Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case Welfare of the Child is Paramount: Allahabad High Court Awards Custody to Biological Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition Due Process Followed Under Rule 3(b); No Error in Appointment Procedure: Calcutta High Court Denies Review in Temporary MMR Case Legitimacy Conferred by Section 16(1) of HMA: Madras High Court Upholds Partial Partition Claim Kerala High Court Voids Property Tax Demand Notices on Telecom Towers for Exceeding Limitation Period” Karnataka High Court directs government to pay compensation to long-term contractual employees in lieu of reinstatement and regularization. Execution Reports Are Crucial Before Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants: High Court of Jharkhand Quashes Warrants High Court Affirms J&K Bank’s Autonomy in Recruitment Policies, Suggests Inclusion of Ex-Servicemen” IT Act - Non-Issuance of Draft Assessment Order Renders Final Order Void, Delhi High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 2500 Crore Land Demand, Slams State for 'Commercialization Over Public Interest "Amendments Must Be Based on New Evidence, Not Repetitive Objections," Rules Himachal High Court No Error in Dismissing Petition to Call Original Agreement' in Cheque Bounce Case: Rajasthan High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Discretion Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Supreme Court Affirms Right to Horizontal Reservation for Disabled Candidates in Judicial Exams Patna High Court Upholds Rejection of Vehicle Release in Liquor Seizure Case, Cites Statutory Bar on Jurisdiction Pendency of Several Criminal Cases Cannot Be the Basis to Refuse Bail: P&H High Court in Counterfeit Currency Case “Consistency in Dying Declarations is Key to Conviction,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice: Sanction Not Obtained as Per Statutory Requirement Beneficial Legislation Like the DV Act Justifies Interim Relief Even After Prolonged Separation: Calcutta HC Defendant's Causal Approach Not Sufficient: Delhi High Court Dismisses Leave to Defend Application in Recovery Suit Mental Distance Between ‘May Be True’ and ‘Must Be True’” Requires Clear Evidence: High Court Overturns Conviction Leasehold Rights Expire with Lease Period: J&K High Court in Case Against J&K State Financial Corporation High Court Quashes Post-Retirement Pay Reduction: Emphasizes Natural Justice Revenue Authorities Have No Jurisdiction Over Title Disputes: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms 1938 Land Acquisition for Industrial Use NDPS | Extended Custody Unnecessary Where Seizure Is Intermediate and Investigation Concluded: Kerala High Court Adoption Severed All Ties with Biological Family – Madras High Court Upholds Legal Heirship Under Hindu Adoptions Act” Availability of Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Seeking Judicial Intervention, MP High Court in Debt Recovery Case Balancing Speedy Trial and Justice: Additional Evidence Allowed,” says Orissa High Court in Death Penalty Case Recipient of Goods Can Seek Advance Ruling Under GST, Rules Rajasthan High Court Tender Terms and Conditions: Not Absolute, Cancellation Allowed in Public Interest: Telangana High Court Cancelled Tender for Redevelopment of Modern Abattoir Facility

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

15 November 2024 12:45 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