Supreme Court Upholds Open Space Reservations in Mumbai Layout: Anjuman E Shiate Ali vs. Gulmohar Area Societies (17 April 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2020

Citation: C.A. Nos.6216-6217 of 2019

Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Can a development plan override a previously approved layout plan when it comes to open spaces? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning land use in Mumbai. The core issue revolved around whether plots designated as open spaces in a 1967 sanctioned layout could be used for construction based on a subsequent 1999 development plan. The bench, consisting of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves two plots of land in the Juhu Vile Parle Development (JVPD) Scheme in Mumbai. The Maharashtra Housing Board (MHB), now the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), developed the JVPD Scheme. In 1967, MHB allotted four plots to the Anjuman Trust, representing the Dawoodi Bohra Community. The Anjuman Trust submitted a layout plan to the Bombay Municipal Corporation (now Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai), which was approved. This layout designated two specific areas within plots 3 and 6 as open spaces or gardens. The remaining plots were allotted to individuals and housing societies, and constructions were made.

In 2007, a dispute arose regarding plot 6/11, which was initially allotted to a cooperative society and later given to the Anjuman Trust. A settlement was reached in 2014, but a review petition was filed, leaving open the question of whether construction was allowed on the plot. Separately, MHADA granted a license to a society for the beautification of the garden on plot 3/14. When the Anjuman Trust sought to register a cooperative society for construction on these plots, it was opposed. The Chief Officer of MHB rejected the Anjuman Trust’s claim in 2013, but this decision was overturned by the CEO and Vice President of MHADA in 2017, who directed a lease of sub-plot 3/14 for construction. This led to the filing of writ petitions in the High Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard the writ petitions, which were filed as Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The petitioners argued that the two plots, designated as open spaces in the 1967 layout, could not be used for construction. They contended that the 1999 development plan, which showed the area as residential, did not override the reservations in the 1967 layout. The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the plots must be maintained as open spaces and quashing the order passed by MHADA.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Development Control Rules (DCR) of 1967 and 1991, along with the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’). Regulation 39 of the 1967 DCR mandates that in any layout or sub-division, 15 percent of the entire holding area must be reserved for recreational space. Specifically, it states:

“39. Layouts or Sub-divisions.- (a) Layouts or sub-division in residential and commercial zones; (i) When the land under development ad-measures 3,000 sq. yds. or more the owner of the land shall submit a proper layout or sub-division of his entire independent holding. (ii) In any such layout or sub-division 15 per cent of the entire holding area shall be reserved for a recreational space which shall be as far as practicable in one place.”

Section 302 of the MMC Act requires statutory approvals for the layout when dividing land into plots. The court also considered the implications of the 1991 DCR and the 1999 development plan prepared by MHADA.

Arguments

Appellants (Anjuman Trust) Arguments:

• The obligation to reserve open space lies with MHADA, not the Anjuman Trust.
• The layout plan was a temporary measure due to MHADA’s deficiency in reserving 15% open space.
• The 1999 development plan designated the area as residential, allowing construction.
• 25% of the land was already shown for open spaces in the development plan as per 1991 DCR.

Respondents (Writ Petitioners) Arguments:

• The 1967 approved layout is binding on all parties.
• Anjuman Trust benefited from the sub-division and cannot now claim construction rights on open spaces.
• The 1999 development plan does not override the 1967 layout.
• The sub-plots were voluntarily offered as open spaces and are legally mandated as such.
• Section 302 of the MMC Act applies to anyone dividing land, including the Anjuman Trust.

MHADA’s Arguments:

• The 1999 development plan showed the sites as residential, allowing construction.
• The High Court erred in directing the plots to be maintained as open spaces.

The core of the dispute was whether the 1999 development plan, which designated the area as residential, could override the 1967 layout plan, which specifically reserved certain plots as open spaces. The Anjuman Trust argued that the 1967 layout was a temporary measure due to MHADA’s failure to reserve adequate open spaces and that the 1999 plan superseded it. The respondents contended that the 1967 layout was binding and that the 1999 plan did not negate the specific reservations for open spaces in the earlier layout. MHADA supported the Anjuman Trust’s position, arguing that the 1999 plan allowed for construction on the disputed plots.

