Draft as on 12.05.

2022

MPS/ /2022 10.05.2022

Mr. Ashok R. Pande

Advocate
123, Great Western building
1st Floor, Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce Lane,
Kalaghoda,
Mumbai – 400 023.

Dear Sir,
Ref: Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on Plot bearing
CTS No.455, 455/1 to 16, 464(pt).), 1755 & 1756
Of village Vile Parle, Situated at Gulmohar Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai for “Hanuman Nagar SRA
CHS”
And
Ref: Writ Petition Reg. No. WP/3841/2021 filed with the
Bombay High Court and Chamber Summons
No.771 of 2018 in Suit No.9835 of 1999 and
Order dated 12.04.2022 wherein matter is
Adjourned to 16th June, 2022.
And
Ref: Wilful fraudulence by MCGM Building Proposal
Department and its officers in blatant contempt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. We are concerned for our client Bhanbai Nenshi Mahila
Vidyalaya, (“the Trust”) who is represented by their Managing
Trustee Mr. Ramesh Ravji Chheda who has placed in our hands
your letters dated 27th April,2022 and 6th May,2022 respectively in

1
reference to the above subject with instructions to reply there to as
under:
2. The alleged false allegations of malafide intentions, criminal
contempt of any Hon’ble High Court and City Civil Court Orders
and wilful fraudulence by Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM) referred in the subject to the said Notice is
totally baseless and false and it seems that your client has not given
proper instructions or proper facts while drafting the abovesaid
letters. Your client is well aware about the facts of the present
subject matter and has been a party to all the proceedings initiated
by our client.

3. With reference to the Writ Petition No.3841 of 2021 filed in

Bombay High Court, we are not aware of the said Writ Petition and
put your clients to strict proof thereof.

4. Before replying to the said letters we would like to place the

relevant facts in the abovesaid subject matter: -

(a) Our client is the Owners/Lessees of the said Amenity

Plot No. A/2 admeasuring 4712 sq. yds equal to 3939.80 sq.
Mts which is inclusive of 1328 sq.yds equal to 1110.37 sq.mts
50 feet canalization strip being part of Survey No.287 of
Village Vile Parle, Juhu. (‘the said land”).

(b) The said land is now comprised of two parts i.e.,

(i) Amenity Plot No. A/2 bearing CTS No.484 (part) and
now numbered as CTS No.484A (part) [CTS No.484A/19]
admeasuring 3384 sq. yds i.e., 2829.60 sq. mts.
AND

(ii) The other part is the said 50 feet canalization strip

admeasuring 1328 sq.yds equal to 1110.37 sq.mts which
earlier was part of Irla Nalla having no separate CTS number,
being part of Survey No.287, situate at Juhu, Vileparle
Mumbai, and now allegedly a part of New CTS No.1756 (“the

2
 50 feet canalization strip”) which CTS number was
fraudulently obtained by your client with the connivance of
some of the officers of the Competent Authorities.

(c) Our client’s predecessors have purchased the said land

by a Registered Indenture dated 27th October 1960 registered
under Serial No.427 dated 20th June 1962 from the Bombay
Housing Board, the predecessor of Maharashtra Housing and
Development Authority (“MHADA”). Our client’s Title to the
said land is already enumerated in detail in the Title
Certificate dated 4th February, 2022. (Annexed to your Notice
dated 27th April,2022).

(d) MHADA was aware of our client’s right, title and

interest in respect of the said land despite the fact that our
client’s name was not reflected in the PR Card. It is a settled
legal position that the Registration of a Document operates as
a notice to all. Therefore, all the persons dealing with the
properties comprised in the Registered Indentures mentioned
in the said Title Certificate dated 4 th February,2022 (annexed
to the present Notice) including your client was deemed to be
aware of the right, title and interest of our client in respect of
the said land. Your client in the various proceedings had
alleged that since our client’s name is not reflected in the
property records, our client has no right in or over the said
land. This contention is without any merit and had that been
the correct contention, MHADA/the Statutory Authorities
would not have recognised our client as the Owner of the said
land.

(e) There was an Agreement between one Krishna

Developers and your client dated 20th February 1997 for
development of slum project in respect of CTS 455. Though
the said Agreement was only in respect of CTS 455, the
Architects of your client had requested NOC from MHADA
for the slum project in respect of CTS 455 (Pt), 464 (Pt) and
484 (Pt) and curiously, MHADA granted its illegal NOC

3
 dated 11th March 1997 despite the fact it was aware of our
client’s right, title and interest in respect of our client’s land in
CTS 484. The area comprised in this illegal NOC was
23,338.72 sq. mts. and an illegal/fraudulent First LOI dated
10th March,1998 was issued. Thus, right from the inception,
your client and the said Krishna Developers had intention to
usurp properties of others which properties were not even the
subject matter of their internal Agreement. It is to be noted
here that CTS 464 (Pt) belonged to State Government and
CTS 484 (Pt) belonged to our client and therefore, MHADA
had no authority to grant any NOC in respect of these two
plots.

