B G DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a Registered Trust which has filed this Public interest Litigation in respect of the allotment of residential plots in Navi mumbai Municipal Area by Respondent No. 2 City and Industrial development Corporation. CIDCO is the Authority constituted by respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for development of Navi mumbai amongst other townships. The Petitioner trust is created to promote respect for law and transparancy and accountability in governance amongst other objectives. It is founded and led by eminent citizens which include Mr. B. G. Deshmukh, former Cabinet Secretary, Mr. J. F. Rebeiro, former Director General of Police and Dr. R. K. Anand, an eminent physician with Jaslok Hospital. The principal submission of the petitioner trust is that although the relevant scheme of CIDCO is for the benefit of genuine housing societies, the plots thereunder are grabbed by builders in the name of fictitious societies. Prayer (a) of this petition therefore seeks to quash and set aside these allotments. The 1st respondent to the petition is State of Maharashtra through the Urban development Department. Respondent No. 3 is the Navi Mumbai municipal Corporation (NMMC ). Respondent No. 4 is the concerned builder and Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are the concerned housing societies.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 - CIDCO grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the MRTP Act read with the prevalent Development Control Regulations for Navi Mumbai, and City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Lease of land To Co-operative Housing Society) Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter called "the Regulations") as amended in 1999. The applicability of the mrtp Act and the Regulations to the disputed allotments are admitted. The respective contentions of the parties are with respect to the interpretation of the Act, the Regulations, the resolutions passed by the board of Directors of CIDCO and their application and implementation in the instant case.

(3.) THE petition points out that the allotment of plots is done by cidco by either of the three methods:- (1) Public advertisements. (2) At a fixed price to Co-operative housing Societies. (3) On individual applications. It is their case that plots which are granted by public advertisements are to be granted upon tenders being invited in which the builders apply. Since the prices of those plots are regulated and governed by Market forces, they tend to be steep. The genuine Co-operative housing Societies which require plots for their members cannot compete with them. The Societies are therefore required to be granted plots at a fixed concessional rate. This grant of plots at a fixed rate or fixed price is therefore, meant to be given only to genuine and needy Co-operative housing Societies and therefore, necessarily only for residential purposes. This construction is permitted at Floor Space Index 1 (FSI 1 ). It is the case of the Petitioners that CIDCO sought to grant the concerned plots ostensibly to such needy and genuine Co-operative Housing societies. It therefore, sought to grant them at a fixed rate calculated by itself as the base price with specified enhancement thereon. However, upon such price being computed, ascertained and fixed, instead of granting those plots to genuine and needy Co-operative Housing societies, CIDCO allowed those plots to be frittered away to builders and developers who took them not upon any tender, but at the fixed price by floating , bogus and fake Co-operative Housing Societies consisting of their employees, nominees and friends instead. The Petitioners submit that thus on the one hand CIDCO deprived itself of the market rate of the plots which would have been determined by economies in the market, based upon the demand and supply principle, and on the other hand, the plots were cornered by builders who would make huge profits upon the development of the plots and consequently no genuine or needy Housing society could take or develop them at the price fixed mainly and only for them. Further they contend that though those plots were to be only for residential purposes with FSI 1, the builders who captured them took those plots for both commercial and residential purposes (C + R) in the sectors reserved for C + R though ostensibly in the names of Cooperative societies. The Builders accordingly sought to convert those plots partly for commercial use with FSI 1. 5 on the ground of they being in Sector c+r.