Township plan with L&T Realty logo in Airoli’s disputed land raises controversy

Navi Mumbai: A residential project plan in Airoli with logos of L&T Realty and property consultants Vikramesh Estate LLP (VEL) is doing rounds in social media and has led to a controversy about the ownership of the land measuring 5 acres 85 guntas (20,790 square meters) approximately at Airoli

Navi Mumbai: A residential project plan in Airoli with logos of L&T Realty and property consultants Vikramesh Estate LLP (VEL) is doing rounds in social media and has led to a controversy about the ownership of the land measuring 5 acres 85 guntas (20,790 square meters) approximately at Airoli.

Sun Builders and Developers (SBD) has claimed the ownership rights and possession of the land – which is under litigation involving other parties. It has also stated the land comes under the regional park zone (RPZ) where residential development is not permitted. The developer has sent legal notices to both L&T Realty and VEL along with parties in the ongoing litigation, alleging a breach of court orders. (HT PHOTO)

Sun Builders and Developers (SBD) has claimed the ownership rights and possession of the land – which is under litigation involving other parties. It has also stated the land comes under the regional park zone (RPZ) where residential development is not permitted.

The developer has sent legal notices to both L&T Realty and VEL along with parties in the ongoing litigation, alleging a breach of court orders. It has also posted messages on social media alerting L&T and the general public on the issue and questioning L&T’s role in a disputed property that is reserved for a different purpose.

SBD claims to have purchased the land in 2005 from the Gavate family brothers. A special civil suit filed by Sanjay Ramchandra Shinde, claiming rights, is pending with Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane.

According to Basheer Mohammed Siraj, chairman and managing director of SBD, “I was shocked to recently see on social media, a proposed development plan designed and prepared by an architect for L&T Realty and VEL. It elaborately reflects the dimensions, designs, elevation, floor plans, area of construction and development of the proposed project on the Airoli land that we had bought and is under litigation.”

“What adds to the illegality is that while as per the court orders, no third party interest can be created in the property, it is also an RPZ land and not a residential one,” he added. “Even in the new proposed development plan of the civic body, which is yet to be approved, it has been reserved for an industrial zone and not a fully residential one.”

Siraj wondered how a reputed company like L&T could be interested in such a land. The name of such a reputed company attached to a project that has come into the public domain can mislead the common public.

“I went to meet their officials to clear the issue. However, they did not give me any positive response,” said Siraj. “This is strange especially when the court case is in the public domain, I have issued public notices in publications and there is even a signboard that I have put on the said land claiming ownership and announcing that it is under litigation.”

Since there was no response from L&T, they are alerting the public to not fall for the misleading proposal, Siraj said, adding, “I have also sent legal notices to L&T Realty and Vikramesh Estate LLP apart from other concerned parties for breach of court orders and contempt of court.”

Despite repeated attempts by HT, L&T officials refused to make any comment on the issue.

When contacted, Vikramsinh Patankar, a partner in Vikramesh Estate LLP, confirmed the authenticity of the PPT, but said, “No third-party right has been created as yet. We have only signed a term sheet with L&T Realty which is non-binding. They will do the project only after we clear all the documents.”

He added, “It is a tentative PPT prepared from a conception plan by our architect. The final plan is usually made by L&T after Joint Development Agreement (JDA) execution. There is no influence of L&T in this. We need to prepare it for any developer. It is not as if this is a final plan.”

After the plan came into the public domain, they got instructions from top L&T officials that it cannot be done, said Patankar, adding, “We have even apologized to them. They said we can do this after JDA.”

He, however, disqualified the claims and legal notice by SBD as they do not have any stand on the issue as per the court orders and cannot create any third-party interest.

“We have taken the consent of the original land owner’s family and plaintiff in the civil case. We were also in talks with Siraj but it did not work out,” said Patankar. “At the last court hearing, both the plaintiff and defendants have submitted a letter stating they are ready to settle the matter and they will soon submit a settlement deed in court.”

Accepting that the land reservation has not yet been changed from RPZ to residential, he said, “There is a provision for it. As per the Town Planning Act, we have to go to the urban development department and get it converted. It takes time. Hence this is not a final plan. When we make a final plan after the residential zone is approved, L&T architects will make it.”

On the proposal coming into the public domain even as the court decision is pending and the reservation has not changed, he said, “We are not developers and we are not misrepresenting and taking bookings or money from anyone. Some broker seems to have made this public and misused it. We did not do it.”

Asked how it reached any broker if it was an internal document, he said, “One of our people seems to have moved it into the public domain and unfortunately or fortunately it came to the notice of SBD. We are trying to find out how it got out.”