—/ Jk cafes 4 Motile wo AS1IBIS. BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 32 ‘Appeal No, 2022 ‘APPELLANTS: 1, BHAGWANTSING S/o, DEEDARSINGH PURBHA Aged about 44 yrs. Occ. Business, . Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No. 204, Babadeep Apartments, Kashmirgall, Nagpur. 2, TEIENDARSING S/o, MANOHARSING ARORA: Aged about 6 0 yrs, Oc 2 & Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No. 304, Babadbep ‘Apartments, Kashmirgall, Nagpur. 49 Jul ar usrounsyonmounanen | — S26¢ 70% ‘Aged about 51 yrs. Occ, Seve i Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No. 203, Babadeep Apartments, Kashmirgall, Nagpur. |. SMT. ROSY W/o. BEDODYUTI BHATTACHARit ‘Aged about 52 yrs. Occ. Business “2%5 ay: Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No, 203, abadeep.. Apartments, Kashmirgalli, Nagpur. * . SMT. SAPNA W/o, TELRAIA Aged about 54 yrs. Occ. : Housewife sede Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No.003,Babadeep > * Apartments, Kashmirgall, Nagpur. ‘ 3. AVINASH KAUR HARPITSINGH NAGRA, ‘Aged about .... yrs. Occ. : Housewife Plot NO. 643, 648, Fat No. 103, Babadeep Apartments, Kashmirgalli, Nagpur, 7. ONKARSINGH S/o. SEVASINGH BAINS ‘Aged about 56 yrs. Occ. : Business Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No, 001, Babadeep Apartments, Kashmirgalli, Nagpur. i Bes Alor Sob a storag / 8, MALOKSINGH PADDA ‘Aged about Styrs, Occ. : Business Plot NO. 643, 648, Flat No. 404, Babadeep Apartments, Kashmirgall, Nagpur, wnarun\vd| aistT. (48) J 4] Re. io 6 = S eSWS. RESPONDENTS: AThe ity of Nagpue Munlelpal Corporation through its MuntelpalCommlssonet, Ravindranath Tagora Mate, Civil Unes, Nagpur 2.The Assistant Director, own Planning, Nagpur Munlelpal Corporation Ravindranath Tagore Mart, Gill Lines, Nagpur. 3, The Assistant Commlssionery Asingar Nagar, Zone No. 8, NMC, Nagpur. ‘The Dy. Engineer, Asingar Nagat, Zone No. 8, NMC, Nagpur. 5. TheJunior Engineer, Asingar Nagar, Zone No.9, NMC, Nagpur. REPRESENTATION CUM APPEAL U/S, 4711) OFTHE M.B-T.P. R/W 4712) OF THE ACT. INTHE MATTER OF REJECTION OF REVISED BUILDING DRAWING u/s, 44 & 45 OF THE MRTP ACT. (Unified DCR)" Being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent thereby refused to accept the revised building on 06/08/2020 and recently in the month 06,06.2022 specifying that, the online submission is affected by the server and on the other hand refused to accept the id drawing by hand delivery tn respect of covering of Balcony Projection by keeping sufficient ventilation construction over the plot Bearing City Survey No, 2303, Plot No, 643, & 648, Ward No. 54, Babadeep Apartment, Kashimir Gall, Pullia No. 10, Nagpur. ‘The appellants approached this kind authority on 06/08/2020 & 06/06/2022 respectively along with the four copies of building drawing and title documents in respect of the property Bearing NMC House No, 47, Ward No. 54, Babadeep Apartment, Near Pullia No.10,Kashirgali, Nagnur and unfortunately the respondent without speaying ‘ny reason which amounts to the rejection of revised bulng drawing as there sno alternative remedy maul avalible to the applicant the applicant preferred the instant appeal cum aplication u/s. 47(4), 47(2) of the MRTP Ae, for seekIng justice in the matter. ‘That, appellant became surprised thereby respondent issued notice u/s. S3(1) of the MRTP Act. on 04,09,2020 thereby the respondent directed the applicant to remove the safety staircase and enclosed balcony which is already sanction by the sister concern of the respondent the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur vide sanction plan no. 7285/824/PH dated 08.08.1996 by the Building Engineer Nagpur improvement Trust, Nagpur the said plan was sanction for muktistory building G6 floor which includes the safety staircase and balcony projection, ‘The applicants to make and maintain the safety staircase welded and painted to protect the person and family from any that, the balcony endanger like fire and safe exit. It is subr projection wiich are sanction are need to be closed by using M.S. Grill to protect the person and the property. The action of the respondent thereby they rejected and to accept the revised building ed D.CR, and drawing v/s. 44 & 45 of the MART. Act. under bent upon to pulldown the sanction structure by their sister concern TNT. glen sanction to construct the G+6 floor on 08.08.1896. tied out any new construction as 1 No, 175/-7/MRTP/PWO/2- That the applicant never car reflected in thelr common notice Bearing 45 dated 04.09.2020 Theres no physical st inspection onthe pat of respondent. The respondent ently faled to sere the another 154 of the MATP Act. by providing the inspection report notice u/s. he alleged construction. The action of the and the design of t respondent therefore, beyond the four comers of the law as nofocumonts givan by the t nl aus of a t tha Instant appeal opportunity prosan tespondont, Tho appoliants aro tharaforo, s and the ‘une sock usteo in the mattor wndar tha following fact rounds, FACTS & GROUNDS 4, Thaty the Appollant No, 4 to 8 are tho occuplor & the ‘owner of the broporty under the landmarks as commonly known as Babadeep : Apartment Kashiigall, Ward No, 54, Bearing House No. 47 hhaving separate flats ns mentioned In above representation. 2 That the appellants tendered the copy ofthe registered sale deed executed before the Sub-Roglstrar of Nogpur on respective dates their names are already mutated in the Revenue Department of the State and the Respondent. 3, That, the plot Bearing NO. 643. & 648 aemesuring 1382.08 Sq,mt. 