(f) In the month of May 1999, our client noticed trespass

on the said land by the said Krishna Developers and therefore
by their Advocate’s Notice dated 21st May 1999 had called
upon the said Krishna Developers to remove itself from the
said land. Upon the said Krishna Developer’s failure to
remove, our client was compelled to file Suit No. 6671 of
1999 in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and then
transferred to Hon’ble Bombay City Civil Court No. 9835 of
1999 This was followed by registering Notice of Lis Pendens
on 22nd February 2000. Therefore, any dealing with the said
land, including the NOCs and LOIs and any change in the
status of the said land done by authorities like Collector or
SLR, would be subject to the outcome of the suit. Your client
cannot claim any equity on the ground that they have received
approvals from the SRA and subsequent development of the
buildings in the scheme and rehabilitation of slum dwellers
during the pendency of the suit.

(g) MHADA subsequently admitted the fact about lack of

its authority to grant NOC when one Radha Raman Mandal [a
Society formed by the slum dwellers] filed Writ Petition No.
948 of 2000 in the Bombay High Court. Your client along
with the said Krishna Developers, the MHADA and the SRA

4
 were parties to this Writ Petition and the fact that the
MHADA and the SRA were bent upon committing illegalities
is demonstrated in the Enquiry Report dated 17 th April,2001
filed by the Principal Secretary and the Orders passed in the
said Writ Petition.

(h) MHADA by its letter dated 24th July 2000 addressed

to your client’s Architect with a copy thereof to SRA
cancelled the said NOC dated 11th March 1997 on the ground
that “However, it is noticed that the land bearing CTS No.
484 (pt) and land bearing CTS No. 464 belongs to private
society and Government of Maharashtra respectively.”.

(i) MHADA subsequently granted a new NOC dated 29th

September, 2000 confined only to CTS 455 (Pt) for a plot
admeasuring 16,458.9 Sq Mts. The earlier NOC dated 11th
March 1997 which was cancelled by 24th July 2000 letter was
for 23,338.72 sq.mts. This new NOC specifically mentioned
that CTS 484 (Pt) belonged to Hatkesh Nagar Society (the
predecessors in title of our client) and CTS 464 belonged to
Govt of Maharashtra.

(j) Your clients attempt to usurp our client’s land were

frustrated by the cancellation/amendment of the NOC and the
LOI and also by the aforesaid orders in Writ Petition No. 948
of 2000 and the Enquiry Report of the Principal Secretary.

(k) In view of the aforesaid facts, your client fraudulently

adopted the under mentioned tactics to obtain the SRA project
and the modus operandi adopted by your client is enumerated
hereinunder: -

(i) Your client by its letter/application dated 16 th October

2003 requested the Hon’ble Collector for correction in
the Plan for CTS 455 on the allegation that the area of
CTS 455 as shown in the PR Card was 16,458.90 sq.mts
5
 whereas the actual area as per the plan was very much less.
The letter did not spell out what was the actual area as per
the plan. The said letter asked the Collector to demarcate
the boundaries of CTS 455 as per PR Card. It is to be
noted that CTS 455 belonged to MHADA and if at all
there was any discrepancy in its area, it was MHADA who
could have made such a request. The MHADA had not
made any such request and your client had no authority to
make any such request. It is to be noted that if the actual
area of CTS 455 was less than what was shown in its PR
Card as alleged, then there was a possibility that there was
a mistake in the PR Card and in that case, the area in the
PR Card could be corrected and not the area in the plan.
Your client called upon the Collector to demarcate the
boundaries of CTS 455 as per PR Card as if the area
shown in the PR Card was proved to be correct.
(ii) The Collector should have ignored your client’s request as
the same was done by MHADA but the same was treated as
an Application and the Collector requested the SLR, with a
copy to CSO, to adopt appropriate course of action and
give a report. The SLR asked the CSO to undertake a
survey and submit a report. Pursuant to the aforesaid
directions from the Collector and the SLR, the CSO
submitted his Report dated 23rd February 2004. This Report
reads that the Inspector had surveyed CTS 455 as well as
the adjoining CTS. This was in violation of the directions
of the Collector as well as SLR who had directed him to
measure area of CTS 455 only.
(iii)No Notice of this survey was given to the Owners of those
adjoining CTS. Our client was the Lessee of the adjoining
CTS 484. Even if its name was not there in the PR Card, it
had acquired the same under a Registered Indenture of
Lease in 1964 and therefore, the CSO was deemed to have
the notice of the rights of our client in CTS 484. The CSO
also must be aware of the letters by MHADA and SRA
which had categorically stated that CTS 484 belonged to a
private party. In any event, our client had filed suit in

