Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited's 28-year-old case against Pune Municipal Corporation dismissed; Court validates acquisition under MRTP Act.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the second appeal filed by Milan Cooperative Housing Society Limited, affirming the validity of the land acquisition by the Pune Municipal Corporation for a reserved area in a development plan. The case, which dates back nearly three decades, involved the surrender of land by the society in exchange for a waiver of the requirement to keep 10% of the area open, thereby enabling the construction of a shopping centre.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Gauri Godse, ruled that the acquisition was valid under Section 126(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The court noted that the society had received the benefit of higher Floor Space Index (FSI) as consideration, which holds monetary value and constitutes a valid form of compensation.
The case centered around the society's challenge to a condition imposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation requiring the surrender of 10% of the land without monetary compensation. The society argued that this condition was imposed through coercion and challenged the possession receipt executed in 1970, claiming that physical possession was never handed over.
The court, however, found no merit in the society's claims, highlighting that the society had taken advantage of the construction permissions granted in lieu of the surrendered land. Furthermore, the court underscored that declaratory and injunctive reliefs are discretionary and not a matter of right, particularly when sought after an unexplained delay of 28 years.
Drawing on legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like "Yogendra Pal v. Municipality Bhatinda" and "Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi," the court concluded that the acquisition process, as executed, did not violate statutory provisions or constitutional principles.
In its analysis, the court emphasized that the agreement between the society and the corporation constituted a valid acquisition under the MRTP Act, given the benefits received by the society, which included higher FSI allowing the accommodation of all its members.
The ruling reaffirms the discretionary nature of reliefs under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and underscores the importance of timely legal challenges in cases involving development plans and land acquisitions.
Bottom Line:
Cooperative Housing Society's surrender of land for reserved area in development plan - Valid acquisition under Section 126(1)(a)(b) of MRTP Act when FSI or development rights are given as consideration - Declaratory and injunctive reliefs are discretionary; not granted after unexplained delay of 28 years.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Section 126(1)(a)(b), Specific Relief Act, 1963 Sections 34, 38
