NIT asserts compliance with HC directives in Gunthewari layout plot regularisation
NAGPUR
: The
Nagpur Improvement Trust
(NIT) on Monday defended its decision to issue regularisation letters to private plot owners in a disputed
Gunthewari layout
. The civic planning body informed the Nagpur bench of the
Bombay High Court
that it had followed legal provisions and previous court orders, contrary to the claims made by the Chinchmalatpure Nagar Nagrik Kruti Samiti.
NIT clarified that the open space requirements under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act were not applicable in this case, as the layout was regularised under the Gunthewari Act, 2001. The petitioner has challenged the regularisation of five plots in Raghvendra Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha, Mouza Manewada, where construction activities had already begun.
In its affidavit, NIT stated that it had previously submitted a factual clarification on September 27, 2023. It also pointed out that the petitioner was fully aware of earlier orders passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 80/2017, in which the court upheld the individual rights of private plot holders.
Following a government notification dated March 1, 2021, NIT's general manager approved the regularisation of the five plots on December 13, 2022, under the amended Gunthewari Act, the NIT submitted.
The petitioner highlighted that the high court had overturned previous rejections issued by NIT's executive engineer (South) in five separate writ petitions. Even though the NIT later filed review applications citing PIL No. 80/2017, the court dismissed them on April 21, 2023.
NIT further noted that members of the Samiti had benefited from the Gunthewari Act in the past but were now opposing the regularisation of other plots. It reiterated that Regulation 3.4.1 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR)-2020 regarding open space requirements does not apply to Gunthewari layouts.
Referring to the January 22, 2024, order by the former NIT chairman rejecting regularisation, the trust argued that the order contradicted directions issued by the court. It added that regularisation letters were issued only after the Division Bench's directions on December 19, 2023, in related contempt petitions.
NIT has sought dismissal of the petition, asserting that previous court rulings had already resolved the factual and legal issues involved in the matter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
RBI to SC: Have issued norms to monitor use of loan money by realtors
NEW DELHI: As many banks and financial institutions have come under scanner for harassing homebuyers in connivance with real estate companies particularly in case of subvention plan and facing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe on direction of the Supreme Court, banking regulator RBI has virtually shrugged off its responsibility and told SC that it has over the years issued various guidelines and circulars to monitor use of loan amount by developers to prevent misuse and siphoning of funds. It also said that it had directed banks not to resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind for recovery of loan amounts from buyers. Under the subvention scheme, banks disburse the sanctioned amount directly to the the builders, who then have to pay EMIs on the sanctioned loan amount, until possession of the flats is handed over to homebuyers. As many builders did not complete construction and started defaulting in paying the EMIs to the banks as per the Tripartite Agreement, the banks started action against the buyers to recover the EMIs and it is the SC which came to their rescue by ordering a probe into the alleged 'unholy' nexus of builders and banks. In an affidavit filed in the apex court, RBI referred to various directions and guidelines issued by it from time to time and said, "RBI has performed its duty in discharge of its statutory obligations under the various statutes, including those under the BR (Banking Regulation) Act." The regulator said it had way back in 2015 taken cognisance of the practices such as Subvention Schemes and had issued guidelines as per which disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project and upfront disbursal should not be made in cases of incomplete or under-construction housing projects. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Pinga-Pinga e HBP? Tome isso 1x ao dia se tem mais de 40 anos Portal Saúde do Homem Clique aqui Undo In a relief to many homebuyers who booked flats under subvention plan and have not got possession of their flats because of inordinate delay by developers, SC had in July last year directed that no coercive action could be taken against them by banks or builders regarding payment of EMI and no complaint shall be entertained against them for cheque bounce cases. Seeking intervention, hundreds of homebuyers had moved the SC against banks and builders.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bundled consent mechanism likely to end as Meity plans stricter rules
DPDP Act may also ask intermediaries to keep detailed meta data records Aashish Aryan New Delhi Listen to This Article The government is likely to direct data fiduciaries, such as social media platforms and internet intermediaries, to obtain separate user consent for optional and mandatory services, doing away with the 'bundled' consent mechanism, according to people in the know. The move, expected as part of the administrative rules under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, would mean that consent management systems must not include options that allow users to agree to all purposes simultaneously. 'The idea here is that both the data principal (users) and data fiduciaries are clear about the limitations. A user must know what they are
Time of India
10 hours ago
- Time of India
Telangana high court to take up bail plea of mining baron Gali Janardhan Reddy today
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court will on Tuesday decide the bail plea of mining baron and Karnataka MLA Gali Janardhan Reddy who was sentenced to seven years along with three others in the illegal Obulapuram mining case recently. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On Monday, Justice K Lakshman heard arguments in the bail petitions of Gali, Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) MD BV Srinivas Reddy and two others, and reserved his orders for Tuesday. Senior counsel S Nagamuthu argued the case of Gali and urged the court to suspend the sentence and release him on bail. While Srinivas Reddy's counsel Pappu Nageswara Rao, citing judgments of the Supreme Court, said that convicts who have served half of their term could be released on bail. In the current case, both Gali and Srinivas Reddy have served more than three and a half years of jail term as remand prisoners prior to their conviction. The lawyers said the case entrusted to CBI was about alleged illegal mining beyond leasehold areas and transgression of state borders, which finds no mention in its charge sheet, while the case against them was about violation of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act – which was not dealt with by the probe agency. They also pointed out that when those named as principal offenders – former mines minister Sabita Indra Reddy and former industries secretary Kripanandam – were acquitted, how can those charged with conspiracy be convicted? Opposing the bail pleas, CBI counsel Srinivas Kapatia said the convicts could not show any compelling circumstance that warrants interference by the court. The judge said he would only look at the bail pleas for now and made it clear that their main appeals will be heard from Aug 11. HC to take up Srilakshmi acquittal issue The judge, during the hearing, directed the registry to list before him the case of former industries secretary Y Srilakshmi (who succeeded Kripanandam). The high court had earlier discharged her from the case, but CBI had appealed in SC which directed the HC to hear the CBI version also before arriving at a conclusion. CBI made out a case that the HC had not heard their version before allowing Srilakshmi's plea. The judge said he would decide the issue before the expiry of a three-month deadline fixed by the apex court and directed the CBI to file its counter.