6
 respect of CTS 484 in the year 1999 to which MHADA,
BMC and SRA were parties and had also registered Lis
Pendens in the year 2000. Despite these facts, no notice of
the survey was given to our client.
(iii) The Report then states that area of CTS 455 should be
corrected to 9,837.6 sq.mts instead of 16,458.9 sq.mts.
This means that the actual area of CTS was 9,837.6 sq.mts.
and the area mentioned in the PR Card was required to be
corrected and there was no mistake in the plan as was
sought to be contended by your client. Thus, the so-called
Application of your client to correct the area in the plan so
as to match the same with the area in PR Card deemed to
have been rejected. On the contrary, the conclusion of the
CSO was that area of PR Card should be corrected so as to
match the same with the actual area found out as the result
of the Survey. By this observation, the work of the CSO as
directed by the Collector and SLR should have been over
and he should have concluded his Report.
(iv) Very strangely, after arriving at the aforesaid conclusion,
the CSO travelled beyond the scope of the work entrusted
to him by the Collector and SLR. He suggested/submitted
in the Report that there is a void created between CTS 455
and CTS 484A admeasuring 276 sq. mts. He further
submitted that the area of Government Nalla situated
towards the west of the void is 2912 sq. Mts and it would
be suitable if this aggregate area of 3188 sq.mts [2912 +
276] is declared as a Government land and is given new
CTS number. As stated above, the SRA in its approval
dated 11th January 2001 had clearly mentioned that “The
Nalla land is beyond CTS No 455 and the status of the
same is not known.” Therefore, there was no basis before
the CSO for suggesting/submitting that the Nalla land
belonged to the Government. The CSO further suggested
that a new CTS number should be given to the land and it is
unbelievable that the alleged void between the two pockets
of land was not known to any of the authorities. Our client
says that the aforesaid suggestion/submission of the CSO

7
 was totally outside the scope of his work and was not
according to the directions of the Collector and the SLR.
No such request was even made by your client in its so-
called Application dated 16th October 2003.
(v)The SRA thereafter issued a Revised LOI dated 3 rd April
2004, i.e., within 1 ½ months of the aforesaid Report of the
CSO comprising of CTS 455, 464 and Nalla lands. There
was no reference to any Nalla lands in the original LOI
dated 10th March 1998. On the contrary, in its letter dated
11th January 2001 it was recorded that “The Nalla land is
beyond CTS No 455 and the status of the same is not
known.” The reference to the Nalla lands crept in for the
first time obviously due to the aforesaid
suggestion/submission of the CSO in his aforesaid Report
which was yet to be accepted by the competent authority.
(vi)The Collector by his letter dated 29th October 2003
addressed to the SLR, with a copy to CSO, had forwarded
the so-called Application dated 16th October 2003 of your
client to them with a request to adopt appropriate course of
action and give a report. The CSO made his Report dated
23rd February 2004 as mentioned above. The SLR in
compliance of the said directions of the Collector submitted
his Report dated 20th July 2004 to the Collector. It is to be
noted here that the Report of the CSO had stated that that
the area of CTS 455 should be corrected to 9,837.6 sq.mts.
but this was not accepted by the SLR and he ordered that it
should be corrected to 9,634.8 sq.mts. The Report of the
CSO had further suggested/submitted that it would be
suitable if the aggregate area of 3188 sq.mts [2912 + 276]
is declared as a Government land and is given new CTS
number. This suggestion/submission does not find place in
this Report of the SLR and did not accept the
suggestion/submission of the CSO to declare an aggregate
area of 3188 sq.mts as a government land and to give it a
new CTS number
(vii) Interestingly, your client on the very next date i.e., 21st
July 2004 made one more application to the Collector

8
 alleging that “While conducting survey we found that a
strip of 6.5 Meters needs to be added in Nalla lands west of
CST No 455 because pocket is created between physical
survey and original sheet of city survey”. It is very
interesting to note that your client was not the Owner of
any of the concerned lands but goes ahead requesting the
Collector to correct the boundary of Nalla by adding a strip
of 6.5 Meters and to give fresh CTS Number to both the
Nalla lands.
(viii) The Collector issued a Notice dated 19th August 2004
to your client and MHADA and the subject matter of the
Notice was correction of area of CTS No 455 and in the
body of the Notice, it was specified that the proposed
correction was to change area of CTS 455 from 16,458.9
sq.mts. to 9634.8 sq.mts. This was the only issue in
respect of which the Notice was issued and it stated that a
hearing was scheduled on 23rd August 2004 to consider the
said subject matter and it specifically referred to the so-
called Application dated 16thOctober 2003 and the Report
of the SLR. There was no reference of the earlier
application made by your client in the present application
dated 21st July 2004. The copies of the said Notice were
also forwarded to the SLR and the CSO. Therefore, the
only issue before the Collector, which was the subject
matter of the said Notice and the hearing scheduled for 23 rd
August 2004, was whether the area of CTS 455 should be
corrected from 16,458.9 sq.mts to 9634.8 sq.mts [as
suggested by SLR] or to 9,837.6 sq.mts [as suggested by
CSO]. The request of your client contained in its letter
dated 21st July 2004 to correct the boundary of Nalla by
adding a strip of 6.5 Meters and to give fresh CTS Number
to both the Nalla lands was, therefore, not taken to
consideration by the Collector.
(ix) The hearing in the said matter was not concluded on
23rd August 2004 and several hearings were held even
thereafter. The MHADA by its letter dated 20th September
2004 addressed to CSO referred to the aforesaid Notice of

