Bombay High Court Dismisses/Allows Petitions in JVPD Scheme Open Space Dispute — MHADA's Authority to Convert Garden Plots to Residential Use under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 Addressed. Detailed Legal Issues Including Consent Terms and Maintainability of Appeal Not Decided.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This common judgment deals with two writ petitions concerning the protection of open spaces in the Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme (JVPD Scheme) at Juhu, Mumbai. Petitioners, including the Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and Save Open Spaces, sought to prevent the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) from allowing residential construction on two plots that originally formed part of the mandatory open garden spaces in the sanctioned layout. The first petition (WP 2476/2015) involved Plot No.6/11, admeasuring 2500 sq. yards, while the second petition (WPL 1130/2017) involved Plot No.3/14, admeasuring 1687 sq. yards. Both plots had been shown as garden spaces in the layout sanctioned by the Bombay Municipal Corporation at the inception of the JVPD Scheme around 1950. However, MHADA later submitted a revised layout showing these plots as residential areas. For Plot No.6/11, after encroachment removal, the plot was allotted to a proposed cooperative society (Parasmani Society), then possession given to the Anjuman Trust, leading to earlier writ petitions that were disposed of by consent terms in 2014. A review petition by Save Open Spaces was disposed of with an observation that the issue of whether the plot was an open space or could be developed would be decided by MCGM or MHADA. For Plot No.3/14, MHADA had initially granted a garden license to Petitioner No.1 Society. The Anjuman Trust then sought registration of a cooperative society on that plot; the Chief Officer of Mumbai Housing Board rejected the claim in 2013, but the CEO and Vice President of MHADA allowed the Trust’s appeal and directed the lease of the plot to the Trust by an order dated 21 March 2017. The petitions challenged these actions. The judgment does not record any final decision, as the extract ends at paragraph 11 before the court’s conclusion. The court’s reasoning and directions beyond the narrated facts are not available in the provided text.

Issue of Consideration

Whether Plot No.6/11 and Plot No.3/14, which were originally shown as garden/open spaces in the JVPD Scheme layout, could be converted into residential areas and built upon; and whether the MHADA's order directing lease of Plot No.3/14 to Anjuman Trust was lawful.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 80

Writ Petition No. 2476 of 2015 and Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1130 of 2017

2017-07-19

B.R. Gavai, Riyaz I. Chagla

2017:BHC-OS:8811-DB

Shiraz Rustomjee, Shreya Parik, Sujata More, Aparjita Sen, Sagar Patil, Jernold Joseph Xaview, Ravi Kadam, Vaibhav Parashuram, Dushyant Kumar, Prasad Dhakephalkar, Vivek Patil, Yogendra Shirwadkar, Aspi Chinoy, Roop Vasudeo, Dipali Mainkar, Virag Tulzapurkar, Vaibhav Joglekar, Ashok Paranjape, Deepan Dixit, Nazeen Kotwal, Milind Sathe, Nilesh Parmar

Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group, Pranab Kishore Das, Ashoke Pandit, Save Open Spaces, AlHasanat Cooperative Housing Society

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, State of Maharashtra, Anjuman-E-Shiate Ali, Parasmani Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), Juhuraj Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), Juhu Lifestyle Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (Proposed), S.S. Zende

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public interest litigation seeking protection of open spaces in JVPD Scheme, Juhu, Mumbai

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought declarations that Plot No.6/11 and Plot No.3/14 are mandatory open spaces and cannot be built upon; that any lease executed by MHADA in respect of these plots is void; and to quash the order of MHADA's CEO directing lease of Plot No.3/14 to Anjuman Trust.

Filing Reason

MHADA altered the original layout plan to show the two plots as residential areas instead of gardens, and passed orders enabling construction and lease to private societies.

Previous Decisions

Earlier writ petitions (W.P. 1964/2007 and 2151/2009) regarding Plot No.6/11 were disposed of based on consent terms on 10 November 2014; review petitions (Review Petition (Lodging) Nos. 98 and 99 of 2014) were disposed of on 19 January 2015 with an observation that the issue of open space status would be decided by MCGM or MHADA.

Issues

Whether Plot No.6/11 and Plot No.3/14 were part of mandatory open spaces under the original JVPD Scheme layout and cannot be converted into residential use Whether the consent terms entered in the prior writ petitions bind the petitioner Save Open Spaces and preclude the present challenge Whether the CEO and Vice President of MHADA had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by Anjuman Trust against the Chief Officer's rejection, and whether the appeal was within limitation Whether the order dated 21 March 2017 directing lease of Plot No.3/14 to Anjuman Trust is legal and valid

Judgment Excerpts

Undisputedly, right from inception of the sanction of layout, these two plots namely subplot No. 14 in Plot No.3 ... admeasuring 1687 sq. yards and subplot No.11 in Plot No.6 ... admeasuring 2500 sq. yards were either kept open or used for the garden purposes till very recently. this Court vide order dated 19 January 2015, observed that the issue whether the plot is an open plot or can be developed or not, was not decided by the Minutes of Order and it is further observed that, the said issue will be decided by the MCGM or MHADA in accordance with law.

Procedural History

After independence, JVPD Scheme was developed by the Housing Board Commissioner of Bombay. Layout sanctioned with certain plots as garden spaces. Encroachment on Plot No.6/11 removed by MHADA in 2003. Allotment of Plot No.6/11 to Parasmani Society, then possession to Anjuman Trust led to Writ Petitions 1964/2007 and 2151/2009, disposed by consent terms on 10.11.2014. Review Petitions 98 and 99 of 2014 disposed on 19.01.2015 with directions. For Plot No.3/14, garden license granted to Petitioner No.1; Anjuman Trust sought society registration; Chief Officer, MHB rejected claim on 24.07.2013; appeal to CEO, MHADA allowed and order dated 21.03.2017 directed lease to Trust. Present writ petitions filed in 2015 and 2017, heard together.

Acts & Sections

  • Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:
  • Societies Registration Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Revocation of Probate in Indian Succession Act Case Due to Lack of Caveatable Interest and Proof of Adoption. Allegations of Fraud and Non-Service of Citation on Heirs Fail as Petitioner Fails to Establish Loc...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses/Allows Petitions in JVPD Scheme Open Space Dispute — MHADA's Authority to Convert Garden Plots to Residential Use under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 Addressed. Detailed Legal Issues Includ...