's originally owned by Smt. Kashibai Sonulal Balkheria and 7 others. (Copy of the City Survey Bearing No, 2303 Is tendered with the Instant application), it Is submitted that the LRs of the original owners executed the agreement on 08,09,1995 of sale ‘with M/s, Adlshakt! Bullders Pv, Ltd, Through his promoters Shri. Pradeep S/o. Vithalprasad Dubey for construction of Multistory building, That, the owner of the building and the LR’s of + Balkharia submitted the building drawing for construction of G+6 floor to the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur as the jurisdiction so far as concern with the building matter are lies with the NLT. ‘Nagpur. 4 That, the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur after accepting the proposed bulding drawing scrutinize the title document and the proposed plan by comparing the bullng bye-laws, The bulding plan. was sanction vide’ Sanction Plan No, 824/PH dated (08.08.1996 for construction of G46 storied structure, The Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur thereafter Issued the bullding permit,is commonly known as owners In this scheme which hat, the sald structure Babadeepsingh Apartment, It Is submitted th balcony projections which are 1s having sanction safety stalr case, ‘well indicated inthe sanction plan by the NIT. 7. That, the respondents ought to have accept the proposal of the flat owners there they are seeking repaling of stair case and covering of balcony projection to py if sanction safety rotect the person and the property however, delegate of the respondent Tefused to accept proposal by rejecting the same In twice, The applicants are entitled to get repair thelr sanction structure of stair case which Is safety staircase duly sanction by the Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur the open balcony projection can be under the unified building bye laws. closed by fixing the M. 8, That the respondents issued the notice dated 04.09.2020 which is ‘common notice reflecting that carried out the work of fixing of MS. Grill to the open balconies which is not amount to any new construction. The sald MS. grill are so prepared which can be fixed within the open balconies to protect the person and the family. Inspite of knowing the application of Unified Building bye laws and the provisions there under the respondents are bent upon to remove the M.S. Gril which are fixed on the open portion of the balconies which are not even amount to the new construction. 9, That, the applicants tendered the ‘copy of the notice dated (04,09.2020 wherein no drawing of the alleged construction is reflected. The number of mandatory provisions which are part ‘and parcel of the sald communication not complied with the notice dated 04.09.2020. No inspection report is tendered with the notice dated 04.09.2020 the mandatory provisions of issuing of notice u/s 54 is not complied & Issued with notice dated 04.09.2020, The notice is issued without considering the sanctionby thelr sistor concarn NaqpuirImpravamant rast, Nagpur In the Year 1995. Thera ts no physlen! Inspaction hy tha roeponiant tho Humber of loop holos ara npponrad In tha natlen dntodd 04.09.2020 soma of tham ara as uncor, ) Tha notice Baring No, 175/P-7/minTP/PWO/z-9 —dntod 04.09.2020 Is sterao typed, common and Issued to all applicants wherein alleged construction raflactad Is also different, Its not the foctunl 5) The notice Is signed by the delegate of tho rasponclont missing, ‘there Initials below the signature, The soma words In tho ‘notice are hand written missing the counter signed, ¢) The notice Baring No, 175/p-7/MnTP/PWO/2-9 dated (04.09.2020 is not accompanying with the Inspection report, The notice u/s. 54 not Issued along with the notice dated 0.409.2020 which is mandatory on the part ofthe respondent, d) The notice Baring No. 175/P-7/MRTP/PWD/2-9 dated 04,02.2020 reflecting that, the structure of the bullding Is without sanction however, the alleged construction reflected in the notice is already sanction by the sister concern NIT In the year 1995, e) The notice Baring No. 175/P-7/MRTP/PWO/Z-9 dated 04,09,2020 nowhere reflecting the applicants made new construction by which they are violating the bullding bye laws, f) The notice Baring No. 175/P-7/MRTP/PWD/2-9 dated (04.09.2020 missing the consumed FSI and Balance FSI, g) The notice Baring No. 175/P-7/MRTP/PWD/2-9 dated 04.09.2020 nowhere reflecting that the fixing of M.S, Grill on open balcony area Is violating the unified bullding bye-laws.the sald tlon to conn ho united Bc na it. awn under tha bye laws of the esponde”™ 4 and letter of and 45 of the No, 54, Zone ) to cract tho rospondnt to Isue the doman ddposit of amount for grant of sanction u/s 4 [MRTP Aet forthe NMC. House No, 44 of Ward No, 8, Ashtnagar Nagar, NiM.C, Nagpur. 4) to erect the respondent to follow the procedure lad down ‘u/s. 72) of the MRTP Act. ¢) to restrain the respondent against any corrosive action against the standing structure ofthe applicants til passing final order Inthe matter by tis kind authority. f) grant any other relief deems fit and proper under the cIrcumstance In the Interest of justice and equity 7 WGP) Oot Place : Nagpur. one: 54106, SOLEMIN AFFIRMATION M Dear Singh Cains aged. about YES. ONE AS / ove B'chnth NIMC. House No, 41, Ward. No. 57, Babadeep Cov, Oe E: ‘Apartment, Kashimarigall, Nagpur, make oath and state on solemn affirmation that the contents of the above appeal are trué. and correct tothe best of my personal knowledge and belief. The same is drafted on relying the documents made available with the appellant. “4 Hence, verified and signed on this 9 day of June 2022 at 3 | DEPONENT WORK SEFURE ME ON THIS 9... rae ny oFWek 20.22... af enGeuR BY suit ou Kunkel: Rod ‘RO NGPUR WO ts BEEN DexnED BY SURI ST...