9
 hearing dated 19th August 2004 [wrongly typed as 19/9/04]
and stated that since the difference in area is very large,
survey of CTS 455 and adjoining lands should be done first
before correcting the area and an advance notice of this
survey should be given to MHADA.
(x) The CSO by another Report dated 6th/19th November
2004, stated that he had carried out another survey which
was bearing Reference No. 61/04. It is not mentioned as to
why and on which date and on whose directions this
another survey was carried out. No Notice of this alleged
survey was given to our client. The CSO repeated the
observations from his earlier Report that there is a void
created between CTS 455 and CTS 484A and repeated
his earlier suggestion of giving new CTS number. It is to be
noted that observations/suggestion made in the earlier
Report of the CSO was not accepted by the SLR so there
was no need of making this Report. It is to be noted that
CSO in his Report has stated that the said Nalla land is
situated in CTS 484. If that was the case, there was no
question that it was Government land because CTS 484
never belonged to the Government.
(xi) Your client realised that the Collector has ignored the
application dated 21st July 2004 made by your client
wherein he tried an attempt to usurp the Nalla land and the
area of the alleged void created. Your client took another
attempt to usurp the said lands by writing a letter dated 16 th
January 2005 to the SLR stating that as per the LOI dated
3rd April 2004 issued by the SRA your client was required
to submit PR Card of the lands shown in LOI and “the
Nalla land shown in the plan does not bear any CTS
number, so we request you to open the New Property
Registration Card with the correct area mentioned on it..”
(xii) It is to be noted the said LOI dated 3 rd April 2004 was
the revised LOI comprising CTS 455, 464 and Nalla lands.
There was no reference to the Nalla lands in the original
LOI dated 10th March 1998 and the reference to the Nalla
lands crept in for the first time due to the

10
 suggestion/submission of the CSO in his Report dated 23 rd
February 2004.
(xiii) Your client was also very well aware that suggestion
of the CSO to include Nalla land and the alleged void in a
separate CTS was already rejected by the SLR as well as
the Collector. The revised LOI dated 3rd April 2004
included the Nalla lands and in view of the same the said
LOI was defective and had no legal effect. The SRA should
have amended the said LOI accordingly. Your client had
no right to make such a demand to submit PR Card of the
lands shown in LOI.
(xiv) Your client once again applied to the Collector by its
letter dated 21st July 2004 with an identical request and in
view of the same some further hearing took place before
the Collector and the Collector had recorded on 23 rd
November 2004 that further action was required to be taken
to resolve the issue of area discrepancy and that a further
order could be passed only after the letter dated 20th
September 2004 from MHADA was considered by which
MHADA had requested that survey of CTS 455 and
adjoining lands should be done first before correcting the
area and an advance notice of this survey should be given
to MHADA.
(xv) It is to be noted that there is no record which shows
that between the period 23rd November 2004 and 15th
February 2005 any survey of CTS 455 and adjoining lands
was done or that any notice was given to MHADA. The
aforesaid remark of the Collector also does not indicate
this. Thus, the issue which arose, namely whether the area
should be corrected to 9,837.6 sq. Mts as suggested by
CSO or to 9,634.8 sq.mts as ordered by the SLR was
resolved by this remark. This was the only issue which was
the subject matter of the Notice dated 19th August 2004
issued by the Collector.
(xvi) The Collector passed an Order dated 25th February
2005 and the subject matter of this Order refers to
Applications dated 16th October 2003 and 21st July 2004 of

11
 your client to the Collector, the letter dated 29th October
2003 from the Collector to SLR, Report dated 23rd February
2004 of the CSO, Notice dated 19th August 2004 from
Collector to MHADA and your client and the letter dated
20th September 2004 from MHADA to CSO. By his formal
Order, the Collector confirmed the aforesaid remark dated
15th February 2005and the operative part of this Order
states that the area of CTS 455 should be corrected from
16,458.90 sq.mts to 9,837.6 sq.mts in the Property Card.
(xvii) In view of the said Order the request made by your
client to increase the area of CTS 455 in the plan so as to
tally with the area mentioned in the PR Card stood rejected.
The request made by it to correct the boundary of Nalla
land by adding a strip of 6.5 Meters to Nalla land stood
rejected. The request made by it give fresh CTS Number to
both the Nalla lands also stood rejected. The
suggestion/submission made by CSO in his Report to
declare an aggregate area of 3188 sq.mts as government
land and to give it a new CST CTS number stood rejected.
The request made/relief claimed by in the letter dated 16 th
January 2005 to the SLR also became infructuous.
(xviii) In total disregard of the legal effect of the aforesaid
Order dated 25th February 2005 of the Collector, the SLR
made a proposal dated 8th April 2005 (seems to be there are
two proposals 1084 or 1085) to the Collector to give a new
CTS number and issue a new PR Card for Nalla lands and
the alleged void area in the name of Government. The said
proposal of the SLR was totally untenable and seems to
have been made to favour your client.
(xix) The Collector instead of rejecting the aforesaid Proposal
of the SLR on the ground of res judicata, the Collector
decided to adjudicate the same. For that purpose, the
Collector issued a Notice dated 26th April 2005 to your
client only with a copy thereof to CSO and SLR. It is to be
noted that earlier Notice dated 19th August 2004 was given
to MHADA. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of the
Collector to issue Notice to MHADA when he was going to

