From: Palash Biswas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Subject: Fwd: [initiative-india] PR Hiranadani's Special Leave Petition Dismissed by the Supreme Court upholding HC judgement.
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From: NAPM India <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Subject: [initiative-india] PR Hiranadani's Special Leave Petition Dismissed by the Supreme Court upholding HC judgement.
To: napmmedia <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
PRESS RELEASE New Delhi, March 30
Hiranadani's Special Leave Petition Dismissed by the Supreme Court upholding HC judgement.
"How can you build palaces on land allotted for affordable housing" – Justice Dattu
Today the Supreme Court Bench consisting of Justice H.L Dattu and Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad dismissed the SLPs filed by Niranjan Hiranandani of Hiranandani Gardens against the order passed by the Bombay High Court in a bunch of a Writ Petitions including one filed by Medha Patkar for National Alliance of People's Movement & Others in 2008. While dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court observed that the High Court is fully justified in holding that the development in 'Pawai Area Development Scheme' on 230 acres of land was meant for affordable houses i.e. for constructing tenements of 400 Sq. Ft and 800 Sq Ft. as per the Tripartite Agreement in which the State Government and MMRDA were parties alongwith the original landholders. The Power of Attorney Holder for the original land holders i.e. M/s Hiranandani violated with impunity the very public purpose behind the development scheme, on 230 acres of land which was allotted at a pittance i.e price of Re 1 per hectare (40 paisa per acre).
Today the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Petitions, observed that instead of constructing affordable houses, palatial buildings have been constructed which are meant only for those who possess 'Bentley' and 'Ferrari', when in Mumbai there is not a square inch of land and poor people's hutments are seen on the road. How can the property which is acquired and leased out for a specific public purpose of 'affordable housing' by the authorities can be given to the father, mother and relatives leading to amalgamation, which is a complete eye wash. "What is happening in this Country?", the Court remarked with anguish.
Have you constructed even one tenement as per the conditions in the Tripartite Agreement? Justice Chandramauli Kr Prasad quipped. The Court also observed that the High Court has remarked about collusion of the officials of the State as well as MMRDA with the developer and therefore, at this juncture when the High Court is seized of the matter, they will not interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The Court hearing Adv. Mukul Rohatgi and Gopal Subramaniam who vehemently argued in support of Hiranandani's, dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. Shri Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate appearing for MMRDA said that his conscience does not allow him to keep quiet and that he would like to state in the Court that the officials of MMRDA were in clear collusion with the developers and that the entire development is in violation of Tripartite agreement. Adv Sanjay Parikh appeared for the Petitioner, Medha Patkar and Adv Ashish Mehta assisted him.
Madhuri Shivkar, Sumit Wajale, Sandeep Yevale
Contact : 9423965153 / 9818905316
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Initiative India" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/initiative-india?hl=en.