IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3096 OF 2023

Atlanta limited … Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

DRAFT AMENDMENT

I. Add the following party as respondent no. 5 in the

cause title of the petition

5. Thane Municipal corporation, Through )

the Municipal Commissioner, New )

Administrative Building, Chandan )

Wadi, Pachpakhadi, Mahapalika )

Bhavan, Road, Thane (West), Thane )

400 602 ) … Respondent

No. 5
II. ADD THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE IN PARA 1

“The respondent No. 5 is the Thane Municipal Corporation”

III. ADD PARA 30A TO 3oE AFTER PARA 30 OF THE

PETITION
30A. The petitioner states that after filing the petition, the

petitioner had moved the Division Bench on 10th March, 2023 for

urgent ad-interim relief. At that time, the counsel appearing for

the respondent No.4 had submitted that the pylon No. 678 was

always in existence on the land of the petitioner, which is

factually incorrect. The petitioner has got prepared a layout plan.

The petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the said

layout plan.

30B. The petitioner states that on the said layout plan, the

existing pylon is marked with red colour boundary and the place

where the said pylon is proposed to be shifted is marked in blue

colour boundary line. It is clear that the respondent No.3 and 4

are seeking to shift the pylon from one place to another place.

Moreover, the said marking on the layout plan clearly shows that

the pylon is moving nearer to the existing tower A and B having

20 floors each, which are constructed by the petitioner. Both the

towers A and B are fully occupied after the petitioner has

obtained the occupation certificate. At the time when tower A and

B were constructed, the respondent No.5 had prescribed the

affected corridor to be admeasuring 12.5 mt. wide. However, now

with the increase of the height and shifting of the pylon, the width

of the corridor will be revised to 25 mt., which itself is indicative

of the fact that the occupier of the flats will be adversely affected.

The petitioner craves leave to refer to and rely upon the plan

annexed to the Occupation certificate dated 1st April, 2017.

30C. The petitioner states that before the respondent No.3, the

petitioner had given a proposal that the respondent No.4 can

shift the pylon on the other side of the alignment of the bullet

train project. However, the respondent No.3 has erroneously

rejected the said proposal.

30D. The petitioner states that the proposed space where the

pylon is proposed to be shifted, the petitioner has shown the said

area as a recreation ground in the plan already sanctioned by the

respondent No. 5. In case this Hon’ble Court comes to the

conclusion that the respondent No.4 has to shift the pylon to the

presently proposed place, the respondent No.1 to 3 can allot

265.69 sq. mt. of land with whatever dimensions, the

respondents choose which will be in continuity with RG1.

30E. In the further alternative, the respondent No.5 may be

ordered and directed to condone the RG deficiency, due to

shifting of the pylon in the petitioner’s land.

Add prayer (b1) to (b2) after prayer (b)

b1. That a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction

be issued ordering and directing the respondent No.1 to 4 to allot

land admeasuring 265.69 sq. mt. to the petitioner with whatever

dimensions the respondent no.1 to 4 may desire, abutting

RG1which will be shown by the petitioner as RG area.

b2. In the alternative, a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction be issued ordering and directing the

respondent No. 5 to condone RG deficiency due to the shifting of

the pylon by the respondents No.1 to 4.

Add Prayer (d1) and (d2)

(d1) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition,

the respondent No.1 to 4 be ordered and directed to allot land

admeasuring 265.69 sq. mt. to the petitioner, with whatever

dimensions the respondent no.1 to 4 chooses, abutting RG1,

which will be shown by the petitioner as RG area.

(d2) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition,

in the alternative the respondent No. 5 be ordered and directed

to condone RG deficiency due to the shifting of the pylon by the

respondents No.1 to 4.