IMPORTANT POINT
Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversarial litigation, but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful.

Headnote:Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- Writ petitions in public interest filed by, a journalist and, a Municipal Corporator of Pune- The petitions pointed out that a particular plot of land admeasuring about 3450 sq. meters, situated on Prabhat Road in the Erandwana area of the city, was initially reserved for a public purpose namely, a garden/playground, and subsequently for a primary school- They further pointed out that a number of years after Pune Municipal Corporation took all necessary steps to acquire this particular plot of land, landowner appointed M/s Vyas Constructions, a proprietary concern of one G as the developer of the property- G was the son-in-law of Shri Manohar Joshi , Chief Minister of Maharashtra-. The petitioners contended that only because of the instructions from the Urban Development Department which was under Shri Manohar Joshi, that in spite of the reservation for a primary school, the plot was permitted to be developed for private residences flouting all norms and mandatory legal provisions- They sought to challenge the building permission which was issued by the PMC under the instructions of State Government, by submitting that these instructions amounted to interference into the lawful exercise of the powers of the Municipal Corporation, and the same was mala fide-Said petitions were allowed, and an order was passed to cancel the Commencement (of construction) certificates, and Occupation Certificate, and to pull down the concerned building which had been constructed in the meanwhile- State Government was directed to initiate criminal investigation against Shri Manohar Joshi, the then Minister of State for UDD, and the then Pune Municipal Commissioner –Appeals thereagainst-Held that direction given by Government of Maharashtra for deletion of reservation on Final Plot No. 110, at Prabhat Road, Pune, and consequent Commencement and Occupation certificates issued by (PMC) in favour of developer were in complete subversion of statutory requirements of the MRTP Act- The development permission was wholly illegal and unjustified-Direction of High Court in the impugned judgment for demolition of concerned building was fully legal and justified-Contention of landowner that his right of development for residential purposes on concerned plot under the erstwhile Town Planning scheme subsisted in spite of coming into force of Development Plan reserving the plot for a primary school, held liable to be rejected- The acquisition of concerned plot of land was complete with declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act and the same was valid and legal-The strictures passed by High Court against the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Shri Manohar Joshi and the then Minister of State Shri Ravindra Mane held liable to be maintained- The prayer to expunge these remarks was rejected- The order directing criminal investigation and thereafter further action as warranted in law, however deleted in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India –Appeals disposed off (Para 162)
        Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966- Section 50-Writ petitions in public interest filed by, a journalist and, a Municipal Corporator of Pune- The petitions pointed out that a particular plot of land admeasuring about 3450 sq. meters, situated on Prabhat Road in the Erandwana area of the city, was initially reserved for a public purpose namely, a garden/playground, and subsequently for a primary school- They further pointed out that a number of years after Pune Municipal Corporation took all necessary steps to acquire this particular plot of land, landowner appointed M/s Vyas Constructions, a proprietary concern of one G as the developer of the property- G was the son-in-law of Shri Manohar Joshi , Chief Minister of Maharashtra-. The petitioners contended that only because of the instructions from the Urban Development Department which was under Shri Manohar Joshi, that in spite of the reservation for a primary school, the plot was permitted to be developed for private residences flouting all norms and mandatory legal provisions- Said petitions were allowed-Appeals thereagainst-Held Present case was not one where permission was sought for the construction under erstwhile T.P. scheme, or under Section 50 of the MRTP Act-This is a case where the personal relationship of the developer with the Chief Minister was apparently used to obtain permission for construction without following any due process of law- This was a case of rules and procedures being circumvented to benefit a close relative of the Chief Minister- It was a clear case of mala fide exercise of the powers -Hence High Court was perfectly justified in canceling the development permission which was granted by State Government- The development permission could not be defended either under Rule 6.6.2.2 or under Section 50- The MRTP Act requires a valid development permission under chapter IV of the act, and in the instant case there was none- Consequently, the construction put up on the basis of such permission had to be held to be illegal- In the circumstances, judgment of the Division Bench held fully justified in law and in the facts of the case (Para 105)
       Facts of the Case :
        Writ petitions in public interest were filed herein in the instant case by, a journalist and, a Municipal Corporator of Pune. The petitions pointed out that a particular plot of land admeasuring about 3450 sq. meters, situated on Prabhat Road in the Erandwana area of the city, was initially reserved for a public purpose namely, a garden/playground, and subsequently for a primary school. They further pointed out that a number of years after Pune Municipal Corporation took all necessary steps to acquire this particular plot of land, landowner appointed M/s Vyas Constructions, a proprietary concern of one G as the developer of the property. G was the son-in-law of Shri Manohar Joshi , Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The petitioners contended that only because of the instructions from the Urban Development Department which was under Shri Manohar Joshi, that in spite of the reservation for a primary school, the plot was permitted to be developed for private residences flouting all norms and mandatory legal provisions. They sought to challenge the building permission which was issued by the PMC under the instructions of State Government, by submitting that these instructions amounted to interference into the lawful exercise of the powers of the Municipal Corporation, and the same was mala fide.
        B. Said petitions were allowed, and an order was passed to cancel the Commencement (of construction) certificates, and Occupation Certificate, and to pull down the concerned building which had been constructed in the meanwhile. State Government was directed to initiate criminal investigation against Shri Manohar Joshi, the then Minister of State for UDD, and the then Pune Municipal Commissioner.
        C. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. Held that direction given by Government of Maharashtra for deletion of reservation on Final Plot No. 110, at Prabhat Road, Pune, and consequent Commencement and Occupation certificates issued by (PMC) in favour of developer were in complete subversion of statutory requirements of the MRTP Act. The development permission was held wholly illegal and unjustified.
        B. Direction of High Court in the impugned judgment for demolition of concerned building was fully legal and justified. Contention of landowner that his right of development for residential purposes on concerned plot under the erstwhile Town Planning scheme subsisted in spite of coming into force of Development Plan reserving the plot for a primary school, held liable to be rejected. The acquisition of concerned plot of land was complete with declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act and the same was valid and legal.
        C. The strictures passed by High Court against the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Shri Manohar Joshi and the then Minister of State Shri Ravindra Mane were held liable to be maintained. The prayer to expunge these remarks was rejected. The order directing criminal investigation and thereafter further action as warranted in law, however deleted in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India .Appeals were disposed of.

