Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, residents of Pune, filed a public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 6.2.1991 (a compromise order) and the order dated 24.4.1991 passed by the Minister for Urban Development, Government of Maharashtra, as well as subsequent orders from 20.12.1994 and 15.6.1995. The dispute concerned land in Final Plots 477 and 477A under the Pune Municipal Corporation area, which were reserved for Pune Telephones in the sanctioned Development Plan. Plot 477 was owned by the Patwardhan family and purchased by Ramyanagari Co-operative Housing Society in 1981. Plot 477A admeasuring about 12,000 sq. meters was owned by respondents 12-14, who had filed declarations under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Their exemption application under Section 20 was rejected in 1979, and permission under Section 21 was denied in 1983 because the land was reserved. On 12.8.1988, the competent authority passed an order under Section 10(1) declaring 10,000 sq. meters surplus. Meanwhile, the State Government had initiated acquisition for Pune Telephones in 1982 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was challenged in a civil suit. The Government initially agreed to delete the reservation in 1984 but withdrew the offer in 1986 due to lack of alternative site. The development plan confirmed the reservation. A writ petition (No. 2066 of 1987) was filed in the High Court challenging the withdrawal and the plan; the court disposed it with a direction to the Government to hear all parties. Consequently, the Minister for Urban Development passed an order on 24.6.1988, directing that the minimum requirements of Pune Telephones be accommodated first and the remaining land be given to the two cooperative housing societies (Ramyanagari and Kalpanamati) in proportion to their membership. The order also suggested providing additional land from nearby surplus ULC area and granting additional FSI. Pursuant to this, the impugned order dated 24.4.1991 was passed, and subsequently the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer made awards. The petitioners alleged that the land was illegally released, compensation was wrongly paid to respondents who had no title, and that the ULC Act surplus land could not be released without an appeal under Section 33. The High Court delivered oral judgment on April 24-25, 2006. The provided text does not include the court's reasoning and final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compromise order dated 6.2.1991 and the order dated 24.4.1991 by the Minister for Urban Development, and subsequent orders, were illegal and arbitrary, and whether the release of reserved land to cooperative housing societies was valid under the Development Plan and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
