Land meant for poor can't be commercially exploited: SC

Holding that land meant for the poor can't be commercially exploited, the Supreme Court has set aside the Bombay High Court's verdict directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to grant ownership rights over five acres land in Lower Parel to Century Textiles and Industries Ltd.

Advertisement

“When land allocated under a special scheme, particularly one centred on “poorer classes” accommodation, is sought to be commercially exploited, it represents a direct affront to the spirit of the enactment. Rather than addressing housing inadequacies and improving urban life for those in need, the resource would be diverted to profit-making ventures that do nothing to alleviate the conditions of the underserved,” a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale said.

It set aside the Bombay High Court's order to the MCGM to execute a formal conveyance deed in favour of Century Textiles and Industries Ltd (now known as Aditya Birla Real Estate Ltd) granting ownership rights to it over the land in question, saying the civic body was neither legally obligated to convey the land nor at fault for not executing the deed.

A plot of land measuring 23,000 square yards was originally leased to Century Textiles under the provisions of the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898. The lease agreement -- part of a poorer classes accommodation scheme, 1918 -- required the lessee to construct housing for workers. Century Textiles fulfilled its obligations by building 476 dwellings and 10 shops by 1925. However, following the lease's expiration in 1955, the company did not pursue conveyance of the land until 2006, when it issued a legal notice.

In 2016, the Bombay High Court directed the BMC to transfer the land title to Century Textiles.

The top court examined two issues. First, if the civic body was legally bound to convey the leased land to Century Textiles after the lease expired and second, if the petition filed after a delay of over six decades was maintainable.

Deciding the first question in favour of the civic body and its officials, the Bench said they were neither bound nor under any legal obligations to convey the premises comprising Block-A to the respondent number 1 (private company). On the second issue, it said the petition suffered from "serious delay and laches" and was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.