FSI violations and bogus tenants list, false affidavits in File no. 645 of FP No. 557 in Mahim Division in league with MHADA OFFICIALS also known as Marinagar opp.Mahim Rly. Station West, Mumbai-16 in order to grab FSI of over 1,81,000 sq. feet add 40% loading so total FSI would be 2,50,000 sq. feet amounting to Rs.550 crores at todays rates.
1.That in the year 1993/1994 a plan was passed by St. Michaels Church Mahim to build 3 buildings A, B and C on the said above plot. As per the permissions given to the Church / builder all the tenants would have to be re-housed first and then only could excess flats be sold.There were 12 outhouses and another structure called Quinny House. Quinny House came to be demolished some time in the year 1993-94 and Our Lady of Lourdes ie Building C came to be constructed on the same spot. The said building was given occupation certificate in the year 1996 and 48 tenants came to be accommodated as per the documents collected under RTI.
2.While building no. “C” came to be granted OC in the year 1996, building no. “A” was granted part OC in the year 2002 and complete OC in the year 2003.In building A 30 tenants were supposed to be rehabilitated , however the flats of 5 tenants were not given.The balance extra flats came to be sold which numbered around 80. As per the letter dated September 15th, 1999 given by the developer to MHADA “ We have already rehoused 48 tenants who earlier resided in cessed structures standing on the above property and the balance 30 tenants are being accommodated in another building presently under advance stage of construction” All the tenants displaced by the said project came to be re-housed and are members of co-operative housing societies. That two co-operative housing societies have already been formed in the year 1998 and 2004.
- That recently MHADA filed a chamber summons in suit 875 of 2011 dated 23 April 2014 at the instance of the builder and consequent to the said chamber summons, the certified copies of the said above file were collected and it has been observed that tenants of QUINNY HOUSE who are already re-housed and given permanent alternate accommodation and are members of Our Lady of Lourdes Co-op. Housing Society are being shown fraudulently by various officials of MHADA as yet to be re-housed.
4.Clause 10A of MHADA’s letter reads as “In the case of redevelopment scheme in progress and such schemes where LOI has been issued and if the construction of rehab building is not completed upto plinth level, then owner / developer / co-operative Housing Societies with the prior approval of the government may convert the proposal in accordance with modified regulations only regarding size of tenements and loading of FSI in situ. However such conversion is optional and shall not be binding.” This would mean that increase in FSI can only be given if the rehab building construction is yet to start or has reached plinth stage only. In this case the rehab building has already been constructed and OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE given in the year 1996 to the building in which the so called yet to be housed tenants , are already rehoused in the year 1996/97 and hence there is no question of any increase in FSI being given to any person in the year 2008.
5.Further all the tenants of Quinny House have been rehabilitated in the year 1996/97 itself and hence no benefit can be given. Copies of letters given by the builder to the tenants which bear the signatures of the tenants to show that they have been permanently rehoused in lieu of Quinny House are in our possession. Further all the photographs given to MHADA and shown as open plots are actually recreational gardens as per the existing plan on the day the report has been given. Further the video shot of the 4 tenants of Quinny House has been taken in their new permanent alternate accommodation which clearly shows that they are rehoused.Further the affidavits signed by them are pre signed by the Notary which is also caught on the video. The said affidavit does not bear any date and the said affidavit makes a bogus claim that they are yet to be rehoused knowing fully well that they are already housed .