12
 consider the proposal of the SLR. Further, the proposal of
the SLR was going to affect the area comprised in CTS 484
in respect of which our client was the Lessee. Therefore, it
was equally imperative on the part of the Collector to issue
Notice to our client. As stated above, even if our client’s
name was not there in the PR Card, it had acquired the
same under a Registered Indenture of Lease in 1964 and
therefore, the Collector was deemed to have the notice of
the rights of our Client in CTS 484. The Report dated
6th/19th November 2004 of the CSO, submitted to the
Collector specifically stated that the said Nalla land is
situated in CTS 484and therefore, notice should have been
given to the owner\lessee of that CTS 484.
(xx) The Collector then passed the Order dated 12th May 2005
and this Order gives the Reference Number of the Proposal
as “...2005” without mentioning whether it is 1084 or
1085.Therefore, it is not clear which proposal of SLR was
before the Collector on which he had passed the said Order.
Further, by the said Order, 3160.3 sq.mts was ordered to be
added in the new CTS which figure is different from the
area proposed in either of the Proposals of the SLR.
Pursuant to the aforesaid Order, a new CTS No. 1756 was
allotted to the aforesaid aggregate area of 3160.3 sq. Mts
and a new PR Card was opened in the name of Maharashtra
Government vide Mutation Entry No. 103.
(xxi) It is also interesting to note that after the said Order was
passed the said Krishna Developers by its letter dated 24th
April 2006 offered a sum of Rs. 5 Crores to our clients as
consideration for purchasing its right, title and interest in
the said land and the said offer was increased to Rs. 8
Crores within about two months by its letter dated 17 th June
2006. In short, your client as well as the said Krishna
Developers was well aware about our clients’ rights to the
said land.
(xxii) It is to be further noted that the said Krishna
Developers by its letter dated 13th April 2012 addressed to
the SRA with a copy thereof endorsed to Police Authorities

13
 and the Collector and CSO, serious allegations of fraud
against your client, SRA and City Survey officials in the
matter of usurping the said land as well as Nalla land. By
it’s another letter dated 16th April 2012 addressed to City
Survey Department with a copy thereof endorsed to officers
of BMC and SRA, the said Krishna Developers once again
made serious allegations of fraud in the matter of usurping
the said land as well as Nalla land. Despite these serious
allegations, no action seems to have been initiated in the
matter by any of the concerned authorities.
(xxiii) In 2016 when our client approached the CSO to enter
its name on the PR Card than they came to know about the
new CTS 1756. Thereafter, it applied under the provisions
of RTI Act for the relevant records in respect of the said
land and came to know about the aforesaid Order of the
Collector dated 12th May 2005.
(xxiv) After receiving the entire proceedings our client called
upon the Collector to delete the name of Government from
the records of CTS 1756 and insert the name of our client
and further called upon the SRA to remove your client from
the said land. Our client has made necessary application to
amend the plaint of its aforesaid suit pending in the
Hon’ble City Civil Court.
(xxv) In response to one of the letters from our clients
MHADA by its letter dated 8th March 2017 confirmed that
the aforesaid Deed of Conveyance dated 27 th October 1960,
and the Indenture of Lease dated 29 th October 1964, were
on its records. It was also further confirmed by MHADA
that the Plot A-2 admeasured 3384.20 sq.yds with CTS
No.484(Pt) which was earlier S.No.287. It also stated
that the 50 feet canalization strip is measuring in total
6797 sq. yds consist of an area admeasuring 1328 sq.
yds and is a part of CTS No.1756(part) which was
earlier part of Survey No.287. This clearly demonstrates
that as per the official records, the part of the Nalla land
always belonged to our client and the assignment of a new
CTS No 1756 to the same was fraudulent.

14
(xxvi) Our client filed an Appeal before the Additional
Commissioner against the said Order dated 12th May 2005
passed by the Collector. As there was a delay in filing the
Appeal, our client had also filed an Application for
condonation of delay. By Order dated 5th December 2018,
the delay was condoned and the same was accepted by your
client and was not challenged and the Appeal was
thereafter heard on merits. The said Order of the Collector
dated 12th May 2005 was set aside by the Additional
Commissioner by his order dated 23rd October 2019 and the
matter was remanded back for fresh hearing. It was prima
facie found that:-
(a) After considering Deeds dated 27th October 1960, 29th
October 1964 and the Partition Agreement dated 9 th
March 1987 our client has interest in the CTS No. 1756;
(b) The Collector by in his Order dated 25th February 2005
had not taken any decision about the area of Nalla and
vacuum land between CTS 484 and 455;
(c) The Collector before issuing the Order dated 12 th May
2005 did not comply with legal procedure, i.e., did not
make necessary inquiry u/s 20(2) of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 to call for objection, give
notices to the concerned persons and hearing the
objections etc and for that reason, the Order of the
Collector was defective;
(d) It is clear that the land of CTS 464 is owned by the
Government, that of CTS 484 by our client and that of
CTS 455 by MHADA;
(e) Your client had no right to make the Application dated
16th October 2003 to the Collector for taking
measurements about the difference in the area of CTS
455 and to fix the boundaries with corrections of area
because that CTS 455 belonged to MHADA;
(f) The vacuum area between CTS 484 and CTS 455 and
the area adjacent to the Nalla is out of the land held by
our client as per the Lease Agreement dated 29th
October 1964) and therefore your client had no right to

