CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus EKTA MAHILA MANDAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1077 · Decided: 17-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF 
A 
... 
MAHARASHTRA AND ANR . 
v. 
EKTA MAHILA MANDAL AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND D.I(. JAIN, JJ.] 
Town Planning-Encroachment on plot of CJDCO-By a charitable 
Trust-Regularisation thereof sought-For running primary school-Denied- c 
On the ground that the land was reserved as green belt-High Court directing 
regularization in view of the fact that Primary education was a fundamental 
right-On appeal, held: Merely because Article 21 A of the Constitution has 
treated primary education as a fundamental right, that does not confer right 
to seek regularization of encroachment on the ground of running a primary 
school thereon-Plot was reserved for green belt-There is no policy for D 
regularization of such area-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 2/A-
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. 
" 
Appellant, a charitable trust started a Balakwadi for children. In the 
land adjacent to the Balakwadi, the Trust made some constructions. It sought 
for regularization of the said plot. CIDCO denied the same on the ground E 
that it was resen'ed as green belt and that lower level tree plantation has 
already been done thereon. 
Respondent filed Writ Petition seeking direction to allot the plot in its 
favour. High Court appointed a Local Commissioner who in his report stated F 
that land in question was earmarked as green belt. High Court allowed the 
petition directing regularization of the land in favour of the respondent and 
holding that the plot was not a green belt and regularization was necessary 
in view of Article 21A of the Constitution of India, making primary education 
a fundamental right. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Local Commissioner's report pointed out that the land in question 
~' 
was earmarked as a green belt. It is the stand of the CIDCO that lower level 
tree plantation has already been done and the balance work is being carried 
1077 
H 
1078 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R 
A on in a systematic manner. There is no policy for regularization and as such 
any change in the reserved area and earmarked areas under the development 
plan has to be under Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Article 
21A of the Constitution oflndia, cannot come to aid to respondent No;l. What 
was essentially sought for by the direction was regulari7.ation of unauthori7.ed 
B construction. In essence what the High Court has directed is to regularize 
an unauthorised occupation and regulari7.ation of unauthorised encroachment 
Merely because Article 21A of the Constitution has treated primary education 
as a fundamental right, that does not confer any right on an encroacher to 
seek regularization of encroachment on the ground that ultimately some 
children of the particular age group would be taught in the school. 
C 
[Para 7) (1080-E, F, GJ 
D 
Dr. G.N. Khajuria and Ors. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., 
(1995) 5 sec 762, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4309 of2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.04.2004 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 351 of2003. 
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 
of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad directing appellant-City and 
F Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (in short the 'CIDCO') to 
consider respondent No. I's case for regularization of the existing plot 
admeasuring 770 Sq. mtrs., located at N-7 Sector and on regularization to 
accept the consideration at the rates prevailing in 1981 for the plots reserved 
for educational facilities. It was held that CIDCO's stand that the said .plot is 
a green belt cannot be accepted. 
G 
3. Factual background in nutshell is as follows: 
A writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the 
appellants to regularize a plot of land which was claimed to be under its 
possession. In the writ petition it was stated that a group of house wives 
H interested in social service particularly for creating opportunities for children 
'r 
CITY AND INDUS. DEVE. CORP. v. EKTA MAHILA MANDAL [PASAYAT, J.] 1079 
from lower income groups formed a society called "Ektha Mahila Manda!" in A 
the N-7 Sector of CIDCO. Subsequently, it was registered under the B

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