JUDGEMENT

H.L. Gokhale J.

What is the nature and significance of the planning process for a large Municipal town area? In that process, what is the role of the Municipal Corporation, which is the statutory planning authority? Can the State Government interfere in its decisions in that behalf and if so, to what extent? Does the State Government have the power to issue instructions to the Municipal Corporation to act in a particular manner contrary to the Development Plan sanctioned by the State Government, and that too a number of years after the Municipal Corporation having taken the necessary steps in consonance with the plan? Can the State Government instruct a Municipal Corporation to shift the reservation for a public amenity such as a primary school on a plot of land, and also instruct it to grant a development permission for residential purposes thereon without modifying the Development Plan? Could it still be considered as an action following the due process of law merely because a provision of Development Control Rules is relied upon, whether it is applicable or not? Or where the Municipal Corporation is required to take such contrary steps, supposedly on the instructions of the concerned Minister / Chief Minister, for the development of a property for the benefit of his relative, would such instructions amount to interference/mala fide exercise of power? Is it permissible for the landowner and developer to defend the decision of the Government in their favour on the basis of a provision in the erstwhile Town Planning Scheme as against the purpose for which the land is reserved under the presently prevalent Development Plan? Is it permissible for the landowner and developer to explain and justify such a favourable Government decision by relying upon the authority of the Government under another section of the statute which is not even invoked by the Government? What inference is expected to be drawn in such a situation with respect to the role played by the ministers or the municipal officers? What orders are expected to be passed when such facts are brought to the notice of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation? These are some of the issues which arise in this group of Civil Appeals in the context of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short MRTP Act) concerning a property situated in Pune Municipal area.

2. These appeals arise out of two writ petitions in public interest leading to concurrent judgments and a common order dated 6th - 15th March 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. These writ petitions bearing nos.4433 and 4434 of 1998 were filed respectively by one Vijay Krishna Kumbhar, a journalist and one Nitin Duttatraya Jagtap, a Municipal Corporator of Pune. The petitions pointed out that a particular plot of land bearing Final Plot No.110 (F.P. No. 110 for short), and admeasuring about 3450 sq. meters, situated on Prabhat Road in the Erandwana area of the city, was initially reserved for a public purpose namely, a garden/playground, and subsequently for a primary school. They further pointed out that a number of years after the Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as PMC) took all the necessary steps to acquire this particular plot of land, the landowner one Dr. Laxmikant Madhav Murudkar appointed M/s Vyas Constructions, a proprietary concern of one Shri Girish Vyas (the appellant in Civil Appeal No.198-199 of 2000) as the developer of the property. Shri Girish Vyas is the son-in-law of Shri Manohar Joshi who was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra from 14.03.1995 till January 1999. The petitioners contended that only because of the instructions from the Urban Development Department (UDD for short) which was under Shri Manohar Joshi, that in spite of the reservation for a primary school, the plot was permitted to be developed for private residences flouting all norms and mandatory legal provisions. They sought to challenge the b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 988

IMPORTANT POINT Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversarial litigation, but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful.

Cases Referred (29)

IMPORTANT POINT
Public Interest Litigation is not in the nature of adversarial litigation, but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic human rights meaningful.