A land-ownership dispute has emerged over the survey number included in a building permission for a new structure being constructed by the Seven Eleven organisation in the Golden Nest area of Bhayandar East. Landowner Sohan Kanwar-Chauhan has alleged that the permission issued by the municipal corporation includes the survey number of her property, while BJP MLA Narendra Mehta has rejected the allegations and said the number forms part of an old layout and is mentioned in the approval process as per rules.
The dispute centres on Survey Number 535/2, new 53 hissa, covering approximately 1,290 square metres. Kanwar-Chauhan claims that the land is recorded in the name of Elevation Project LLP in the 7/12 land record. According to her, the inclusion of this survey number in documents connected with the building permission indicates that her property is being used for the project.
The construction is taking place in Golden Nest under the name of the Seven Eleven organisation. The project has received permission from the municipal corporation, but the survey-number reference has prompted the objection from Kanwar-Chauhan. The dispute therefore involves both the ownership record for the land and the manner in which property details were examined during the permission process.
Kanwar-Chauhan said she had submitted complaints to the municipal administration, the revenue department and the state government. She raised the issue at a press conference held on Friday and alleged that she was being harassed through the misuse of political office in relation to her property. She has demanded proper verification of ownership-related details before construction permissions are granted.
Mehta has denied the allegations. His explanation, as reported by Loksatta, is that the disputed survey number belongs to an old layout and that its reference in the construction-permission process was made according to the applicable procedure. The report does not include a municipal order, revenue record or other primary document independently establishing either side’s claim.
The case highlights the administrative importance of matching construction-permission documents with land and revenue records before development begins. A survey number appearing in a permission document does not, by itself, settle ownership; ownership claims and development permissions are separate matters that may require examination by the relevant municipal and revenue authorities.
The immediate question is whether the municipal corporation and revenue department will verify the disputed survey number, the 7/12 record and the older layout documents cited in the explanation. The authorities have been asked to examine the complaints and the ownership-related records connected with the Bhayandar East construction.
