REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2047 OF 2007

MIG CRICKET CLUB

…Appellant

VERSUS

ABHINAV SAHAKAR EDUCATION SOCIETY & ORS. …Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.43 OF 2007

JUDGMENT

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2047 OF 2007:

1.

Respondent No. 3, MIG Cricket Club has

preferred this appeal by special leave, aggrieved

by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay

High Court dated 5^th of September, 2005 passed in

Writ Petition No. 1561 of 1992 whereby it had

allowed the writ petition and quashed the

notification dated 24^th of April, 1992, published

in the Gazette on 7^th of May, 1992 and further

directed the respondents of the writ petition to

restore the reservation of plot for “school and

cultural centre”.

2.

According to the writ petitioner – Respondent

No. 1 Abhinav Sahkar Education Society, a Society

registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “writ

petitioner”) it was allotted a portion of plot of

land admeasuring 7224 sq. yards, bearing Survey No.

341 situated at MIG Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra

(East) in the city of Mumbai. Respondent No. 4,

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

(hereinafter referred to as “MHADA”) and Respondent

No. 5, Bombay Housing and Area Development Board

(hereinafter referred to as “BHADB”) with the

consent of Respondent No. 3, Municipal Corporation

of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the

2

“Corporation”) under a resolution of February, 1965

granted lease for a period of 99 years to the writ

petitioner on a premium equivalent to the price

fixed and payable annually by way of installments.

According to the writ petitioner, however, on

measurement of the plot, the area was found to be

7301.25 sq. yards and when it proposed to construct

a school building thereon, it came to its notice

that the area in question has been reserved for a

playground in the draft development plan. Writ

Petitioner brought this fact to the notice of MHADA

and BHADB by letter dated 8^th of May, 1968 and in

answer thereto the writ petitioner Society was

asked to get the user of the land changed in

accordance with law. Meanwhile, according to the

writ petitioner, the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the

“Act”) had come into force on 20^th of December,

1966.

3

3.

Further case of the writ petitioner is that by

letter dated 15^th of November, 1978 the Secretary to

the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of

Housing and the Chief Executive Officer and Vice-

President of MHADA in a letter addressed to the

Secretary of Urban Development Department requested

for modification of the draft development plan

showing “school purpose” for the user of the said

plot. By letter dated 1^st of January, 1979, the

Senior Town Planner of the Bombay Metropolitan

Regional Development Authority directed the writ

petitioner to furnish certain details and plans.

According to the writ petitioner he duly complied

with the direction. It has been further averred

that by letter dated 12^th of November, 1979

addressed to the Personal Assistant to the Minister

for Education, his intervention was sought for the

necessary change in the user of the land for the

purpose of school. By letter dated 10^th of August,

4

1983, the Under Secretary to the Urban Development

Department of the State Government informed the

writ petitioner that instruction has been issued to

the Corporation for change of the user of the plot

in question for school purposes. In February 1984,

according to the writ petitioner, the Corporation

passed a resolution sanctioning user of the said

plot for the purpose of a school. Ultimately in

exercise of the