Case Note & Summary
This Public Interest Litigation, filed on 3 March 2011, challenged the allotment of government land to two cooperative housing societies whose members primarily included judges. The petitioner, a public spirited citizen, sought demolition of the constructed buildings, restoration of the original reservation, and action against officers for illegally changing the reservation. The allotments were made in 2004 and 2007, respectively, and construction had been completed before the filing. The petitioner alleged that the government hastily changed the reservation from 'housing the dishoused' to residential, allotted land at throwaway prices, violated the policy requiring 20% SC/ST/NT members, and acted to favour judges. The court examined the ground of delay first. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that PIL jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and delay is a vital factor. Construction had commenced in 2006 and 2009, respectively, and the petition filed in 2011 offered no explanation beyond a representation to the Chief Minister. The court found the delay fatal. On merits, the State and respondents argued that 'housing the dishoused' under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, only obligates the allottee to hand over 10% of the built-up area as tenements, not the entire plot. The government had followed due process under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, by issuing a direction and inviting objections before changing the reservation. The price was based on the ready reckoner rate, and the policy on SC/ST/NT membership was held to be directory. The court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or favouritism. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed both on the ground of delay and on merits.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability and Delay - Delay Fatal to PIL - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner challenged allotments made in 2004 and 2007 only in 2011, after construction had been completed. The court relied on R & M Trust and BPL Ltd. to hold that delay defeats equity and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked after significant third-party rights have crystalized. Held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay alone. (Paras 2-5) B) Town Planning - Reservation for 'Housing the Dishoused' - Interpretation under Development Control Regulations - Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, Regulation 9 - The reservation 'housing the dishoused' only requires the owner to hand over 10% of permissible built-up area in the form of tenements; the entire plot is not required to be used for the homeless. The government changed the reservation by following the procedure under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. Held that the petitioner's assertion that land meant for the homeless was allotted to judges is false, and the change was lawful. (Paras 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the PIL is maintainable despite inordinate delay; whether the change of reservation and allotment of land to respondents' cooperative housing societies were illegal or arbitrary; whether the allotment violated government policy.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the PIL, holding that the delay was fatal and that on merits no illegality or favouritism was shown in the allotment.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation must be invoked sparingly and not for private ends
- delay is a very important factor while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
- reservation 'housing the dishoused' under DCR requires only 10% built-up area to be handed over
- change of reservation under Section 37 of MRTP Act is valid if procedure followed
- allotment at ready reckoner rate is not arbitrary
- government policy on SC/ST/NT membership is directory
