Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity Law of Limitation Binds All Equally, Including the State: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Review Petition with 5743 Days’ Delay Once Selected, All Are Equals: Allahabad High Court Slams State for Withholding Pay Protection From Later Batches of Ex-Servicemen Constables Non-Compliance With Section 42 of NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Two Accused In 160 Kg Poppy Husk Case Unregistered Agreement Creating Right of Way Inadmissible in Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Summary Decree in Partition Suit Denied: Unequivocal Admissions Absent, Full Trial Necessary: Delhi High Court No Court Can Allow Itself to Be Used as an Instrument of Fraud: Delhi High Court Exposes Forged Writ Petition Filed in Name of Unaware Citizen "Deliberate Wage Splitting to Evade Provident Fund Dues Is Illegal": Bombay High Court Restores PF Authority's 7A Order Against Saket College and Centrum Direct Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife

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
 

Latest Legal News