Case Note & Summary
The appellant, JVPD Scheme Welfare Trust, a public charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, applied for allotment of a plot in Mumbai reserved for a playground. The State Government, exercising powers under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982, allotted the plot to the appellant on 05.10.1999. However, in February 2000, all allotments under Regulation 16 were stayed. The appellant approached the Bombay High Court, which directed the respondents to decide on the application within 10 weeks. Before any decision, MHADA granted a licence to Anchor Foundation Trust (Respondent No. 4) on 20.03.2003 for beautification and development of the plot. Subsequently, the High Powered Cabinet Subcommittee decided in principle to allot the plot to the appellant on 12.06.2003, subject to conditions. MHADA informed the appellant of the allotment on 16.02.2004, requiring submission of documents. The appellant submitted documents on 22.03.2004, but MHADA cancelled the allotment on 24.08.2004, citing non-submission of documents. The appellant challenged this cancellation in the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, MHADA granted a licence to Respondent No. 4 on 10.09.2004, and later a 15-year lease on 05.01.2005. Other parties challenged the allotment to Respondent No. 4, but a settlement was reached among all parties, recorded as consent terms on 11.02.2008, and the High Court disposed of the related writ petitions accordingly. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, upholding the cancellation. The Supreme Court, considering these subsequent developments, including the settlement and fresh allotment to Respondent No. 4, held that no interference was called for and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Allotment of Land - Cancellation of Allotment - Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations, 1982 - The appellant Trust challenged the cancellation of allotment of a plot reserved for playground. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that in view of subsequent developments, including a settlement approved by the High Court and fresh allotment to another trust, no interference was warranted. (Paras 1-11) B) Civil Procedure - Consent Terms - Binding Effect - The Supreme Court noted that the plot in question had been allotted to Respondent No. 4 under consent terms approved by the High Court, and the lease had been extended. The Court held that the appeal had become infructuous and was dismissed. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment of a plot to the appellant Trust, in light of subsequent developments including a settlement and fresh allotment to another party.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that in view of subsequent developments, including the settlement approved by the High Court and the fresh allotment to Respondent No. 4, no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed as having become infructuous.
Law Points
- Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations
- 1982
- Allotment of land
- Cancellation of allotment
- Consent terms
- Subsequent developments
- Writ jurisdiction
