An artical about "Land allocation for judges"

Land allocation for judges

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 Division Bench headed by justice B.H. Mariapalle on March 2011, issued notices to the State Government as well as the Nyayasagr. Co-operative Housing Society and Siddhant Co-operative Housing Society. The state was asked to clarify ifallotment 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.

The Affidavit which was filed by Rajendra Surve, Joint Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, said the allegations were irresponsible and fanciful. An attempt to gather publicity and ought to be dismissed at the threshold with compensatory costs.

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 of25,000 sq.m. Further 4,300 sq.m of land was originally reserved for a court andchanged 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 meantfor the homeless was allotted to judges is therefore false. The government didnot 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 resolution permits 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.

All Complaintsagainst builders now go online

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.

Housing SocietiesVoting Pattern Supreme Court Verdict

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 problemthroughout India in various housing societies where different wings of a familypurchase independent flats in the same building. This allows them the privacy of 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 voting rights to one vote per family regardless of the number of flats owned by different members.

A dispute arose among the members of Merry NiketanCo-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 even though the objective behind ‘ one family one vote’ may be laudable, it is necessary to see whether sucha concept is provided for under the Act. The Courtheld that when the Legislative Act provided for it, no bye-law could create anotherconcept 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 recentsurvey listed real estate average property rates in Mumbai increased to 154percent since December 2005, Apart from Mumbai, the cities to have triple digitpercentage growth are only Shanghai and Singapore. And the City of New York had the 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 levels of 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.advocateselvakumar.com