Dismissed

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. v. the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Feb 2012PIL/91/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a PIL challenging the allotment of a recreation plot by MHADA to Legend Recreation Club. The court found no illegality as the agreement ensured local residents could access the plot for specific morning and evening hours. The petition was summarily dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition summarily dismissed.

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

PIL-91/10

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 91 OF 2010

¶7

Adarsha Nagar Nagrik Seva Samiti and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus The Chief Officer, Mumbai Hsg. and Area Dev. Board and Others. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr.Uday Warunjikar with Mr.Nilesh Bhutekar for the petitioners. Mr. P.G.Lad, AGP for R-1 to 4. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for R-5.

¶9

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 10, 2012 .

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Leave to add a prayer clause is granted. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

¶12

What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the allotment letter dated 21^st January 2003 issued by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board [for short “MHADA”] in favour of

¶13

-: 2 :-

¶14

PIL-91/10

¶15

respondent no.5 – Legend Recreation Club and also agreement dated 11^th August 2009 between respondent no.5 and MHADA. The petitioner – society has also prayed for a direction to consider petitioner’s representation for allotment of plot for recreation ground to the petitioner.

¶16

Affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Assistant Land Manager of MHADA pointing out that there is open space adjacent to the petitioner’s society – housing complex, being Plot No.8, village Oshiwara admeasuring 4425 sq. meters. The said plot belongs to the MHADA and is reserved for the purposes of recreation garden. It is further pointed that Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulation 1982 empowers the State Government to allot the plots reserved for amenities or for purely commercial purpose in any lay out prepared by the Authority. The Government of Maharashtra accordingly accorded its sanction on 20^th March 2002 for allotting the said plot to respondent no.5 for use as recreation garden on certain terms. On the basis of the said permission, MHADA issued allotment letter dated 21^st January 2003 in favour of respondent no.5 and subsequently executed lease deed dated

¶17

-: 3 :-

¶18

PIL-91/10

¶19

11^th August 2009 for the period of 30 years on specific condition to allow local residents to use the said plot for particular hours in the morning and evening. Copy of the lease deed is annexed as Exhibit-III to the affidavit filed on behalf of the MHADA.

¶20

Learned counsel for MHADA and learned counsel for respondent no.5 further state that while respondent no.5 has paid MHADA Rs.45,02,225/- for the lease hold rights for the period of 30 years and respondent no.5 is also developing the plot for recreation purposes, respondent no.5 has also paid Rs. 1 crore to the MHADA towards the land premium for utilising permissible FSI on the land in question. Learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that if such agreement is not entered into, there are always possibilities of encroachment on MHADA lands, the open lands are not at all maintained and the people in the area are not able to use the plot for recreation purposes. it is submitted that having regard to the fact that the general public will have access to the plot in question for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening, it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner society are denied access to the land in question for

¶21

-: 4 :-

¶22

PIL-91/10

¶23

recreational purposes.

¶24

When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner – society is ready to pay Rs. 45,02,225/- for getting leasehold rights, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his clients have not responded to the said query, but the petitioners would request that the timings may be extended so that members of the petitioner – society can have access to the recreation ground for longer time.

¶25

In response to the above suggestion, learned counsel for respondent no.5 fairly states that respondent no.5 will allow the general public to utilise the plot in question for recreation purposes for three hours in the morning and two hours in the evening.

¶26

In view of the above stand of MHADA and respondent no.5, we do not find any illegality in the impugned allotment order or lease agreement executed by the MHADA in favour of respondent no.5.

¶27

-: 5 :-

¶28

PIL-91/10

¶29

Subject to recording of the statements made on behalf of respondent no.5, the petition is summarily dismissed.

¶30

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶31

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. v. the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. v. the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shail Rane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Nivrutti Dagdu Sonwane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Peasants and Workers Party of India and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Kailash S/O Devideen Japsare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Jitendra Narendra Shende Vs Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati

Aparajit S/O Anandrao Ninawe Vs Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, Chief Election Commissioner, and Anr.

Katare Spining Mills Ltd. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shail Rane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Shree Siyaram Fab Pvt. Ltd. Vs Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Stri Shakti Kendra and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. and Vira Travels and Logistics Pvt. Ltd., - Applicants

National Textile Corporation Ltd. ( Western Region). Vs Ramchandra Ballaya Samal.