The innovativeness of the argument was on the side of the appellants, who argued that the 1967 layout was a temporary measure due to MHADA’s failure to reserve adequate open spaces and that the 1999 plan superseded it.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the two sub-plots bearing Nos. 3/14 and 6/11, which are shown as open spaces/garden in the approved layout of 1967, can be allowed to be utilized for constructions, in view of the subsequent development plan prepared by MHADA.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions and regulations:

• Regulation 39 of the Development Control Rules of 1967 (DCR).
• Section 302 and 302-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’).
• Development Control Regulations of 1991.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Regulation 39 of the Development Control Rules of 1967 (DCR): The Court relied on this regulation to emphasize the mandatory requirement of reserving 15% of the area for recreational space in any layout or sub-division.
• Section 302 and 302-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (‘MMC Act’): The Court used these sections to highlight the statutory requirement of obtaining approvals for the layout when dividing land into plots.
• Development Control Regulations of 1991: The court referred to it to show that different areas of open spaces are required to be provided for different layouts or sub-divisions of different sizes in residential and commercial zones.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that the two plots designated as open spaces in the 1967 layout could not be used for construction. The Court reasoned that the 1967 layout was binding on all parties, including the Anjuman Trust, which had benefited from the sub-division of the plots. The Court emphasized that there was no concept of a temporary layout under the MMC Act and its regulations. It further clarified that the 1999 development plan, which showed the area as residential, did not override the specific reservations for open spaces in the 1967 layout.

The Court stated, “It is fairly well settled that the open spaces/garden left in an approved layout, cannot be allowed for the purpose of constructions.” The Court also noted, “The development Plan prepared by MHADA, cannot be confused with the layout which is approved confining to four big plots, on the application made by the appellants.” The Court also observed, “It is also to be noticed that the open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that once a layout plan is approved with specific reservations for open spaces, those reservations must be maintained. The Court emphasized the binding nature of the 1967 layout and the fact that the Anjuman Trust had benefited from it by utilizing the other plots. The Court also highlighted the importance of open spaces for the well-being of the community, noting that they serve as “lung space” for residents. The Court rejected the argument that the 1999 development plan could override the specific reservations of the 1967 layout and that there was no concept of a temporary layout under the MMC Act.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (such as the history of the layout and the Anjuman Trust’s actions) and legal interpretations (of the MMC Act, DCRs, and the binding nature of approved layouts). The legal aspects weighed slightly more in the final decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established planning regulations and the sanctity of approved layouts.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Approved layout plans are binding and cannot be easily overridden by subsequent development plans, especially concerning open spaces.
• Open spaces reserved in a layout are meant for the benefit of the community and must be maintained as such.
• There is no concept of a “temporary layout” under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.
• The obligation to maintain open spaces is not solely on the original landowner but also on those who benefit from the layout.
• Development plans cannot be interpreted to negate specific reservations for open spaces in earlier approved layouts.

This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to approved layout plans and protecting open spaces in urban areas. It clarifies that subsequent development plans cannot be used to justify the conversion of reserved open spaces into construction sites. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future land use planning and development in Mumbai and other cities, ensuring that open spaces are preserved for the benefit of the public.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision. The direction was to maintain the two plots as open spaces and not allow any construction on them. The lease deed executed by MHADA in favor of the 5th respondent was also quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once a layout plan is approved with specific reservations for open spaces, those reservations must be maintained, and subsequent development plans cannot override them. This decision reinforces the binding nature of approved layout plans and protects open spaces in urban areas. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the judgment clarifies the interpretation and application of existing planning regulations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Anjuman E Shiate Ali & Anr. vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group & Ors. reaffirms the importance of adhering to approved layout plans, particularly concerning the preservation of open spaces. The Court held that the 1967 layout plan, which designated specific plots as open spaces, was binding and could not be overridden by the subsequent 1999 development plan. This decision ensures that open spaces reserved in approved layouts are protected from construction, benefiting the community and promoting sustainable urban development.