PADMA Vs. HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 09,2002
PADMA
Appellant
VERSUS
HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAM SHIKSHA SADAN TRUST VS. PARAS EDUCATION TRUST [LAWS(GJH)-2004-4-72] [REFERRED TO]BHIKHUBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ NARAIN SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES MEERUT VS. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-11-64] [REFERRED TO]
H JAYARAM REDDY VS. BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE [LAWS(KAR)-2003-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADAMMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR PRATISTHAN AND SANSHODHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-12-115] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYAK SHANKARRAO BAPAT VS. SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-144] [REFERRED TO]
DIGHI KOLI SAMAJ MUMBAI RAHIVASI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
VASANT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-7-180] [REFERRED TO]
MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION TRUST VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-11-74] [REFERRED TO]
PATNI COMPUTERS SYSTEMS LTD VS. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-204] [REFERRED TO]
PRINTERS MYSORE LIMITED VS. M A RASHEED [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-13] [REFERRED TO </RC>]
ZEE TELEFILMS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2005-2-116] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG CO LTD VS. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENT ACTION GROUP [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES [LAWS(SC)-2009-4-208] [REFERRED TO]
VINAYENDRA NATH UPADHYAY VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-178] [REFERRED TO]
NEW KATTALAI CANAL AND AERIE PASANA VIVASAYIGAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION K SATHANOOR REP BY ITS PRESIDENT PALANISAMY TRICHY VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT NEW DELHI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-178] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY VS. NIZAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
AMITA BANTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
CHETNA ESTATE PVT LIMITE VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-153] [REFERRED TO]
COATS VIYELLA EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD VS. HARVEY NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2013-11-99] [REFERRED TO]
CHALISGAON MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-1-129] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL THAKKAR VS. BLUE BIRD ENTERPRISES (P.) LTD. [LAWS(CL)-2010-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-242] [REFERRED TO]
CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-91] [REFERRED TO]
EXCEL VENTURE CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
VAREIYO SHATSANG VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
VADODARA SHAHERI JILLA KHEDUT MANDAL AND ORS VS. VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-205] [REFERRED TO]
S K AGARWAL VS. CITY & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF MAHARASHTRA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-85] [REFERRED]
VINAYAK S/O SHANKARRAO BAPAT VS. ANAND S/O VYANKATESH SONWALKAR; SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHANDRAPUR; POLICE INSPECTOR, TRAFFIC CONTROL BRANCH, CHANDRAPUR; MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHANDRAPUR; STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-186] [REFERRED]
NARENDRA AGRAWAL VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN IMMUNOLOGICALS LIMITED, HYDERABAD (A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE NATIONAL DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD), ROAD NO.44, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF NOIDA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD SIRAJ JINDRAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMRU RAM KARMA S/O LATE SHRI BOJHA MAJHI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY [LAWS(CHH)-2016-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU RATHOR VS. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVARU VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-8-308] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY CHOUHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN DEUBA TARDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
ALL U P STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 19687, 20512, 20666, 20753 of 2000 and 4606 and 21825 of 2001.
(2.)In these appeals by grant of special leave the judgment of High Court of Bombay, Auranga-bad Bench in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1999 is under challenge. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the High Court challenging the procedure adopted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CIDCO) for disposal of the land by bulk sale. CIDCO is a company registered under the Companies Act and is a Government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act. The Government of Maharashtra incorporated the aforesaid company with several objectives and the main objectives being:
(a) To develop land for residential, commercial and allied industrial activities and to provide the required physical infrastructure, such as roads, drainage, water supply, sewerage, street lights and landscaping etc.
(b) To build as many houses and community centers, shopping centers, parks, play grounds, bus stations, etc. to meet the day to day needs of the population, as well as for a fast take up of new growth areas and also to make available and develop the plots at affordable prices, so as to construct residential dwellings for self occupation.
(c) To promote growth of commercial wholesale market activities, warehousing transport, office and other activities in order to evolve expeditiously a sound economic base for self sustained growth and achieve, at the same time a process of relieving congestion in the cities like Bombay as well as the fast developing cities in other parts of Maharashtra and
(d) While doing so, to maintain ecological balance and ensure that environmental degradation is not allowed.
(3.)The CIDCO was declared as special planning authority for Aurangabad notified area under sub-section 3(A) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The State of Maharashtra aquired huge land for CIDCO in villages Mukundwadi, Garkheda, Harsul, Hatesing-pura, Jaswantsingpura, Bayaji-pura, Jadhavwadi, Murtizapur, Mastanpur etc. which are all located in the outskirts of Aurangabad Municipal limits.
(2.)In these appeals by grant of special leave the judgment of High Court of Bombay, Auranga-bad Bench in Writ Petition No. 2338 of 1999 is under challenge. A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the High Court challenging the procedure adopted by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CIDCO) for disposal of the land by bulk sale. CIDCO is a company registered under the Companies Act and is a Government company under Section 617 of the Companies Act. The Government of Maharashtra incorporated the aforesaid company with several objectives and the main objectives being:
(a) To develop land for residential, commercial and allied industrial activities and to provide the required physical infrastructure, such as roads, drainage, water supply, sewerage, street lights and landscaping etc.
(b) To build as many houses and community centers, shopping centers, parks, play grounds, bus stations, etc. to meet the day to day needs of the population, as well as for a fast take up of new growth areas and also to make available and develop the plots at affordable prices, so as to construct residential dwellings for self occupation.
(c) To promote growth of commercial wholesale market activities, warehousing transport, office and other activities in order to evolve expeditiously a sound economic base for self sustained growth and achieve, at the same time a process of relieving congestion in the cities like Bombay as well as the fast developing cities in other parts of Maharashtra and
(d) While doing so, to maintain ecological balance and ensure that environmental degradation is not allowed.
(3.)The CIDCO was declared as special planning authority for Aurangabad notified area under sub-section 3(A) of Section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. The State of Maharashtra aquired huge land for CIDCO in villages Mukundwadi, Garkheda, Harsul, Hatesing-pura, Jaswantsingpura, Bayaji-pura, Jadhavwadi, Murtizapur, Mastanpur etc. which are all located in the outskirts of Aurangabad Municipal limits.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.