15
 make a demand for opening a Property Card of such
area in the name of Government and for these reasons,
the Order of the Collector could not be said to be
correct;
(g) MHADA had no authority to give NOC for Slum
Rehabilitation project;
(h) Before issuing the Order dated 12th May 2005, the
Collector had not given notices to our client or MHADA
and had neglected the rights/interest of our client and
MHADA and therefore, there was breach of principle of
natural justice.
(i) It is necessary to reject the Order dated 12th May 2005
and after fresh inquiry, to enter the name of Hatkesh
Nagar Society (predecessors of our client) into records
of rights for the area held by it as per its Sale Deed and
also to enter the name of our client as Lease Holder for
the area given to it on 999 years lease and for this
purpose, it is necessary to remand the matter back to the
Collector.

(xxvii) Upon remand, the matter was reinvestigated and heard by

the new Collector who by his order dated 6 th October 2020,
confirmed that out of the total area of 3160.3 sq.mt in the said CTS
No. 1756 an area of 1110.37 sq. Mt, belonged to our client
predecessors i.e. Hatkesh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society and
our client’s name to be recorded as lease holder and it also
observed that CSO to reduce the hollow area of 248.3 sq. Mt. From
C.S. No.1756 and fix up the boundary. It also further ordered that
after deducting the said area the balance area to be entered as “G”
belonging to Government of Maharashtra. The Property Card in
respect of the said area is already issued in the name of our client.

(xxviii) Your client had preferred a Revision Application

against the order of remand passed by the Additional
Commissioner before the Hon’ble Minister. During the pendency
of the said Revision Application, the Collector after reinvestigation
passed the aforesaid Order dated 6th October 2020. Instead of

16
approaching the Additional Commissioner against this Order dated
6th October 2020 as required under the provisions of Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966, your client amended its pending
Application before the Hon’ble Minister. Our client had objected
to the said amendment as the same amounted to giving a go bye to
the appeal provisions of the MLRC Code. However, the said
amendment application was allowed by the Hon’ble Minister. The
Hon’ble Minister after hearing the parties rejected both the
grievances of your client by a detail Order dated 8th April,
2021.The Hon’ble Minister by his Order observed that:
(i) Even though there was no hollow space between CTS 484A
and CTS 455, it was created because the map was made on the
basis of incorrect sides.
(ii) The entire area of CTS 1756 is not of Government and some
of these areas were proved to be in the Original Survey No. 287.
(iii) As the rights were acquired under Registered Deeds, they
are required to be recorded in the Records as per the Deed dated
29th October 1964.
(iv) Considering all the documents, the findings recorded by the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 948 of 2000, findings in
the Inquiry Report of the Principal Secretary and the letter of the
MHADA dated 8th March 2017 the findings drawn by the
Additional Commissioner and the Collector are correct and legal.

5. We hereby state on behalf of our client all the aforesaid

documents are annexed as Exhibits being amendment in the
City Civil Court suit which is duly served upon your clients
and the same are also annexed by your clients to the Appeals
filed before the Competent Authorities. If the abovesaid
documents are still not available with your clients the same
will be made available by our clients with prior intimation to
them.
6. We will now deal with the paragraphs of your letter dated
27th April,2022 under reply.

17
(a) With reference to unnumbered paragraph no. of your
letter under reply, we are not aware that your client is
implementing slum rehabilitation scheme along with
one Samir Bhojwani which was approved in the year
1997. Our client has demonstrated in detail herein
above the modus operandi how your client has
fraudulently tried to usurp our clients land with the
support of some officers of the Competent Authorities
and obtained approvals by misrepresenting before the
said Authorities. Our client hereby submits that the
Sub division Order has been called upon in view of
the Orders passed mentioned herein above. We hereby
call upon your client to restrain themselves from
making false allegations against our clients, the
MCGM authorities, and our clients Architects, their
Lawyers and other consultants and deny that the sub
division proposal has been accepted by making
valuable payment, fees etc. Our client deny that the
application for sub division is comprehensively
detrimental to your client’s project and is in gross
abuse of power by the MCGM who is acting as agent
of our client instead of being a Competent
Government authority. Our client hereby once again
repeats and reiterate that our clients are the Owners of
the said area admeasuring 1110.37 sq. Mt in the said
CTS No. 1756 and our client has a right to get the
same sub divided. Our client once again requests you
to refer all the documents mentioned hereinabove and
request to restrain yourself to make such absurd
remarks without looking into the facts of the case.
From the abovesaid facts it will be crystal clear about
the fraud played by your client to get the SRA project.
Please take note that your client has participated
before all the Competent authorities and are aware
about all the Orders passed in the same. It is
surprising to note that you have conveniently avoided
to mention that Order dated 12th May,2005 is set aside

