‘Redevelopment of drive-in theatre land as per lease’

MUMBAI: The developer of a drive-in theatre at Bandra (East) has submitted an affidavit in the Bombay HC claiming the public interest litigation (PIL), alleging that the property worth ₹5,000 crore was sold for a meagre ₹38 crore, is frivolous as the amount was paid towards a premium for redeveloping half the plot.

The developer said he had purchased the land in 1969 through a public auction for a 99-year-lease and the redevelopment was being done under the amended Development Control Rules (DCR) of 1991. The HC directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder in response to the submissions by the developer.

The division bench of chief justice Naresh Patil and justice Makarand Karnik while hearing the PIL, filed by advocate and activist Abha Singh against the alleged illegal construction of a hotel on the drive-in theatre site, was informed by advocate Aditya Pratap that there was an outright loss to the government exchequer as the land costing nearly ₹5,000 crore had been sold off to the

developer for a mere ₹38 crore.

The PIL sought directions to the state to take back the land as it was not being used for the purpose it was leased.

However, senior advocate Pravin Samdani, appearing for the developer, rubbished the claims and said that though the land belonged to the state it had been leased out to him since 1969. He said the hotel that was being constructed was part of the initial lease agreement that stipulated a drive-in theatre as well as a hotel.

Throwing light on the construction of five buildings and the payment of ₹38 crore that was assumed to be the price of the land, Samdani clarified that after

the DCR rules were changed in 1991, the government had allowed conversion of single screen theatres by redeveloping them into multiplexes.

In light of this, the developer had approached the collector for permission to redevelop half the land of the drive-in theatre. The collector had permitted the same, but had ordered payment of a premium of ₹38 crore towards the new lease, which he had paid. The state confirmed the same through its affidavit.

Samdani said that in light of these submissions the PIL should be dismissed. However, Pratap said he would file a rejoinder to the same.