6.One of the tenants Mrs. Anna Clara Meares of Quinny House through her legal heir, was having a dispute with of Suraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd and had filed a case in the Small causes court which went up to the Bombay High Court and the court vide judgment dated 2nd August 2005 ordered a court receiver to be appointed to take possession of the ready flat in the rehab building being given as alternate accommodation in lieu of the original Quinny House residence.An extract of the judgement of the Bombay High Court reads as follows ” I am of the prima facie opinion that the manner in which the proceedings before the Small Causes Court is conducted without bringing the legal heirs of the said deceased as party to the said proceedings who are entitled to the estate under the will the respondent no.1 has in collusion with the said Kudal who was claiming tenancy in the said properties have committed fraud and abuse of the process of law to acquire so called title as owner in respect of the said flat. In my opinion the respondent no. who is the builder and being aware of the facts ought not to have and could not have entered into such surreptitious arrangement by which rights of the deceased Anna Clara Mears which is now vested in the petitioner and the legal heirs of the deceased could have been parted with”
“ That the Court Receiver , High Court Bombay is appointed as Receiver in respect of the said flat being residential premises admeasuring about 180 sq. fts ( carpet area)situated at 463,Marinagar, Final Plot No.557 of Town Planning Scheme, Bombay City No.III, M.M.Chotani Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016 with direction to take, recover physical possession thereof since the respondent no.1 is prima facie claiming rights therein fraudulently ”
7. As per the registered Bye-laws of Our Lady Of Lourdes Co-op Hsg. Soc. Ltd. the rehab building which shows 43 members which include Matilda Quinny, Peter Quinny, Marshall Francis Fernandes, Peter Cajetan Pinero, Ida D’souza and Thomas Rajan. The rehab building has in fact 48 flats .These are the persons who have given affidavits saying that they are yet to be rehoused.
8.I further state that two Power of Attorney’s in the file pertain to one Fr. Nelson Mascarenhas who has expired and Fr. Micheal D’Souza who is no longer the sole trustee of St. Michaels Church and hence not valid.
9.I further state that benefits of increased FSI cannot be given to any person when all the tenants have already been rehoused and rehabilitated.
10.I further state that the builder was having excess flats in building “C” namely Our Lady of Lourdes Co-op Hsg Society and building “A” Our Lady of Vailankanni and Perpetual Succour co-op Hsg. Society. and hence he has sold the excess flats to various persons.
11.I further state that the builder himself vide his duly Notarised undertaking dated 15 Feb 1994 given to MHADA has admitted “That we shall not approach the BMC for issue of part or full completion certificate and Occupation Certificate unless arrangements are made to accommodate all the occupants of old cessed building.”
12.That the builder has now got sanctioned plans some where in the year 2010 to build two buildings one of which is 17 storied and the other a15 storied building on plots earmarked as gardens for use of residents of the layout by fraudulently showing that 6 already rehoused tenants of Quinny House are yet to be re-housed.
13. I further state that 5 buildings which are still owned by the Church and have not been given to the builder and yet he has shown in league with MHADA officials and included the said 5 buildings in the MHADA calculation without there being any charity commissioner sanction and without the sanction of the owners St. Michael’s Church Trust , Mahim. However no official complaint has been lodged till date and the church authorities have chosen to remain silent.In fact the Parish Priest who had been served chamber summons regarding the 100 flats which Mhada claimed it had to get remained silent and did not oppose it knowing fully well that the FSI of the 5 buildings owned by the Church have been included. What could be the reason for him remaining silent? The Parish Priest was represented by an advocate and hence it can be safely presumed that he had studied the deal fully.
14. Such type of ADARSH building scams should not be repeated, as this scam will be amounting to crores of Rupees as hundreds of flats are sought to be constructed based on the additional bogus FSI amounting to over 1,81,000 sq. feet add 40% loading as per the normal market practice so total FSI would be 2,50,000 sq. feet amounting to Rs.550 crores at todays rates( @ Rs.30,000/- a sq.foot after deducting construction costs)
15.Such bogus redevelopment will lead to haphazard planning in Mumbai and will also put undue strain and burden on the infrastructure in terms of water, open spaces, electricity, public transport , roads space as more cars will come and will lead to further corruption.
16. All plans are put up by the Church which means that the church cannot afford to remain silent.What has the Archdiocese Finance Committee have to say? What has the Most Trusted Lay Representative who visited the site many times have to say?
Hon.Secretary Our Lady of Vailankanni and Perpetual Succour Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.