18
 and in view of the same your client’s alleged claim
that he is the Developer of SRA scheme itself is
totally baseless.
(b) With reference to paragraph no.1 of your letter under
reply, we are not aware about your client learning that
MCGM has processed a proposal for proposed
layout/sub division of property CTS No.1756 of
Village Vile Parle situated at Gulmohar Road, Vile
Parle (West) by Architect Ashwin Jhaveri for our
client. Our client states and submit that our client is
the Owner of an area admeasuring 1110.37 sq. Mt in
the said CTS No. 1756 and the said the sub division is
also being done as per the Orders passed by the
Additional Commissioner, Collector and Hon’ble
Minister as referred hereinabove.
(c) With reference to paragraph no.2 of your letter under
reply, we are not aware about your client obtaining
the documents from MCGM online portal and put
your clients to strict proof thereof.
(d) With reference to paragraph nos.3 to 8 of your letter
under reply, our client has already dealt hereinabove
the true facts of the said Slum Rehabilitation scheme
wherein your client tried to usurp our client’s
property. It is surprising to note that your client is well
aware that the First LOI dated 10th March,1998 was
challenged before the Hon’ble Bombay high Court
and the same was subsequently withdrawn. Our client
deny that the said land is declared slum and the same
is a part of the slum rehabilitation scheme. Our client
further deny that Rehabilitation Building No.6 was
approved by Chief Executive Officer SRA on the said
land bearing CTS No.1756. Our client hereby state
that they are the rightful Owner of a part of the said
CTS No.1756 and no layout or sub division can be
obtained by your client from any competent authority
without notice to our client.

19
(e) With reference to paragraph no.9 of your letter under
reply, we deny that our client’s Architect is
misleading the Authorities by suppressing material
facts from the present Notice it can be clearly seen
that it is your client who is trying to mislead the
Competent authorities and is suppressing material
facts and in view of the same our client has given the
entire facts in details as mentioned hereinabove so
there is no need to suitably use the same in current
and future actions in the present matter. Our client
hereby state that if your client fraudulently report false
and misleading facts to the Council of Architecture,
the Governing Body of our client’s architect, our
client’s architect will proceed to adopt any
proceedings against your client, the same will be
defended entirely at the risk and account of your
clients.
(f) With reference to paragraph no.10 of your letter under
reply, we are not aware that your client filing Writ
Petition no. 3841/2021 with Bombay High Court and
put your client to strict proof thereof. With further
reference to the said paragraph we hereby state that
the entire facts are already dealt in detail hereinabove.
(g) With reference to paragraph nos.11 to 13 of your letter
under reply, our client hereby state that they had filed
the said Suit being Suit No.9835 of 1999 when the
said Krishna Developers had trespassed the said land.
Our client hereby states that it is your client who had
filed Chamber Summons to add themselves as a party
to the present suit. Our clients have already dealt in
detail about the same as aforesaid and crave leave to
refer and rely on the said Suit proceedings and
Chamber Summons No.771 of 2018.
(h) With further reference to paragraph nos.11 to 13 of
your letter under reply, our client deny that it is
seeking to alter the original suit. It is to be noted that
your client as well as all the concerned statutory

20
 authorities are parties to the present suit as well as to
the proceedings mentioned hereinabove. It is
surprising to note that your client is once again
misinterpreting in reading the Plaint and the
amendments to the same.
(i) With reference to paragraph no.14 of your letter under
reply, our client denies that there is any challenge of
our client’s title in the City Civil Court or Bombay
High court. Our client once again repeats and
reiterates that our client is the Owner of an area
admeasuring 1110.37 sq. Mt in the said CTS No. 1756
along with Amenity Plot No. A/2 bearing CTS No.484
(part) and now numbered as CTS No.484A (part)
[CTS No.484A/19] admeasuring 3384 sq. yds i.e.,
2829.60 sq. Mts.
(j) With reference to paragraph no.15 of your letter under
reply our client hereby record that our client is the
Owner of the said land by Registered Deeds. The
Advocate has issued the Title Certificate as per the
registered documents in favour of our client. Our
client hereby call upon your client to desist from
threatening our clients Advocates by falsely alleging
to file complaints to the so called Bar Council of
Mumbai as well as the Hon’ble Courts. If the same is
filed, our client’s Advocate will defend the same
entirely at the risk and account of your clients and our
clients will be constrained to file proceedings against
yourself and your clients for suppressing the entire
material of the case.
(k) With reference to paragraph no.16 of your letter under
reply, we hereby record that the alleged scheme,
layout and building approvals, NOC’s have been
obtained by your client by misrepresenting and
fraudulently obtaining the sanctions from the
Competent Authorities. Our client hereby state that it
will be right to call upon an Enquiry on your client for
the alleged fraud played upon the Competent

