Case Law
Subject : Legal News - Property Law
Mumbai:
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the allotment of '
The court also held that upon inclusion of an area into municipal limits, the land use prescribed in the Development Plan prepared under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) prevails over the previous classification, including
The petition challenged an order dated June 18, 2018, by the District Collector, Pune, allotting a 1H 46R piece of land in Gut No. 96, Mauje Ravet, Pune, to the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 4) for a PMAY affordable housing project. Consequential actions, including a Tahasildar's order dated July 13, 2018, directing possession handover and revenue entry alterations, were also challenged. The land in question was recorded in revenue records as
The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Shri Anil
Opposing the petition, the State, represented by learned Additional Government Pleader Shri
They emphasized that the land was reserved for EWS housing in the sanctioned Development Plan. Shri
Crucially, both respondents relied on Section 40 of the MLRC, which states, "Nothing contained in any provision of this Code shall derogate from the right of the State Government to dispose of any land... on such terms and conditions as it deems fit." They argued this provision grants the State absolute power to dispose of government land, effectively overriding Section 22A. They also cited judgments of the court (Madhukar Sampatrao Patil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Municipal Corporation of City of Thane Vs. Mukesh Ramful Gupta) to support the principle that the Development Plan overrides prior land use. Regarding the abdication of discretion, they argued the State's letter merely asked the Collector to take an "appropriate decision at his level."
The High Court found merit in the respondents' arguments. The bench held that Section 40 of the MLRC grants the State Government an "almost absolute right" to dispose of government land, irrespective of other provisions in the Code, including Section 22A. The court stated:
"The language in which Section 40 is couched leaves no room of doubt that the right of the State Government to dispose of any of its land or property is irrespective of any provision of MLRC, 1966 for the reason of opening phrase occurring in Section 40 is 'nothing contained in any provision of this Code'. Thus, we are of the opinion that by operation of Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966, the State Government is vested with right to dispose of any land of the Government... irrespective of any other provision available in MRLC, 1966 including Section 22A."
The court further agreed that upon the land's inclusion within the municipal area, the Development Plan prepared under the MRTP Act became applicable and prevails over the prior
"...the user of the land as per the prescription of the Development Plan prepared under Section 34/35 of the MRTP Act, 1966 in respect of the additional area will prevail over the land use of the land in the additional area which was in existence prior to inclusion of the additional area within the municipal limits..."
The court also found that the allotment was made for a "larger public interest and public purpose" under the PMAY scheme, which provides affordable housing to EWS.
Finally, the court rejected the argument that the Collector abdicated discretion, finding that the State's letter merely asked the Collector to make an "appropriate decision at his level" rather than issuing a binding directive.
In conclusion, the court found no illegality in the Collector's order of allotment or the consequential actions. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The court also refused to extend the interim order previously granted to the petitioners.
#LandLaw #UrbanPlanning #AffordableHousing #BombayHighCourt
Madras HC Directs Municipality to Auction Amusement Rides Licenses on Vaigai Riverbed for Chithirai Festival: Madurai Bench
17 Apr 2026
TCS Nashik Accused Seek Bail in Harassment Probe
17 Apr 2026
Insurer Liable for Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle, Can Recover from Owner: Kerala High Court
17 Apr 2026
MP High Court Issues Notice in PIL Alleging Disrespect to National Song 'Vande Mataram' by Indore Councillors: Article 51A(a)
17 Apr 2026
Bombay HC Grants NSE Ad-Interim Relief Against Fake Social Media Accounts Infringing 'NSE' Trademark: Platforms Must Takedown in 36 Hours
18 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Tags Challenges to UP Gangsters Act with Similar Organised Crime Laws from Gujarat, Maharashtra: Refers to 3-Judge Bench
18 Apr 2026
Loan Repayments for Assets Can't Reduce Maintenance Under Section 144 BNSS: Supreme Court
18 Apr 2026
Fernandez Seeks to Turn Approver in ₹200 Cr PMLA Case
18 Apr 2026
Prosecution Can't Gatekeep Witnesses: Rajasthan HC Directs Summoning of Doctor Under Section 311 CrPC for Just Decision
18 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.