The Maharashtra Government had denied having bestowed any
favour while allotting land to two societies in Bandra (East) housing sitting
or retired High Court Judges. A sitting Chief Justice and a Supreme Court Judge
who were elevated from the High Court here are members of the societies.
The States’ July 2011 reply was filed in response to the
courts directions while bearing a public interest litigation alleging that the
State Government changed the reservation to accommodate the judges. A DivisionBench headed by justice B.H. Mariapalle on March 2011, issued notices to theState Government as well as the Nyayasagr. Co-operative Housing Society and
Siddhant Co-operative Housing Society. The state was asked to clarify if
allotment was illegal or in accordance with the policy. The judges exhorted for
assurance stating that the petition will be examined on a par with any other.
As this is a petition against then, they shall scrutinize it with more probity.
The matter did not come up for hearing thereafter.
Surve said that there is nothing illegal, improper or
irregular in the allotment of the land by the State Government to Co-operative
Societies of Judges. Land to two societies formed a small part of plot of
25,000 sq.m. Further 4,300 sq.m of land was originally reserved for a court and
changed to Judges and Judicial staff quarters. This reservation was lawfully
deleted. The land was allotted to Siddhant Co-operative Housing Society.
Surve said an area of 10,000 sq.m. was originally reserved
for housing the dishoused and the reservation was lawfully reduced or
restricted to 1,000 sq.m and the balance 9,000 sq.m. converted to residential.
He said that of the 9,000 sq.m. approximately 1,400 sq.m. was allotted toNyayasagar Housing Society.
Also some 1,390 sq.m and 1,020 sq.m. were allotted to Renuka
and Sindhuratna Housing Societies, whose member include Civil and Government
servants and MLAs. The remaining 1,000 sq.m. has been handed to the BMC for
housing dishoused. The BMC was handed an area of 3,700 sq.m. for a recreation
ground and 5,357 sq.m. for a road.
Surve said the reservations does not impose a requirement to
provide accommodation for homeless as the petitioner seeks to project or even
that the entire plot is to be used for such purpose. The premise that the land meant
for the homeless was allotted to judges is therefore false. The government did
not hastily allot any plot contrary to reservation or change any reservation.
The Joint Secretary said the allegation that land was
allotted to judges at nominal or throwaway price and without being asked is
mischievous and denied the concessions were offered to both societies. Until
2006, the revenue department fixed an adhoc land value pending final
determination of the exact rate of the Town Planning and Valuation Department.IT would require an undertaking from allot tee that the difference betweenadhoc value and final value would be made good with interest. During May 2006
this policy was revised and allotments made with reference to the ready
reckoner rate. The adhoc value of Nyayasagar was Rs.22,5001-per sq.m. For
Siddhant, the rate was Rs.30,0001- per sq.m. in 2007. The allotment of land is
strictly in accordance with pricing pattern followed by Government in respect
of all other societies.
Sureve explained that there was no embargo upon judges or
any other allot tee letting out his or her flat. A July 1999 government resolutionpermits it with the condition that license fee be paid to the Government. This
has been duly complied with in the case of the allot tees of the two buildings.
The GR permits allotment of Government
land to Co-operative societies. There is no reason why judges should be
excluded said Surve and added that judges have been allotted lands in the past
too.
In a move that could raise the hackles of builders but
introduce more transparency, the state environment department has started displaying
complaints against builders and action taken against them on its own website.
“If any individual files a complaint against a developer in
connection with the environment, the letter and subsequent action initiated are
immediately posted on the environment department website, “Valsa Nair-Singh,Secretary, environment department, told Tor. Nair-Singh said, “Instead of
running from pillar to post to know what action has been taken, any complaint,
with the click of the mouse, can check the case’s status.”
Mantralaya Mandarians said the move comes after the
controversial Adarsh cooperative housing society scam, which came up after
environmental and other violations, despite repeated complaints. “There were manycomplaints against Adarsh when it was coming up, but it still came up. No one
knows what happened to the complaints. But the environment department
initiative is good as it will enchance the systems of keeping records of such
complaints,” a senior Mantralaya official added.
