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

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S. Patil, Y.G. Khobragade, JJ.
Jay Bhawani Sawamrojgar Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shramsaphalya Through its Chairman/Secretary - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12293 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhijit C. Darandale.
For the respondent: Mr. A.R. Kale, Mr. A.B. Kadethankar.

The State Government's power to prescribe reservations is limited to the provisions of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations.

Headnote:

Reservation - Co-operative Society - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, Rules 5 and 13, Regulations 21-A and 21-B - The court discussed the Government resolution dated 17 August 2002, the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations, and concluded that the State Government's power to issue directions does not extend to prescribing reservations beyond the purview of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of the State Government to prescribe reservation de hors the provisions of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations has no sanctity in law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a co-operative society of educated unemployed persons, sought reservation in commercial complexes being constructed by the respondents pursuant to a Government resolution. The petitioner relied on the Government resolution and relevant provisions of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations to support its claim.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the State Government's power to prescribe reservations does not extend beyond the purview of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of the State Government to prescribe reservation de hors the provisions of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations has no sanctity in law.

Issues: The key issue was whether the State Government had the power to prescribe reservations in commercial complexes beyond the purview of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government's power to issue directions does not extend to prescribing reservations beyond the purview of the Rules and Regulations. The decision of the State Government to prescribe reservation de hors the provisions of the MHADA Act, Rules, and Regulations has no sanctity in law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

JUDGMENT :

(Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Learned AGP waives service for respondent no. 1. Mr. Kadethankar waives service for respondents nos. 2 to 7. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is a co-operative society of educated unemployed persons duly registered as such under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is claiming reservation in the commercial complexes being constructed by the respondents nos. 2 to 7 pursuant to the Government resolution dated 17 August 2002.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Darandale adverts our attention to the Government resolution dated 17 August 2002 and particularly clause no. 5 to submit that the Government has decided to reserve 10% of the commercial premises being constructed by the local bodies and the Government undertaking and further stipulating that the societies shall not be required to purchase the shops but to allot them the shops on concessional rent. He would submit that this policy is in tune with the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter ‘the MHADA Act’), Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’) as well as the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Estate Managements, Sale, Transfer and Exchange of Tenements) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter ‘the Regulations’). He would advert our attention to rule 5 as also rule 13 of the Rules.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Kadethankar who appears for the respondents nos. 2 to 7 referring to the affidavit in reply submits that the petitioner’s reliance on the Government resolution is mis-placed. It does not supercede the Rules and the Regulations. Going by rules 5 and 13 of the Rules and regulation 21-A and 21-B of the Regulations, no such reservation can be claimed in respect of commercial tenements.

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers.

7. Rules 5 and 13 of the Rules read as under:-

    “5. Disposal of land by lease.

(1) Subject to the provisions of rule 5A and except for the purpose of raising loans, the vacant lands shall ordinarily be disposed of by a grant of lease.

(2) Subject to the directions given by the Authority from time to time, the Chief Officer, may dispose of any vacant land or plot reserved for residential use in the approved schemes, by a lease to be granted in consideration of premium or rent or both for a term not exceeding 90 years and in the manner prescribed in the regulations to be made by the Authority for the purpose.

(3) The premium and lease rent to be charged shall be worked out in a manner to be laid down by the Authority in its regulations or by charging lease rent on the market value at a rate to be decided by the Authority.

13. Reservation of tenements

In respect of every group of tenements, or plots of vacant land in a layout to be disposed of for residential use, the Authority shall reserve, for the following categories of persons, tenement/plots in the percentages shows against them:-

Category

Percentage

(1) Scheduled Castes including Neo-Buddhist

.. 11%

(1-a) Scheduled Tribes

.. 6%

(1-b) Nomadic Tribes

.. 1-1/2%

(1-c) Denotified Tribes

.. 1-1/2%

(2) Journalists

.. 2.5%

(3) Freedom Fighters

.. 2.5%

(4) Blind or physically handicapped persons or person in absolute need of accommodation of health ground.

.. 2%

(5) Families of Defence personnel and personnel of Border Security force, who have been killed, disabled or declared missing in 1962 Sino-Indian Conflict, or in 1965 or 1971 Indo-Pak Conflict, in any combat thereafter.

.. 2%

(6) Ex-Servicemen and their Dependents

.. 5%

(7) All sitting and ex-members of Parliament Assembly or Council, representing const

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