Case: MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI &amp; ORS Vs. HIRAMAN SITARAM DEORUKHAR &amp; ORS

3. The facts in short giving rise to the present appeal indicate that way back in the year 1967 the disputed property was reserved for a garden in the development plan, prepared under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the MRTP Act). The said development plan was revised in the year 1991-1992. The reservation of the disputed property was further continued for the purpose of a garden. On 5.10.1992, the respondent Nos 2 to 12 and deceased named Sitaram V. Deorukhkar entered into an agreement for sale dated 5.10.1992, in favour of respondent No. 13. On 18.10.1992, the power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent no. 13 to institute a suit in relation to the property. Power of attorney served a notice for purchase under Section 127 of the MRTP Act on 25.07.2007. The Municipal Corporation gave its approval to initiate the purchase proceedings of the land. On 19.10.2007, Improvement Committee, passed resolution No. 126 and recommended to the corporation to acquire the land of Village Borivali reserved for public purpose i.e. for the garden. On 21.01.2008, a proposal was submitted to the collector for the acquisition of the land in question. Thus the Corporation submitted that it had taken the effective steps within six months from the date of the purchase notice for an acquisition of the land as per the then prevailing time limit. On 25.2.2008, the Petitioner- Attorney had been informed that his application for permission to allow development on land under reference could not be considered under the provisions of the MRTP Act. Consequently, a writ petition was preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 in the High Court i.e. W.P.No. 2535 of 2008. Prayer made in the writ petition was that the reservation may be quashed and set aside as it had lapsed, and permission may be given to them to develop the said property in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. The High Court by the impugned order held that the reservation had lapsed, and that the land is deemed to have been released from the reservation, and that the area reserved for the garden has become available to the owner thereof for the purpose of development. Hence the Corporation has preferred the appeal.

Court's reasoning:
5. The Municipal Corporation had filed a Map (Annexure P-4) which indicates that the area marked with the green color is reserved for the purpose of the garden, whereas the area marked with red cross marks in the green color portion is disputed portion which is encircled by the other area reserved for the garden. The land under appeal is 3090 Sq. yard, whereas the total area reserved for the garden, is 90,500 Sq. yard. The area in question had been reserved for garden and it appears that Municipal Corporation had taken the steps which were in their hands in order to preserve the area as such. However, there was a failure on the part of the State Authorities to act timely and to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act as required under the provisions contained in Section 126 of the MRTP Act6. It cannot be disputed that reservation made under Section 127 of the MRTP Act stands lapsed. At the same time area had been reserved for the garden.It could not have been permitted to lapse due to inexplicable reasons7. This court has laid down that public interest requires some areas to be preserved by means of open spaces of parks and play grounds, and that there cannot be any change or action contrary to legislative intent, as that would be an abuse of statutory powers vested in the authorities. Once the area had been reserved, authorities are bound to take steps to preserve it in that method and manner only. These spaces are meant for the common man, and there is a duty cast upon the authorities to preserve such spaces. Such matters are of great public concern and vital interest to be taken care of in the development scheme. The public interest requires not only reservation but also preservation of such parks and open spaces. In our opinion, such spaces cannot be permitted, by an action or inaction or otherwise, to be converted for some other purpose, and no development contrary to plan can be permitted8. The importance of open spaces for parks and play grounds is of universal recognition, and reservation for such places in development scheme is a legitimate exercise of statutory power, with the rationale of protection of the environment and of reducing ill effects of urbanisation. It is in the public interest to avoid unnecessary conversion of ‘open spaces land? to strictly urban uses, for gardens provide fresh air, thereby protecting against the resultant impacts of urbanization, such as pollution etc. Once such a scheme had been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the MRTP Act, by inaction legislative intent could not be permitted to become a statutory mockery. Government authorities and officers were bound to preserve it and to take all steps envisaged for protection9. It could be legitimately expected of the authority to take timely steps in which they have failed. Their inaction tantamount to wrongful deprivation of open spaces/garden to public. This Court in Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 549  has laid down that there is duty to preserve the ecology of the forest area. This Court has enunciated the doctrine of the public trust based on ancient theory of Roman Empire. Idea of this theory was that certain common property such as lands, waters and airs were held by the Government in trusteeship for smooth and unimpaired use of public. Air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The American courts in recent cases expanded the concept of this doctrine. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the natural resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. The aforesaid concept laid down by this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 388  and this Court held that the State Government has committed patent breach of public trust by leasing the ecologically fragile land to the Motel management12. In the light of aforesaid principles, it is shocking in the instant case that in spite of prayer having been made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, the State Government did not issue a declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Thus the provisions for open spaces in the statutory scheme were in effect made a statutory mockery. The authorities were bound to act with circumspection and to act timely to take steps to issue the requisite declaration as per development plan. They were well aware of the consequences. The inaction was impermissible in such an issue of great public importance, having constitutional imperative under Article 21 read with Article 48A and further it was in breach of fundamental duty imposed under Article 51A(g) to protect natural environment, and having the potential to lead to the derogation of the public interest. Such inaction is intolerable, and the area ought to be preserved for park only. More so, considering its situation that it is encircled by garden area, the court cannot be a moot spectator and permit statutory provisions to become a mockery by inaction or lethargy on the part of the unscrupulous authorities. No reason is coming forth as to why steps were not taken by the concerned authorities to act in the public interest, as per the statutory mandate, and as per development plan. The duty is cast upon the authorities to act as cestui que trust with respect to the public park. As a matter of fact, Authorities ought to have issued forthwith a requisite declaration and ought to have completed the proceedings. Be that as it may, since there is lapse of reservation, and the land is still required for public park, and since now the provisions of Right to Fare Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short the 2013 Act) have come into force, obviously the compensation has to be paid in accordance with the provisions contained in the said Act.