21
 authorities to obtain the sanction for the alleged SRA
scheme. Our client hereby repeats and reiterate that
the earlier approvals obtained by your client in view
of the Order dated 12th May,2005 is set aside and once
again repeat and reiterate the sub division is as per the
Hon’ble Collector’s Order. We once again put your
client to Notice that if they proceed to adopt any
proceedings in relation to the said alleged
misrepresented facts against our client, the same will
be defended entirely at the risk and account of your
clients.
7. We will now deal with the paragraphs of your letter dated 6th
May,2022 under reply.
(a) With reference to unnumbered paragraph no. of your
letter under reply, we are not aware that your client is
implementing slum rehabilitation scheme among with
one Samir Bhojwani which was approved in the year
1997. We have already dealt in detail hereinabove
about the alleged communication (which suppresses
all the relevant facts and Orders).
(b) With reference to your unnumbered paragraph No.3,
we hereby record that due to some unavoidable
circumstances the sub division couldn’t take place and
the same is not in view of your Notice dated 27 th
April,2022. Please take note the sub division will be
conducted on 24th May,2022 at 12pm.and the Notice
to the same is already issued.
(c) With reference to your unnumbered paragraph No.4, it
is surprising to note that you are alarmed at the
persistence and audacity of the City Survey Officer in
pursuing the matter as per your reading it constitutes a
contempt of the Hon’ble Courts (which Court).
(d) With reference to your unnumbered paragraph Nos.5
and 6, our client is surprised at the audacity of your
client inspite of your client knowing the entire facts of
the case (how he has fraudulently obtained the
Orders) and the said alleged Orders have been set

22
 aside, inspite of the same is behaving like a gentleman
claiming that the City Survey Officer is acting in
complete contempt of the facts of the matter,
pendency of the cases before the Hon’ble City Civil
and High Court and in absolute contempt of their
superiors in the Revenue Department, Government of
Maharashtra. Our client hereby state that it is a fit case
to call upon an enquiry upon your client for the
alleged fraud played upon the Competent Authorities
which was first recorded in the Enquiry Report in the
Writ Petition No. 948 of 2000.
(e) We hereby once again record that that the Hon’ble
Collector as well as the Revenue Minister has already
granted and directed the authorities to demarcate the
boundaries of the said CTS No.1756 and it is also
hereby recorded that the Collector had
requested/called upon SRA to ‘Stop work’ in respect
of the SR Scheme, vide letter dated 09.07.2020. In
view of the same if your clients allege to do any
construction on the said CTS no.1756 your client will
be in contempt of the Orders of the Revenue
Authorities.

7. Please take note that your clients and Krishna Developers

had also submitted a Declaration and registered Undertaking dated
12.01.2001 to the SRA authorities stating that:-
“After demarcation of CTS 455 and nalla land from DILR if
it is seen that the proposed building is lying beyond CTS no.
455 owned by any other person and if it is found that nalla
land which belongs to any other person I shall amend the
plan of building and shall relocate the buildings on CTS no.
455 only.”

This itself indicates that Zodiac Developers herein, Krishna

Developers and the authorities were well aware that the said
Nalla/50’ canalization strip which is the part of CTS
No.1756 belonged to our clients and in view of the same, the

23
 statutory authorities had obtained the said undertaking way
back in the year 2001. In view of the same, your client s
herein does not have any Say in the present matter and call
upon your client to restrain from forwarding frivolous
Notices with threatening and dire consequences.

8. Please note that, if inspite of what is stated here in, Your

client will proceed to adopt any frivolous complaints against our
client, the same will be defended entirely at the risk and account of
your clients.

Yours faithfully,
For M/s. M.P.Savla & Co.

Advocates & Solicitors.

Encl: as above.
1. C.C. to: - Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

2. Hon’ble Minister, Revenue Department,

Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

3. Collector, Mumbai Suburban District,

New Administrative Building, 10th floor,
Government colony, Bandra (East),
Mumbai- 400 051.

24
4. City Survey Officer,
Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai- 400 057.

5. Maharashtra Housing &

Area Development Authority,
Griha Nirman Bhavan,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai- 400 051.

6. Slum Rehabilitation Authority,

Griha Nirman Bhavan,
Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051.

7. Chief Law Officer, MCGM,

Mahapalika Marg, Fort,
Mumbai- 400 001.

8. Chief Engineer, Development Plan,

Mahapalika Marg, Fort,
Mumbai- 400 001.

9. S.W.D. Department, MCGM,

MCGM, Worli Hub,
Mumbai- 400 001

10. Assistant Municipal Commissioner,

K/West Ward, Paliram Road,
Near S. V. Road, Andheri (West),
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 058.

11. Deputy Chief Engineer,

Building Proposal, Western Suburbs,
7th floor, Hindu Hrudaysamrat,
Jogeshwari (East),
Mumbai – 400 093.

25
12. Executive Engineer,
Building Proposal, K/West Ward,
7th floor, Hindu Hrudaysamrat,
Jogeshwari (East),
Mumbai – 400 093.

13. Assistant Engineer,

(B & P), K/West Ward,
7th floor, Hindu Hrudaysamrat,
Jogeshwari (East),
Mumbai – 400 093.

14. Sub Engineer, Building Proposal

(K/West Ward,
7th floor, Hindu Hrudaysamrat,
Jogeshwari (East),
Mumbai – 400 093.

15. Smt. Bhanbai Nenshi Mahila Vidyalaya,

4, Shantinath Bhavan, 427,
Shraddhanand Road,
Matunga (East),
Mumbai- 400 019.

16. Architect Ashwin H. Jhaveri,

Of H. M. Jhaveri & Sons,
Architects (C.A./77/3887),
3rd floor, Satyanarayan Prasad Centre,
Dayaldas Road, Vile Parle (East),
Mumbai – 400 057.

17. Sunil B. Malvankar,

Advocate High Court,
Pacifis A/301, Lodha Aqua,

26
Dahisar (East),
Mumbai.

27