IMPORTANT POINT
The Apex Court approved the reasons of High Court and observations made by it in PIL while recording its strong disapproval of bulk sale by CIDCO holding the impugned sales to be vitiated but modified reliefs allowed by High Court with its directions laid down in this judgment.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 136-Public Interest Litigation in High Court challenging procedure adopted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (=CIDCO) a Maharashtra State Govt. Company u/s 617 Companies Act, 1956-For disposal of the land by bulk sale-Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966-Section 113(3A) petitioner and his family had several plots and land from CIDCO on which building activity had been carried on-Whether High Court committed error in entertaining individual grievance as PIL?-Allegations of fraud committed by CIDCO-Whether there was want of pleadings and denial of necessary opportunity of depending themselves in the hearing in writ petition? High Court finding allotment of land as surprising and shocking -Whether reasons of High Court recording its strong disapproval of bulk sale are correct? (Yes) (see para 35).
       Held : It is not disputed that CIDCO is supposed to carry out its activities on no profit no loss basis and that is the basis on which CIDCO, as per its own case, has been acting until it decided to part with the chunk of developable land by bulk sale which proposal was obviously in departure from the policy of serving on no profit no loss basis such people as were craving for a roof over their heads. The High Court while dealing with this aspect of the matter has assigned several convincing reasons why the very concept of sale of bulk land cannot sail with CIDCO, either in law of in propriety. Assuming that an extraordinary situation which there was none - had warranted a policy decision for bulk sale the decision should have been of the Board and accompanied by reasons. In the present case, if only the proposal would have been placed before the Board of CIDCO in all probability it would have been discarded. It is pertinent to note that good number of officials, through whose hands the proposal passed while travelling up, were not agreeable to and had their own reservations on the proposal of such bulk sale. What prevailed with one or two of those placed at the higher rung of bureaucratic ladder in permitting such bulk sale in hot haste defies explanation for the simple reason that in the decisions available on the note sheets of the record looked into by the High Court no reasons have been assigned in favour of endorsing the proposal for bulk land sale. We are not prepared to accept even for a moment that there was no demand of land. Even if the development plan for the developable land was not approved by the State Government there is nothing which had prevented the CIDCO from carving out small middle level and larger plots which those who can afford would have certainly been prepared to take and build small, middle level or spacious houses or bungalows for their own residential requirements. This find support from the overwhelming demand of land which the High Court has noted and which demand the CIDCO had found out of proportion as compared to the availability of land with it. The decision for bulk land sale cannot be said to have been taken in public interest. The High Court has rightly observed in its judgment that some public institutions who were allotted large pieces of land have developed parks and gardens but they are not open for free access by people generally. The local residents and children must have place enough to be used as parks, gardens and for entertainment which not only act as lungs and ventilators for suffocating growth of population but also add luster and beauty to the township. The utility of such pieces of land acting as buffer for maintaining ecological balance and environmental demands needs no emphasis. We entirely agree with the reasons of the High Court and the observations made by it while recording its strong disapproval of bulk sale. (Para 35)
       Held consequently : For all the foregoing reasons we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court holding the impugned sales to be vitiated. (Para 38)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Articles 226 and 136-PIL under Article against CIDCO-High Court holding impugned bulk sale of land to be vitiated-Reliefs granted-Whether needs a re-touching and variation? (Yes)-Guidelines laid down (see paras 41 to 44)-Order accordingly-But SLP (C) 14121/2001(?) dismissed. (Para 46)
       Held : However, so far as the relief allowed by the High Court is concerned it needs a re-touching and some minor variation which we propose to do and set out our reasons hereunder. (Para 40)
       Held consequently : Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in terms of the following directions: -
        1. On principle and in substance, the order of the High Court is maintained. We agree with the High Court that the impugned sales of land in favour of respondent Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 15 are vitiated and hence not binding on CIDCO;
        2. In spite of holding the sale in favour of respondent No. 9 vitiated, in view of subsequent events, the situation having become irreversible on account of construction of vast magnitude having come up and third party interests having been created, we direct that the respondent No. 9 shall remain liable to pay the price of the land allotted to it @ Rs.1500/- per sq. meter - the reserve price, within a time to be appointed by CIDCO.
        3. The sale in favour of Aurangabad Ajanta Bahu Uddeshiya Sewa Sanstha, respondent No. 5, shall stand annulled, as held by the High Court and the land shall revert back to CIDCO.
        4. The land sold to Aurangabad Holiday Resorts, the respondent No.15, shall be inspected, surveyed and demarcated under the supervision of a highly placed and responsible official of CIDCO to be nominated by its Board. Such of the land on which substantial construction has come up rendering the situation irreversible shall be separated alongwith some more area of contiguous land so as to make its user practical. The total area of such land shall be calculated and in that regard the buyer shall pay to CIDCO the price @ Rs. 1500/- per sq. meter subject to adjustment for the amount already paid. Such other land on which no construction has come up or no substantial construction has been made shall be demarcated and revert back to CIDCO.
        5. The difference in price, in terms of the above said direction No. 2 and 4, shall be recovered by CIDCO by securing enforcement of undertakings furnished by these respondents in the High Court and by such other means and methods as may be available.
        6. The CIDCO and all other law enforcing agencies shall see that the land user complies with the requirements of development plan and local laws and no departure therefrom shall be permitted.
        7. Such of the land as shall revert to CIDCO shall in future be utilized strictly in accordance with the development plan sanctioned by State Government and after meeting with the approval of the Board of CIDCO.
        8. Inasmuch as we have upheld the judgment of the High Court except for minor variations in the relief granted by the High Court, it shall be open to CIDCO or to any other party, for the matter of that, to seek directions of the High Court so as to implement the judgment of the High Court as sustained by this Court. The costs of these proceedings throughout shall be borne by the respondents No. 5, 6, 9 and 15 (in the High Court).
        (Para 45)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 19687, 20512, 20666, 20753 of 2000 and 4606 and 21825 of 2001.

