SLP (Civil) No. 23447 0f 2008 with SLP (Civil) No. 3018 of 2009. Case: 1. BEST Workers Union, 2. BEST Kamgar Sangathana Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | SLP (Civil) No. 23447 0f 2008 with SLP (Civil) No. 3018 of 2009 |
| Judges | Aftab Alam & B. S. Chauhan, JJ. |
| Issue | Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 37, 37(1), 37(1A), 37(2) |
| Citation | 2010 (1) SCALE 450 , 2010 (2) BomCR 309 |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2010 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Aftab Alam & B. S. Chauhan, JJ.
Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; also heard the Attorney General appearing on behalf of the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (`BEST', hereinafter), Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel for Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai and Mr. Sorabjee learned senior counsel representing respondent No.7.
The government of Maharashtra made an amendment in regulation 9 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 and inserted an explanation into it vide notification dated July 27, 2006 issued under section 37(2) of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('the Act' hereinafter). On the basis of the amendment in regulation 9, the BEST entered into a development agreement dated May 18, 2007 with respondent No.7 in respect of a piece admeasuring 27,913.93 sq. metres, being part of a much larger block of land measuring 1,54,082.40 sq. metres that had come to the BEST following acquisitions made by the State government in the years 1973 and 1974 for its different purposes. In pursuance of the development agreement, and in the absence of any interim order of restraint by the court respondent No.7 went ahead with making constructions over the piece of land in question and we were told in the course of hearing that more than one multi storied buildings (over 40- stories each) were already constructed over the land.
The petitioner is a trade union of the workers of the BEST and it is recognized by the management as representative of the workmen. In that capacity it assails the government notification amending regulation 9 and it also challenges the action of the BEST, on the basis of the amended notification, to give away a large chunk of its land, on long term lease (60 years and renewable), to respondent No.7.
Mr. Divan contended that the petitioner was a "person affected" within the meaning of section 37 of the Act and it was, therefore, entitled to a personal notice and a right of hearing, apart from the public notice published in the Maharashtra Government gazette and two newspapers namely "Vartahar" (Marathi) and "Economic Times" (English). No personal notice was given to the petitioner and hence, the amendment notification dated July 27, 2006 was bad and illegal being in violation of the mandatory requirement of section 37 of the Act.
Mr. Divan next submitted that there was a large number of materials to show that the large block of land with the aggregate area of 1,54,082.40 sq. metres that had come in the hands of the BEST following acquisitions made by the State government in the years 1973 and 1974 had been sub- divided into 7 plots numbered as 1, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3, 4, 5. Plot No.2A, admeasuring 27,913.93 sq. metres, ear-marked for the BEST undertaking staff housing had remained vacant while all the other six remaining plots had already been put to different uses for the purposes of the BEST. The development agreement between the BEST and respondent No.7 was in respect of plot No.2A. Mr. Divan further submitted that though the amended regulation 9 allowed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial