officials for negligence, but the court had refused to direct authorities to
initiate criminal proceedings against the concerned.
It has, however, granted the petitioners the liberty to
lodge criminal complaints against those concerned.
On Friday, YP Singh, Medha Patkar’s counsel,
said the petitioners are planning to file criminal complaints in accordance
with the liberty granted to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment