Case Note & Summary
The Public Interest Litigation was instituted by Public Concern for Governance Trust, a registered charitable trust, against the State of Maharashtra, the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, a builder, and several co-operative housing societies. The trust, comprising eminent citizens, alleged that CIDCO’s scheme for allotting residential plots at fixed concessional rates—meant exclusively for genuine co-operative housing societies for residential purposes with Floor Space Index (FSI) 1—was being misused. CIDCO, constituted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, had adopted a policy by Board Resolutions No. 8848 and 8886 of 2003 to offer plots at fixed prices, without tender, to meet demand from housing societies that could not compete in public tenders. The fixed price was a base price with a 40% enhancement in developed nodes. The petitioner contended that builders, including Respondent No.4 Vijay Associates (Wadhwa) Developers, floated bogus societies comprising employees and nominees to obtain these plots at concessional rates, thereby avoiding market-determined tender prices. Moreover, the builders allegedly sought to develop such plots for commercial-cum-residential use with FSI 1.5, gaining a dual advantage: low-cost land and higher FSI, while CIDCO suffered revenue loss. The petition cited a prime plot in Nerul, referred to as the ‘Marine Drive of Navi Mumbai’, where the base price was Rs.7188 per sq m, enhanced to Rs.10063, whereas the estimated market rate was Rs.20,000 per sq m. CIDCO’s policy required verification of the genuineness of societies before allotment, but the petitioner asserted that this was not done. The core legal issue was whether such allocations, allegedly to non-genuine societies, were valid under the MRTP Act and the CIDCO (Lease of Land to Co-operative Housing Society) Regulations, 1995. The petitioner sought quashing of the allotments. The text of the judgment provided stops before the court’s analysis and decision; thus, the court’s reasoning and final order are not available for extraction.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of residential plots at fixed rates to builder-controlled co-operative housing societies is valid under the MRTP Act and CIDCO Regulations?
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (11) 4
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 43 OF 2005
H.L. Gokhale, Smt. Roshan Dalvi, JJ.
Mr. C.U. Singh, Ms. Soma Singh, Mr. Mahesh Londe for petitioner; Mr. Ravi Kadam, Mr. P.I. Khemani for Respondent No.1; Mr.G.S. Hegde, Mr. Lokesh for Respondent No.2; Mr. A.A. Garge for Respondent No.3; Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Mr. P.K. Shroff, Mr. Subodh Joshi, Ms. Hetal Savla, Ms. Radhika A. Pinzara for Respondent No.4; Mr. V.A. Thorat, Ms. Preeti Shah for Respondent No.6
Public Concern for Governance Trust
The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department; The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO); Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation; Vijay Associates (Wadhwa) Developers; Sea Queen Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Amey Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Sagarika Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Sea-Link Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Sea View Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.; Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging the allotment of residential plots by CIDCO at fixed rates to builder-floated co-operative housing societies.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the allotments of plots to the respondent societies and similarly placed allottees.
Filing Reason
Allegation that CIDCO's fixed price scheme, meant for genuine housing societies for residential purposes with FSI 1, was being misused by builders who floated fictitious societies to grab plots at concessional rates, thereby depriving CIDCO of market price and genuine societies of the benefit.
Issues
Whether the allotment of residential plots at fixed rates to builder-controlled co-operative housing societies is valid under the MRTP Act and CIDCO Regulations?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that CIDCO's fixed price scheme is meant only for genuine housing societies for residential purpose with FSI 1, but builders are floating fictitious societies to obtain plots at concessional rates.
Petitioner contended that CIDCO has allowed plots to be frittered away to builders, resulting in dual advantage to builders (fixed price and commercial development) and disadvantage to CIDCO and public.
Petitioner asserted that the base price fixed is far below market rate, causing loss to CIDCO.
Petitioner submitted that the policy was to be implemented only after verifying the genuineness of the society, but CIDCO failed to do so.
Judgment Excerpts
The principal submission of the Petitioner trust is that although the relevant scheme of CIDCO is for the benefit of genuine housing societies, the plots thereunder are grabbed by builders in the name of fictitious societies.
the Agenda Note shows that it was proposed to determine a fixed price at which the plots will be given out to Co-operative Housing Societies.
CIDCO passed its resolution No.8848 of 23rd October, 2003 which resolved that CIDCO approved the proposal to fix the rates for plots to be allotted to Co-operative Housing Societies with FSI 1 and purely for residential purposes without inviting tenders at a fixed rate.
fixed rates were therefore meant only for genuine Co-operative Housing Societies applying directly for the plots. It would be only for residential purposes and would have FSI 1.
Procedural History
The PIL was filed in 2005. After hearing, the judgment was reserved on 28th October 2005 and pronounced on 23rd November 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
- City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Lease of Land To Co-operative Housing Society) Regulations, 1995:
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950:
