Observing that “space comes at a premium in a city like Mumbai”, the Bombay High Court recently pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its ‘sheer apathy’ in getting back a plot reserved for extension of B Y L Nair Hospital in 1981 and termed the civic body’s conduct “appalling”. Allowing a public interest litigation (PIL) by a Mumbai Central resident, the court in its verdict directed the builder Rubberwala Developers Pvt Ltd to vacate the premises measuring 1,559 square metres within a month. The builder had occupied the plot for the last 14 years. The bench said that it got an impression that the municipal commissioner and additional municipal commissioner were “more concerned about the private interest of the developer” than the public interest of its own wing i.e. Nair Hospital, situated in south Mumbai, despite the hospital dean repeatedly pointing out the dire need for the said land for extension of the civic hospital. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand S Karnik on September 30 passed a judgment on a plea by Mumbai Central resident Imran Suleman Qureshi, a copy of which was made available on Tuesday. The PIL claimed that the civic body had in October 1992 acquired the plot from its original owner M Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. However, as the same was not utilised then, the BMC had in 1996 given the plot on leave license to one Nalini M Amin for a warehouse. As per the plea, the same was “illegally” transferred to Rubberwala Developers in 2007 and the developers later carried out unauthorised permanent construction on the same, allegedly with the backing of senior BMC officials. The petitioner sought a direction to the developer to vacate the premises and said Amin was a mere licensee of the BMC and she had no power to transfer or sublet the property without the prior permission of the municipal commissioner. The BMC said the petitioner’s allegations were incorrect and said the municipal property will be used by taking it back from the developer when Phase 3 of the hospital extension project is implemented, therefore there was no disposal of public property. The developer submitted that he was in compliance with all procedures and the PIL was without any basis and did not warrant the “far-reaching” reliefs sought by it to be allowed. After perusing submissions, the bench observed that the BMC “completely cold-shouldered” requests made by the hospital for using land for its extension “on one pretext or other”. The bench observed, “.The BMC, instead of taking action against Nalini Amin for committing breach of the terms of the leave and license agreement, on the contrary, recognises the developer as a licensee, who had so brazenly entered into the godown premises without any permission of the municipal commissioner. This is a classic case of how the developer has got away with so many irregularities.” It further said it was “saddened” to see the manner in which senior BMC officials went “all the way to promote private interest of the developer”. It said the same was not only “shocking” and against public interest, but it was to the “detriment of Nair Hospital and ultimately the citizens for whom the land was acquired”. “All this at the cost of the citizens for whom the state government had acquired the land in a prime location at Mumbai to cater to their health and medical needs. We are amazed at the insensitivity displayed in the present case,” it added. Directing the developer to vacate the premises within one month of the order being uploaded, the bench noted that the builder was in possession of the premises for over 14 years and has utilised the same for “private purpose and gains” despite knowing the consequences, therefore the developer was not entitled to any compensation.
