Twitter
Advertisement

HC prevents garden plots in Juhu from being used for residential purposes

The lease agreement took advantage of a JVPD area plan error made in 1999

Latest News
article-main
Bombay High Court
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday restrained Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority (MHADA) from entering into a lease agreement with a private trust and two proposed societies for plots of land, reserved as gardens, in the development control plan of 1967, in Juhu.

A division bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Riyaz Chagla imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh each on Anjuman Trust, Juhu Raj Cooperative Housing Society, and Juhu Lifestyle Society; and Rs 2 lakh on MHADA. The bench said, "As it is the cities have very few open spaces, which are the city's lungs. We have no hesitation to hold that an attempt to destroy open spaces meant for gardens with an ulterior motive would be violative of the doctrine of public trust."

The court quashed the order passed by SS Zende, then CEO and vice president of MHADA, in March 2017, for executing a lease deed by which two plots, measuring 2,000 sq mtrs and 1,687 sq yards, in Juhu were to be handed over to Anjuman Trust and other societies to construct residential complexes.

As per the petitioners, Save Open Spaces and Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare group, in a plan of JVPD area submitted by MHADA in the year 1999, the two plots were erroneously not shown as compulsory open spaces. However, later MHADA sent a letter to BMC to rectify the error.

Still, Zende passed an order to execute the lease deed, to which the bench said, "It appears that, taking advantage of the same, land grabbers started making attempts to grab these two pieces of land, which by passage of time had become gold mines."

The court refused to stay its order and on the petitioners' request, directed the respondents to pay the amount to State Legal Aid fund as donations within two weeks.

...& ANALYSIS

The court came down heavily on Zende, saying, "It appears that respondent number two has completely lost sight of the doctrine of public trust. As an officer of MHADA, he was expected to act in a manner which would have protected the rights of MHADA or public at large, rather than showing the magnanimity of handing over such a precious piece of land to Anjuman Trust or its trustees without the state or MHADA getting a single rupee benefit."

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement