Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.
Darshan Jayant Builders & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.1776 OF 2014
Decided On : 26-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Ms. Apeksha Sharma i/by Kadam & Co. for Petitioners
Mr. S.S. Joshi, AGP for Respondent nos.1 and 2 State
Ms. P.D. Anklesaria, Senior Advocate, with Mr. V.P. Sawant for Respondent nos.3 and 4
Ms. Surekha Sonawane for Respondent no.5 MCGM
The doctrine of legitimate expectation has limits and cannot override public interest. The cancellation of a Letter of Intent (LOI) by a statutory authority based on a policy decision in the public interest does not violate the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Legitimate Expectation - Property Redevelopment - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - DCR 33(7) - The court discussed the legitimate expectation of the petitioners in the joint redevelopment of the property under DCR 33(7) and the cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The court held that the LOI did not create any right, title, or interest in favor of the petitioners and that the cancellation was based on a policy decision in the public interest. The court also emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has limits and cannot override public interest. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the LOI and refused to continue the ad-interim order restraining MHADA from redeveloping its properties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 4 March 2014, which cancelled the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to the petitioners for the joint redevelopment of a property under DCR 33(7). The petitioners claimed that they had a legitimate expectation based on the LOI and that the impugned order was contrary to law, arbitrary, and violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the LOI did not confer any right, title, or interest in favor of the petitioners and that the cancellation was based on a policy decision by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) in the public interest. The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has limits and cannot override public interest. The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of the LOI and refused to continue the ad-interim order restraining MHADA from redeveloping its properties.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners had a legitimate expectation based on the LOI for the joint redevelopment of the property and whether the cancellation of the LOI by MHADA was arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the LOI did not confer any right, title, or interest in favor of the petitioners and that the cancellation was based on a policy decision by MHADA in the public interest. The court emphasized that the doctrine of legitimate expectation has limits and cannot override public interest. The court also refused to continue the ad-interim order restraining MHADA from redeveloping its properties.
Final Decision: The writ petition challenging the cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) was dismissed, and the court refused to continue the ad-interim order restraining MHADA from redeveloping its properties.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Rule. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. By consent, the Rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the impugned order dated 4 March 2014 (Exhibit-I to the petition) and quash and set aside the same.
3. The facts necessary to appreciate the rival contentions are that the Petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and Petitioner no.2 is a partner of Petitioner no.1. The Respondent nos.1 and 2 are the State Government and the Secretary in the Department of Housing and Special Assistance. The Respondent no.3 is a statutory authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 and Respondent no.4 is the Chief Officer of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a unit of Respondent no.3. The Respondent no.5 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM') constituted under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
4. The subject matter of this petition is a land which is part of City Survey Nos.251, 252 and 253 of Tardeo Division and the buildings standing thereon situate at Dr. Dadasaheb Bhadkamkar Marg, Mumbai.
5. On these city survey numbers, there are three buildings known as Calcuttawala Estate, Jariwala Chawl and Dwarkadas Building. The total number of occupants of these buildings and divided into residential/commercial/nonresidential, are set out in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.4 of the petition.
6. Annexures-A and B are the plan and letter of Respondent no.3 declaring the structures/buildings on the said property as dangerous.
7. It is the case of the Petitioners that 164 families are, therefore, to be taken care of and who are the occupants of these buildings. A reference is made to Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, as modified (`DCR'), and it is submitted that the occupants approached the Petitioners and requested them to undertake the redevelopment/ reconstruction of the buildings in question. That is how, the Petitioner no.1 submitted a proposal for joint redevelopment of the said property. It is stated that there is an agreement appointing the Petitioner no.1 as a developer. A reference is made to DCR 33(7) and the benefits that would flow from the same and it is then submitted that convinced by the proposal so submitted, the Respondent no.3 issued a Letter of Intent (`LOI') dated 29 October 2010, which is at Annexure-D to the paper book. Since heavy reliance is placed by both sides on this LOI, copy whereof is at pages 38 to 40 of the paper book, we deem it appropriate to reproduce it verbatim :
"MUMBAI BUILDING AND REPAIRS AND RECONSTRUCTION BOARD
(A MHADA UNIT)
No.R/J.V.-LOI-33(7)/4374/MBRRB-10
Date : 29 October 2010
To,
M/s.Darshan Jayant Builders,
109, Sankeshwar Darshan,
Sheth Motisha Lane,
Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010
Subject : Joint Redevelopment of property bearing C.S.No.251(pt), 252(pt) and 253(pt) of Girgaon Divn, Building No.71-71A Culcuttawala Chawl, 7981 Jariwala Chawl and 91 Dwarkadas Chawl, situated at Dr.Bhadkamkarr Marg, Mumbai-400 008 under DCR 33(7).
Reference : 1) Government of Maharashtra/Urban Development Department Notice No.TPB 4309/968/CR127/ 09/UD-11, dated 19.05.2009.
2) Your application dated 09.12.2009.
3) Executive Engineer "D2" Divn/MBRRB's letter No.EE/D-2/ 1032/2010, dated 26.03.2010.
4) Dy. Chief Engineer (Zone-II)/MBRRB's office note No.1011 dated 30.03.2010.
5) Your application dated 17.08.2010.
The Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department vide above referred Notice has published the proposed modification to Regulation No.33(7) for Reconstruction or Redevelopment of cessed buildings in the Island City of Mumbai acquired und
