SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 447

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
JYPD Scheme Welfare Trust – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Officer, M.H.A.D. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4571 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Ms. C. K. Sucharita, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Ms. Neha Sangwan, Adv. Ms. Mahima C. Shroff, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Nishant R.Katneshwarkar, Adv. Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Writ petition cannot be decided on a new ground taken in counter affidavit.

Headnote:(a) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982 – Regulation 16 – Already under challenge before High Court when allotment of plot made to appellant under old directives and guidelines – State and MHADA coming out with fresh directives and guidelines – High Court upholding Regulation 16 but with the fresh directives and guidelines which it approved – Held, allotment to appellant ought to conform to the new directives and guidelines. (Para 6)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – MHADA cancelling appellant’s allotment of plot on certain grounds – In counter affidavit before High Court coming up with new grounds – High Court upholding cancellation in light of counter affidavit – Not proper. (Para 7)

       (1978) 1 SCC 405 – Referred

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Appellant challenging cancellation of allotment to it – Cancellation not conforming to new directives and guidelines approved by High court – Meanwhile allotment made to respondent no. 4 since 2004-05 not challenged – No error in High Court upholding cancellation of allotment to appellant. (Para 7, 8)

       

       Facts of the case:

       That the appellant (herein original writ petitioner) claiming to be a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act applied for the plot in question in Mumbai and reserved for playground. The High-Powered Cabinet Sub-Committee of the State of Maharashtra allotted the plot in question to the Appellant-Trust vide order dated 05.10.1999. It appears that in the month of February, 2000 all the allotments of the plots made under Regulation 16 of 1982

       The High Court directed the respondents to decide on the application of the appellant for allotment of plot within 10 weeks. In the meantime the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority granted licence to one Anchor Foundation Trust (Respondent No. 4 herein) for three years for beautification and development of the plot in issue.

       However, thereafter, the High-Powered Cabinet Subcommittee on Allotments, vide order dated 12.06.2003 decided in Principle to allot the plot in issue to the Appellant-Trust subject to certain conditions.

       The Appellant-Trust was required to submit the necessary documents within seven days. The Appellant-Trust submitted all the required documents within time and obtained acknowledgment thereof from the office of the respondent No. 1-Board. However, formal offer of the allotment was not issued to the Appellant-Trust.

       Respondent No. 1-Board cancelled the allotment of the plot in issue on the premise that even after lapse of six months the Appellant-Trust had failed to submit the required documents to prove its eligibility and, therefore, the appellant had committed breach of the terms and conditions of allotment. Respondent No. 1-Board executed the licence in favour of Respondent No. 4 Anchor Foundation Trust on 9/10.09.2004 for a period of three years for beautification and development of the plot in issue.

       The High Court has dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the order dated 24.08.2004 cancelling the allotment to the petitioner Trust.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (lodging) No. 2881 of 2004 dismissing the said Writ Petition preferred by the appellant herein (the original writ petitioner), the original writ petitioner JVPD Scheme Welfare Trust (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trust’) has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal and the case of the appellant herein (the original writ petitioner) in nutshell are as under:

2.1 That the appellant (herein original writ petitioner) claiming to be a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act applied for the plot in question bearing No. C.T.S. No. 27 (part) and admeasuring 5415 square meters situated at Juhu Vile Parle Development Area in Mumbai and reserved for playground. It was the case on behalf of the Appellant-Trust that the objects of the Trust include development of cultural, social and sports activities and in order to carry on its welfare activities, the Trust applied to the State Government for allotment of the plot in question for a playground. In exercise of powers under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Regulations) the High-Powered Cabinet Sub-Committee of the State of Maharashtra allotted the plot in question to the Appellant-Trust vide order dated 05.10.1999. It appears that in the month of February, 2000 all the allotments of the plots made under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulations were stayed.

2.2 The appellant herein approached the High Court of Bombay by way of Writ Petition No. 6777 of 2002. Vide order dated 28.11.2002, the High Court directed the respondents to decide on the application of the appellant for allotment of plot within 10 weeks. In the meantime, before any decision was taken on the application of the appellant for allotment of plot, as directed by the High Court, vide order dated 20.03.2003, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MHADA) granted licence to one Anchor Foundation Trust (Respondent No. 4 herein) for three years for beautification and development of the plot in issue. However, thereafter, the High-Powered Cabinet Subcommittee on Allotments, vide order dated 12.06.2003 decided in Principle to allot the plot in issue to the Appellant-Trust subject to certain conditions. That the said decision was taken by the State Government pursuant to the order passed by the High Court dated 28.11.2002 in W.P No. 6777 of 2002. That, vide letter on behalf of the State Government, MHADA was intimated about the said decision of the Cabinet Subcommittee to allot the plot in issue to the Appellant-Trust subject to certain terms and conditions. That, vide letter dated 16.02.2004, Respondent No. 1-Board (MHADA) informed the appellant Trust that the plot in issue is allotted to the appellant under special powers conferred upon the State Government under Regulation No. 16 of the said 1982 regulations. It was also stated that the allotment is subject to compliance of the terms and conditions set out therein and submitting the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 18.10.2003 of the State Government. That vide letter/communication dated 17.03.2004 the Appellant-Trust was required to submit the necessary documents as demanded by letter dated 16.02.2004 within seven days. It was further stated that otherwise it would recommend cancellation of the allotment. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that immediately thereafter and well within the given time, by letter dated 22.03.2004 the Appellant-Trust submitted all the required documents and obtained acknowledgment thereof from the office of the respondent No. 1-Board. However, formal offer of the allotment was not issued to the Appellant-Trust. That vide communication/order dated 24.08.2004 respondent No. 1-Board c

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top