An aerial view of the Oshiwara plot (the left side portion of the vacant plot) which will be used for building the high rise for the judges. The plot is situated next to the Oshiwara police station. Express photo by Kevin DSouza, Mumbai.
A judge of the Bombay High Court has surrendered her claim to an apartment in the proposed high-rise society of sitting judges in suburban Mumbai, becoming the second judge to do so. Justice Sadhana Jadhav, a High Court judge since 2012, surrendered her claim to an apartment in the proposed building, sources confirmed. While Justice Jadhav remained unavailable for a comment despite several attempts to contact her, a source in the state government said that she had recently written to Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), informing them of her decision to surrender her membership.
On June 14 this year, Justice Shantanu Kemkar had similarly withdrawn from the high-rise society. “I am originally from Indore (Madhya Pradesh). At the time of applying for membership to the society, I had plans of settling down in Mumbai. But after my tenure (in Bombay HC ends), I am now planning to go back to my native place,” Kemkar had told The Indian Express, listing reasons for his withdrawal.
On August 31, 2015, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis sanctioned the housing scheme on a 32,300-sq ft public plot in Oshiwara, following a request made in this regard by the proposed high-rise society of sitting judges.
Since June this year, The Indian Express has published a series of reports highlighting how the government had eased norms while directing the MHADA to implement the exclusive housing scheme for the judges. While construction work for the project is yet to begin, the government has proposed to offer 84 flats, measuring 1,076 square feet, on ownership to the HC judges. While it has so far sanctioned membership of 39 judges, both Jadhav and Kemkar have withdrawn their memberships.
Read | Justice Shantanu Kemkar gives up Mumbai housing society membership
MHADA has also written to the government to cancel the allotment offered to Justice Abhay Thipsay (retd), after it was found that he owned a share in an ancestral property. While Thipsay had disclosed his stake in the ancestral property at the time of his application, MHADA officials say this was “overlooked” while approving the membership.
Official documents show that a condition of allotment, which is normally insisted upon by the MHADA, regarding non-holding of immoveable property excluding 500 square meters under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, was not pressed for in the case of the high-rise society.
Another condition that gives MHADA the right to initiate prosecution if any of the documents required for confirming the eligibility of an allottee is found to be incorrect, false or fabricated, was also not pressed in the case of the judges society, documents show.
