Stemming the urban crawl

OUT OF COURT

The Supreme Court delivered three judgements last week solving tussles over prime urban land in different cities. Each one of them was peculiar in its own circumstances.

In Bahadursinh vs Jagdishbhai, it was a public interest petition that unearthed a clever transfer of land with the acquiescence of the municipal councillors.

An auction was held in 1951 for a large plot in Bhavnagar and the highest bidder offered Rs 360. He deposited Rs 270 and the balance, Rs 90, remained unpaid for 44 years. He died thereafter and the deal was forgotten. When the cost of the plot crossed Rs 1 crore because of the urban crawl, a claimant surfaced offering Rs 90 that was left unpaid by the original buyer.

Strangely, the state home minister instructed the municipal authorities to incorporate the new name in the lease register. However, the estate officer did not comply with it. Then the claimant moved the chairman of the standing committee who also rejected his demand.

Later, the chairman of the standing committee changed and he managed to pass a resolution giving the lease to the new person on payment of Rs 90 with interest. Two members alleged that the resolution was not on the agenda and there was no such decision.

This led to the public interest litigation. The high court quashed the resolution of the standing committee. The corporation was directed to take actual possession of the land and prevent any construction on the plot. It also ordered "appropriate proceedings" against the concerned councillors. On appeal, the Supreme Court approved of the high court action.

The judgement said: "By reason of the impugned order, public interest has been given a complete go-by and a valuable public property was doled out at the behest of those who are duty-bound to protect the same."

It recalled its 1991 judgement in Bangalore Medical Trust vs B S Muddappa where it emphasised that an open space reserved for a public park in terms of the development scheme could not be converted into a civil amenity and allotted to a private person. Discretion, the court pointed out, must be exercised objectively, rationally, fairly and non-arbitrarily.

Construction of additional floors on multi-storeyed buildings is another area of friction between landlords and municipal authorities. In Howrah Municipal Corpn vs Ganges Rope Co Ltd, the Calcutta High Court had granted sanction for adding three more floors to a skyscraper.

The corporation moved the Supreme Court on appeal. It quashed the high court order. It observed: "In the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party. The sanction directed by the high court is clearly in violation of the amended building rules and the resolution of the corporation."

In Ganga Retreat & Towers Ltd vs State of Rajasthan, the issue was the floor area ratio and the conditions of the lease that were changed to the disadvantage of the buyer of the prime plot at a public auction. When the sale deed was registered and possession given to the company, the floor area ratio was specified was 2.00.

Moreover, the understanding of the company was that the plot was free from urban ceiling laws. However, on both counts, it was disappointed. The floor area ratio was changed to 1.75 and the urban ceiling authorities began to take action against it for holding excess land.

The company stated that its planning had gone awry because of the "misrepresentations" made by the corporation. However, the Supreme Court rejected its argument and emphasised that "the government can direct the authority to exercise its own powers and perform its duty in accordance with the policy framed and the guidelines laid down from time to time."

These disputes cannot be taken as mere quibbling over property rights. The quality of urban life depends upon the way precious urban land is allowed to be utilised by the authorities.