Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by Mafatlal Industries Limited and its officer seeking directions to enforce a Government Notification dated 10-02-2004 that released 50% of a reserved land parcel for development and entitled the petitioners to non-cash compensation by way of a Development Rights Certificate. The land, aggregating 70,361.20 square metres, was held by the petitioners under perpetual leases granted in 1921 and 1923. In 1967, a portion of the land was reserved for extension of a zoo. The 2004 Notification released 30,910.15 square metres (‘subject land’) from reservation and required the surrender of the remaining balance (‘MCGM land’) to the Corporation. A Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition No.660 of 2004) challenged the notification, but the State defended it. The petitioners applied for development permission and surrender of the reserved land for grant of a Development Rights Certificate. The writ petition raised multiple prayers, most of which were already answered by an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. State of Maharashtra (O.S. Writ Petition (L) No.122 of 2018). The sole surviving issue was the interpretation of the 2004 Notification. The judgment set out the background facts, including the lease history, the reservation, the notification, and the affidavit of the Principal Secretary explaining the decision to partially dereserve the land. The court took up the petition for final disposal on 14 and 16 August 2018. The text of the judgment provided ends abruptly after narrating the facts; accordingly, the final holding on the interpretation of the notification is not extracted. The court had indicated that the majority of the prayers stood answered and the remaining part would be decided based on the interpretation of the 2004 Notification.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Reservation and Dereservation - Interpretation of Government Notification - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - The 2004 Notification released 50% of the reserved land for development under D.C. Regulation 58, while the balance remained reserved and was to be surrendered to MCGM; the notification was challenged in a PIL, and the State defended it. The petitioners sought enforcement of the notification for non-cash compensation; the court was required to interpret the notification in light of the lessee’s rights and the State’s obligations. Held that the interpretation of the notification was necessary to determine the petitioners’ entitlement and the court proceeded to construe its terms (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Interpretation of Government of Maharashtra Notification dated 10-02-2004 regarding release of land from reservation and entitlement to non-cash compensation in terms of Development Rights Certificate.
