Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar and Others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2884

SUPREME COURT
, J
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others v. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhar and Others

Table of Content
1. court grants leave and hears both parties. (Para 1)
2. reservation under mrtp act may lapse if not acted upon timely. (Para 2 , 3)
3. open spaces for public parks must be preserved against urbanization. (Para 4 , 7 , 8)
4. lack of timely action by authorities violates public interest. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. authorities must determine compensation and uphold public land reservation. (Para 12 , 13)

1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The facts in short giving rise to the present appeal indicate that way back in the year 1967 the disputed property was reserved for a garden in the development plan, prepared under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short 'the MRTP Act'). The said development plan was revised in the year 1991-1992. The reservation of the disputed property was further continued for the purpose of a garden. On 5.10.1992, the respondent No's 2 to 12 and deceased named Sitaram V. Deorukhkar entered into an agreement for sale dated 5.10.1992, in favour of respondent No. 13. On 18.10.1992, the power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent no. 13 to institute a suit in relation to the proper