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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Indian Institute of Architects – Appellant
Versus
The City & Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2019
Decided on : 01-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni
For the Respondent:Mr. Nitin V. Gangal with Mr. Ashok D. Kadam with Ms. Prerna Shukla, Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal and Mr.Shamim Shaikh, Mr. B. V. Samant, Mr. A. A. Alaspukar, Mr. Tejesh Dande with Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, Ms. Nilima Sanglikar,

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 37 and 118 - Maharashtra Sports Policy 2001 - Allocation of land for sports complex - Land earmarked for Government Sports Complex at Ghansoli cannot be shifted to Nanore, Raigad, without justifiable reasons. The Court emphasized that the land is needed for public interest to develop sports facilities close to urban populations and that decisions taken without public consultation and logic cannot be justified. (Paras 58, 76, 84, 108)

(B) Decision-making in public interest - Authorities are mandated to prioritize the establishment of sports infrastructure in urban areas over commercial exploitation of reserved land. The decision to relocate a sports facility from a prominent urban area to a rural site was found arbitrary and unconstitutional, disregarding the essential need for such facilities for the youth and communities nearby. (Paras 90, 116)

Facts of the case:
The Indian Institute of Architects challenged the actions of the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) regarding land designated for a Government Sports Complex, alleging illegal allotments for residential and commercial purposes, conflicting with prior reservations established under government resolutions dating back to 2003.

Findings of Court:
The State Government's decision to relocate the sports complex from Ghansoli to a remote area was found to be arbitrary, without foundational justification, and contrary to the public interest. The Court ruled the previous earmarking and reservations for sports purposes must be honored.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of property repositioning and the responsibilities of authorities in managing public resources and land intended for community facilities.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that public interest must take precedence over commercial interests, reinforcing that sports facilities are crucial for the community, especially in densely populated urban areas. The CIDCO’s decision to ignore these principles by reallocating land for private development was unconstitutional.

Result: The petition was allowed, CIDCO is directed to revert to the original earmarking for sports usage.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Table of Contents

A

Prelude

B

Facts

C

Pleadings: Reply & Rejoinder Affidavits

D

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

E

Submission on behalf of Respondent No.8

F

Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.5

G

Submissions on behalf of NMMC

H

Submissions on behalf of CIDCO

I

Submissions on behalf of State Government

J

Reasons and Conclusions

K

Relevant decisions of the Supreme Court Materials and judgments on sports

(A) Prelude

1. As to whether vacant land earmarked from the year 2003 for a ‘Government Sports Complex’ at Navi Mumbai, should be sacrificed for concretization and commercial exploitation, is the issue raised in the present Public Interest Litigation.

2. The Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai Center, is before the Court in this public interest litigation, inter alia assailing the actions of respondent No.1 – City Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (for short ‘CIDCO’) and of the State of Maharashtra through its Sports Department and the Urban Development Department.

3. The subject matter of controversy is land admeasuring about 20 acres situated at Sector 12 and 13 (“land”) at Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai, which has been earmarked since 2003 by the CIDCO to be utilized for setting up a Government Sports Complex, of an international standard as per the sports policy/decision of the Government of Maharashtra under the Government Resolution dated 26 March 2003. CIDCO was constituted as a New Town Development Authority for New Bombay (now the Navi Mumbai) region by the State Government in the year 1971.

It is contended by the petitioner that with appropriate foresight and in recognition to the importance “sports” in the contemporary times would internationally wield, about 61 acres of land in sector 12 and 13 was earmarked for a contiguous sports complex, namely, for a “Government Sports Complex” on land admeasuring 20 acres and a Sports Complex to be set up by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short “NMMC”) on the remaining 41 acres of land.

4. The case of the petitioner is that a dent was caused to such demarcation when the same was sought to be taken away when CIDCO floated a tender in August 2016 inviting bids to allot a part of the land demarcated as plot Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for residential purpose and plot no. 5 for residential and commercial use. In such tender, none other than respondent No. 5’s participation was accepted, who came to be allotted plot no. 4 which was part of the land proposed to be developed as a Government Sports Complex.

5. The case of the petitioner is also that after filing of the petition, there were subsequent developments, to the effect that the Government which had intended to develop the said land at Ghansoli for Government Sports Complex, has now ostensibly proposed to set up such complex at a far off place in a rural area namely at Village Nanore, Taluka Mangaon, District Raigad, which is more than 115 kilometers away from the existing site at Ghansoli (Navi Mumbai). The petitioner contends that such place lacks the basic necessary infrastructure much less internationally accepted for a sports complex. It is hence contended by the petitioner that it is unthinkable that such decision could be taken by the State Government. This decision of the State Government, which is of a recent origin, is also challenged by the petitioner. As on date, out of 41 acres of land earmarked for NMMC, 36 acres of land has been handed over to the NMMC by CIDCO to develop its sports complex. However, the land earmarked for the contiguous government sports complex as proposed in the year 2003 is being illegally taken away to be shifted to far off place in the rural area, is the case of the petitioner. On such backdrop, respondent No.5 who has been allotted a part of the land earmarked for the government sports complex is asserting to develop the land as

      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