Indian Police Service Office rturned-lawyer Y P Singh said, “If
the environment department is not going to repeat Adarsh-like mistakes, it is
welcome,” Singh said environment related complaints in connection with Adarsh
were made in 2008, but the department acted a year later, only after the scam
about the controversial society was exposed by Tor.
In a recent judgment delivered, the Supreme Court has given
its verdict in a litigation on the matters of Co-operative Housing Societies.
The dispute raised is whether there are possibilities of the byelaws of a
Co-operative. Housing Society curtailing the
voting rights of different members of holding separate flats in the building.
The Supreme Court emphatically said NO: It is one flat, one vote.
We are witnessing cropping up of multi-flat family problem
throughout India in various housing societies where different wings of a family
purchase independent flats in the same building. This allows them the privacyof a nuclear family and the support of a joint family. For the Society,
however, this agreeable setup can have its own problems. Since the fmily owns a
number of flats, a little cartel is formed and this influences voting patterns
in the society. As a result, one housing society in Mumbai decided to restrict votingrights to one vote per family regardless of the number of flats owned bydifferent members.
A dispute arose among the members of Merry Niketan
Co-operative Housing Society Limited at the time of preparing the voter list. A
provisional list of voters listed the names of 35 members while preparing the
final list of voters, the Managing Committee resolved that in accordance with
the Society’s byelaws, a member holding more than one flat would eligible for
one vote only. At the time his was announced, there were objections from those
whose family members held more than one
flat.
At the time of elections, when these members filed their
nominations, their nomination was rejected. Hence they appeal to the Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies only to have their appeals dismissed. Thematter reached the Bombay High Court, which rules against the society. Thematter then went right up to the Supreme Court.
Justice S B Sinha and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi on Novermber
2007, held that Section 27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
(Act) clearly provides for one vote per member. The Court observed that eventhough the objective behind ‘ one family one vote’ may be laudable, it isnecessary to see whether sucha concept is provided for under the Act. The Court
held that when the Legislative Act provided for it, no bye-law could create another
concept to defeat the legislative intent. The appeal was dismissed.
It is common knowledge that the prices for Mumbai’s
residences are hitting the sky. A recent survey of Iomega-cities across the
world indicates that Indian financial capital i.e. Murmai has registered the
highest percentage leap in properly
prices since 2005.
|
I RANK
|
CITY
|
GROWTH
|
RATE
|
||
|
(Most Expensive)
|
(Dee 'OS-Jun'lI)
|
Per Sq. Ft
|
|||
|
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l.
|
Hong Kong
|
98%
|
$ 2,200
|
|
|
|
2.
|
London
|
32%
|
$ 1.200
|
|
|
f--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Tokyo
|
44%
|
$ 1,350
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Singapore
|
123%
|
$
|
960
|
|
|
5.
|
Paris
|
49%
|
$ 1,200
|
|
|
I--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
Shanghai
|
143%
|
$
|
660
|
|
f--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
|
New York
|
7%
|
$
|
850
|
|
f---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Sydney
|
27%
|
$
|
620
|
|
f----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.
|
Moscow
|
94%
|
$
|
760
|
|
|
10.
|
Mumbai
|
154%
|
$
|
510
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
The World Class Cities Index based in London, in the recent
survey listed real estate average property rates in Mumbai increased to 154
percent since December 2005, Apart from Mumbai, the cities to have triple digit
percentage growth are only Shanghai and Singapore. And the City of New York hadthe least increase over the same period being 7 percent. Yolande Barnes, head
of Sa vilis Residential Research the real estate adviser said that the extra
ordinary residential price-growth, depite the 2008 downward correction in
Mumbai, is unsustainable. She further said that the Mumbai’s prices are
socially decisive. That exponential price rise is symptomatic of the high levelsof wealth creation in the city. As is the way when cities come on to the world
stage and adject from being National Capital to World Class Cities, house
prices in Mumbai have become unaffordable for many ordinary people. There is a
widespread feeling that Mumbai’s housing market is a bubble waiting to burst (See
the given Table).
more:http://www.99olx.com
No comments:
Post a Comment