2. In these appeals by grant of special leave the judgment of High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1999 is under challenge. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the High Court challenging the procedure adopted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CIDCO) for disposal of the land by bulk sale. CIDCO is a company registered under the Companies Act and is a government company under section 617 of the Companies Act. The Government of Maharashtra incorporated the aforesaid company with several objectives and the main objectives being :

(a) To develop land for residential, commercial and allied industrial activities and to provide the required physical infrastructure, such as roads, drainage, water supply, sewerage, street lights and landscaping etc.

(b) To build as many houses and community centers, shopping centers, parks, play grounds, bus stations, etc. to meet the day to day needs of the population, as well as for a fast take up of new growth areas and also to make available and develop the plots at affordable prices, so as to construct residential dwellings for self occupation.

(c) To promote growth of commercial, wholesale market activities, warehousing, transport, office and other activities in order to evolve expeditiously a sound economic base for self sustained growth and achieve, at the same time, a process of relieving congestion in the cities like Bombay as well as the fast developing cities in other parts of Maharashtra and

(d) While doing so, to maintain ecological balance and ensure that environmental degradation is not allowed.

3. The CIDCO was declared as special planning authority for Aurangabad notified area under sub-section 3 (A) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The state of Maharashtra acquired huge land for CIDCO villages Mukundwadi, Garkheda, Harsul, Hatesingpura, Jaswantsingpura, Bayajipura, Jadhavwadi, Murtizapur, Mastanpur etc. which are all located in the outskirts of Aurangabad Municipal limits.

4. The Government of Maharashtra approved the development plan submitted by CIDCO by its notification dated 3.7.1973. Under the approved plan about 900 Hectares of land was to be utilized for residential purposes, commercial, education community facilities, medical services etc. and a patch of land had been shown in the approved plan meant for future expansion, but the purposes for such use had not been indicated.

5. Between 1975-76 and 1999-2000, CIDCO constructed tenements within notified area popularly known as New Aurangabad and 120 Housing Societies also came into existence. Within these societies 39 societies were allotted land on which the societies themselves have constructed residential tenements. It transpires that 37.74 of land has been used for residential purposes, 4.90 for commercial purposes, 3.27 for educational purposes and 4.60 for industrial purposes. That apart land has also been utilized for providing social services and for utilities as well as for road and pathways and Airport and part of the land has been kept as open and vacant land.

6. CIDCO used to allot plots to citizens and society for construction of residential dwelling units and it was also building multi -storey building consisting of several apartments and used to sell them. CIDCO used to develop commercial and shopping centres. In 1998-99 CIDCO started negotiating with the Municipal Corporation of Aurangabad for taking over land in New Aurangabad area. Proclamations were issued in the newspapers inviting tenders for disposal of bulk land from different Survey Numbers, more particularly from Survey Nos. 23 and 24 of Garkheda Village in Sector "B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 893

IMPORTANT POINTThe Apex Court approved the reasons of High Court and observations made by it in PIL while recording its strong disapproval of bulk sale by CIDCO holding the impugned sales to be vitiated but modified reliefs allowed by High Court with its directions laid down in this judgment.

IMPORTANT POINT
The Apex Court approved the reasons of High Court and observations made by it in PIL while recording its strong disapproval of bulk sale by CIDCO holding the impugned sales to be vitiated but modified reliefs allowed by High Court with its directions laid down in this judgment.