Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against the Bombay High Court judgment that declared two plots in JVPD Scheme, Mumbai, as mandatory open spaces and prohibited construction on them. The dispute originated from a 1967 layout sanctioned by BMC for plots allotted to Anjuman Trust, which reserved 2,500 sq. yards in plot No.6 and 1,687 sq. yards in plot No.3 as garden/open space. In 1999, MHADA prepared a development plan for the entire JVPD Scheme showing these plots as residential. Anjuman Trust sought to construct on them, leading to PILs by residents and activists. The High Court held that the 1967 layout reservation is binding and cannot be overridden by the 1999 plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting that the obligation to maintain open spaces lies with MHADA, and the development plan does not alter the layout's mandatory open space designation. The court also quashed the lease deed executed by MHADA in favor of a society for construction on plot No.3/14. The decision upholds the sanctity of sanctioned layouts and prevents encroachment on public open spaces.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Open Space Reservation - Sanctioned Layout Binding - Development Control Rules, 1967 and 1991 - The court held that plots reserved as open spaces/garden in the sanctioned layout of 1967 cannot be used for construction merely because a subsequent development plan of 1999 shows them as residential area. The layout reservation is mandatory and continues to bind the land. (Paras 9, 12-14) B) Administrative Law - MHADA's Powers - Lease of Reserved Open Spaces - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - The court quashed the order of CEO, MHADA dated 21.03.2017 directing lease of sub-plot No.3/14 for construction, as it violated the mandatory open space reservation in the 1967 layout. (Paras 9, 15) C) Public Interest Litigation - Protection of Open Spaces - Maintainability - The High Court rightly entertained PILs to protect open spaces in a housing scheme, as such spaces are essential for public health and environment. (Paras 1-2, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether plots shown as open spaces/garden in the sanctioned layout of 1967 can be used for construction based on a subsequent development plan of 1999 that shows them as residential area.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court judgment. The court declared that the two plots (sub-plot No.6/11 and sub-plot No.3/14) must be maintained as open spaces as per the 1967 sanctioned layout, and no construction activity can be permitted on them. The lease deed executed by MHADA in favor of the 5th respondent society was quashed.
Law Points
- Open space reservation in sanctioned layout is binding
- Development plan cannot override layout reservations
- MHADA's obligation to maintain open spaces
- DCR 1967 and 1991 provisions
