HC stays state order claiming it owns Borivli plot

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court (HC) has granted interim relief to a developer who had purchased a plot of land to carry out a slum rehabilitation authority (SRA) project in Borivli, but was restrained by the Maharashtra government as it claimed ownership of the land.

The land was purchased by the developer through an auction conducted by the court receiver in 2010.

The court put a stay on the state’s decision, after the government failed to provide a document dating back to 1979, which had resolved the issue of ownership.

The developer had received the letter of intent (LOI) for SRA in 2010 but was restrained from carrying out the project, following which he approached the court.

A division bench of justices BR Gavai and MS Karnik heard a petition filed by the developer, who was represented by senior advocate Dr Milind Sathe.

While arguing the case, Sathe informed the bench that there was a dispute over the ownership of the said plot from 1965. The dispute was resolved by the divisional commissioner in 1979, and the plot was put in the custody of the court receiver.

He further informed that the plot was auctioned in 2010, in which his client made a successful bid. Later, as the plot was encroached upon, the developer applied for an SRA project and the LOI was issued to him to rehabilitate 97 slums dwellers

living on the plot.

However, before the developer could start work on the project, the state issued an order claiming that as the land belonged to the state, it could not be used for the SRA project.

Aggrieved by the order, the developer had approached the HC, seeking directions to the state to withdraw its order.

The state argued that a question regarding the said plot was raised in the legislature, and hence, the impugned order was issued.

However, when asked to produce the 1979 document, the state informed the court that it was not traceable.

The bench said that the developer had managed to get his documents, while the state failed in doing so, and in light of the fact that he was also responsible for the 97 slum dwellers, grounds were made for granting relief to the developer.

The HC, therefore, stayed the impugned order.