The Indian Express: Mumbai: Saturday, September 09, 2017.
Maharashtra
officials are examining a case of alleged misrepresentation by a judge of the
Bombay High Court to secure allotment of an apartment in a proposed highrise
society of sitting judges in suburban Mumbai. Official documents show that
Justice Ranjit More, who has been a High Court judge since 2006, while seeking
government approval for membership to the housing society in Oshiwara, declared
in a sworn affidavit that he did not own any other house or plot in the city.
According to
government norms, only those who do not own a home or plot in a district are
eligible for allotment of a tenement under any scheme of the Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in the same district.
Documents
obtained by The Indian Express under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show
that when Justice More’s membership to the highrise society of judges was
approved in September 2015, he and his wife, Aruna, according to records maintained
by the Mumbai (City) Collector’s office, were still in joint ownership of a
950-sq ft apartment in the Worli Sagar Cooperative Housing Society in central
Mumbai.
The RTI
documents show that the couple purchased an apartment on the fourth floor of
the Purna building in the Worli society on February 2, 2005. Since the
16-storeyed Worli highrise exists on a government plot, which was leased to the
society in 1983 for building homes for serving and former MPs from Maharashtra,
the Collector’s office, which is the government custodian of the property, has
powers to authorise membership to the society.
Incidentally,
Justice More, who happens to be the present Chief Promoter of the proposed
Oshiwara highrise society, is on a High Court division bench that is hearing a
petition pertaining to the Adarsh housing society controversy. The bench is
hearing a petition filed by former Chief Minister Ashok Chavan against the
decision of Maharashtra Governor C Vidyasagar Rao, granting sanction to the CBI
to prosecute him in the Adarsh case.
When his
comments were sought, Justice More confirmed that he and his wife had purchased
a flat in Worli in 2005. “We had executed a registered gift deed on May 15,
2015 to transfer the Worli flat in favour of our two daughters,” he said.
But RTI
documents show that it was only on June 28, 2016 nine months after approval of
his membership in the Oshiwara highrise society of judges was approved that
Justice More and his wife approached the Collector’s office, seeking
“approval/permission to transfer the Worli flat in favour of their daughters,
Aditi and Aishwarya, by way of a gift deed”.
In their
application to the Collector, the couple stated: “We intend to transfer by way
of gift deed the flat (with shares and interest) to our only daughters. We
therefore apply for the grant of approval and permission of the state of
Maharashtra for the transfer of the flat.”
A May 25,
2007 government resolution, issued by the Maharashtra revenue department, makes
prior written permission of the Collector’s office mandatory for transfer of
flats in residential societies existing on leased lands.
While Justice
More said that the milestone of executing a gift deed in favour of their
daughters was enough to divest their “rights and interest” in the flat, the
Collector’s office contended that Justice More and his wife continued to be
owners till the Collector’s office permitted the flat transfer on March 23,
2017.
Additional
papers submitted by the couple, along with an application for transfer of the
Worli flat, show that the Worli Sagar CHS too granted an NOC (no-objection
certificate) for transfer of membership in favour of Justice More’s daughters
only on December 10, 2015. In other words, even in the society’s records, the
couple were owners of the apartment at the time Justice More’s membership to
the proposed Oshiwara highrise was approved, officials said.
While
construction of the Oshiwara highrise is yet to start, the proposal is to offer
84 homes, each of 1076 sq ft, on ownership, to the judges’ society. The
government has so far approved memberships of 39 judges. Incidentally, the
MHADA had originally planned an affordable housing scheme for middle income
sections on the same plot, which was dropped to accommodate the highrise for
judges.
According to
documents, Justice Anil Joshi, the then Chief Promoter of Surabhi Cooperative
Housing Society (proposed) formed by the judges for the highrise, approached
the government on May 6, 2015 for implementation of the housing scheme.
On August 31,
2015, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis sanctioned the housing scheme on a
32,300-sq ft public plot in Oshiwara. A week later, on September 7, 2015,
Justice More’s membership to the Oshiwara society was approved. On the same
day, Justice More had submitted an acceptance letter for membership to MHADA,
while furnishing requisite eligibility documents.
Along with his
application for membership approval, Justice More also submitted an affidavit,
which was a condition of allotment, declaring, “I say and submit that I have
applied for the proposed CHS of sitting HC judges. I solemnly affirm that
neither me, nor my wife or dependent children are in possession of a tenement
or a plot on ownership or hire-purchase basis in Mumbai.”
Another
document, a bond of indemnity, was also submitted by him, stating, “I say and
submit that the requisite documents required for eligibility of the application
such as age proof, residential proof and stay in Maharashtra, annual income,
proof of no (ownership) residence or plot within Mumbai limits, ration card,
caste certificate, etc. are true and correct to to the best of my knowledge and
belief. In case any of the documents are found to be incorrect, false,
fabricated, or forged, I’ll be solely responsible for the same, and the MHADA
shall have full liberty to cancel the allotment. I further undertake to
indemnity and keep indemnified MHADA and all its officers from the effect of
all legal proceedings that may arise in future and against all losses, damages,
costs, charges, expenses, claims and penalties or any other action, which may
occur by the reason of furnishing false and fabricated documents for the
allotment of tenement by the MHADA.”
Justice
More’s application was routed through the High Court Registrar General’s office
which had also forwarded applications of all other applicants as well.
.JPG)
.JPG)
