Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 2500 Crore Land Demand, Slams State for 'Commercialization Over Public Interest

15 November 2024 6:36 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Court orders immediate return of Ghansoli land for Government Sports Complex, citing gross illegalities and public interest violations.

The Bombay High Court has quashed the Maharashtra state government’s decision to shift a proposed Government Sports Complex from Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai to Nanore, Raigad, condemning the move as "brazenly illegal and arbitrary." The court criticized the state for prioritizing commercial interests over public welfare and emphasized the lack of justification for the Rs. 2500 crore valuation demanded for the land.

The controversy began with the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) earmarking 20 acres in Ghansoli for a Government Sports Complex. However, instead of developing the sports complex, CIDCO issued tenders in August 2016 to allot the land to private entities, sparking public outcry and legal challenges. Subsequently, the state government’s decision to relocate the project to Nanore further complicated matters, prompting a legal challenge.


The court noted significant discrepancies in the valuation of the land. "There is no basis spelt out in law or otherwise as to how CIDCO expected the cost of the said land to be Rs. 2500 crores," the judgment stated. The court found it particularly troubling that CIDCO had allocated 36 acres to Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) for Rs. 22.17 crores, contrasting sharply with the Rs. 2500 crore demand for a smaller plot to the state government.


The judgment criticized the state officials for manipulating facts to present an inflated land price. "It is clearly a manipulation and twisting of genuine facts," the court remarked, indicating that the high pricing was used to mislead judicial scrutiny and derail the project's original intent.

The court condemned the state’s decision to abandon the Ghansoli site, emphasizing the vital role of sports facilities in urban areas. "It is wholly against the public interest to deprive citizens of a Government Sports Complex," the judgment stated, highlighting the essential need for such amenities in densely populated areas.

The court underscored that CIDCO’s tender process and subsequent actions were illegal and contrary to public interest. The judgment stressed, "CIDCO’s decision to issue such tender was illegal, apart from being contrary to the larger public interest."

"The decision on the part of the State Government, purportedly, relinquishing CIDCO’s land at Ghansoli, to be not utilized for Government Sports Complex, is brazenly illegal and arbitrary," the court observed. Furthermore, it criticized the state for its lack of foresight and prioritization, stating, "The impugned decision...is a decision against public interest and is a decision to promote commercial utilization of the land."

The court’s decision mandates CIDCO to hand over the Ghansoli land to the state government free of cost or at a reasonable rate, as per regulations. The judgment sends a clear message about the necessity of prioritizing public amenities over commercial interests. This landmark ruling reaffirms the judiciary's role in safeguarding public welfare and maintaining the integrity of state policies against arbitrary decisions.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2024
 

Similar News