AMEY CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 01-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

t· 
A 
AMEY CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
v. 
PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY I, 2007 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 
A 
c 
Municipal area-Residential plots-Allotment of-Jn violation of 
Regulations-Regulations provided for the allotment of plots either by public 
advertisement or at a fixed price for co-operative housing societies or on 
individual applications-The plots in question were cornered by builders 
who set up dummy societies to acquire the plots and to raise constructions 
thereon, which would be used both for residential and commercial purposes, 
D thereby making large gains for themselves and defrauding the City and 
Industrial Development Corporation (CIDGO)-The plots were initially 
allotted to 6 allottees, each being allotted one plot at a fixed price-The said 
plots were amalgamated into one plot-It was alleged that none of these 
societies were genuine housing societies and were dummy creations of a 
,. 
E 
Developer-The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the allotments 
made in favour of the 6 allottees were liable to be quashed and there was 
no question of regularizing the same-The High Court stopped fur.her 
.. 
constructions and held that the entire construction on the plots in question 
was to stand forfeited and vested in CIDCO-The alternate prayer made for 
obtaining a fresh valuation and compensating CJDCO to the extent of its 
F losses, if any, was not granted-Correctness of-Held: The directions given 
"' 
for forfeiture of the land and the constructions raised thereupon were 
.. 
unrealistic, particularly when an alternate prayer had been made for a fresh 
valuation of the plots for the purpose of compensating CIDCO in the event 
the plots were found to have been undervalued-The State Government is 
directed to cause a fresh valuation of all the plots in question as on the date 
G on which the allotments were made-In the event the value is found to be 
higher than that paid by the allottees, the difference in value will be paid 
by the a/lo/tees within one month of the demand ,being made for payment of 
)-
the same-Once such valuation is effected and payment, if any, is made, the 
allottees will be entitled to continue with the construction work-High 
H 
80 
AMEY CO-OP_ HOUSING SOCIETY l TD. 1·. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST 
81 
Court judgment set aside-CIDCO (lease of land to Co-operative Housing A 
Society) Regulations, 1995--New Bombay Disposal of lands Regulations, 
1975. 
The respondent No. 1 was a registered Trust which filed a Public Interest 
Litigation in the High Court questioning the manner in which certain 
residential plots in the Municipal Area had been allotted by the City and B 
Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), an authority constituted under 
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for development of 
townships. 
According to the respondent, the allotment and disposal of the plots in C 
question was in violation of the existing regulations regulating such allotment. 
The New Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 and the CIDCO (Lease 
of Land to Co-operative Housing Society) Regulations, 1995 provided for the 
allotment of plots either by public advertisement, or at a fixed price for co-
operative housing societies or on individual applications. However, tenders 
were to be invited as far as plots which were to be granted by public D 
advertisement were concerned. Since genuine co-operative housing societies 
were usually unable to compete with the builders in open tender, they were to 
be granted plots of land at a fixed concessional rate and the buildings to be 
cons:ructed were to be used for residential purposes only. There was even a 
difference in the Floor Space Index (FSI). In the case of purely residential 
constructions, the permitted FSI was 1, whereas in the case of constructions 
to be used for both commercial and residential purposes, the FSI was 1.5. 
The plots in question were cornered by builders who set up dummy 
societies to acquire the plots and to raise constructions thereon, which would 
be used both for residential and commercial purposes, thereby making large 
gains for themselves and defrauding CIDCO. The plots were initially allotted 
to the respondents Nos. 5 to 10, each being allotted one plot at a fixed price. 
The said plots were amalgamated into one plot. It was alleged that none of 
these societies were genuine

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.