Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. This petition relates to a piece of land admeasuring 58197 sq.metres (approximately 14 acres) adjacent to the existing Ranibaug Botanical Garden & Zoo. It was always reserved under the Development Plan for extension to the Zoo. Two lease deeds were executed with respect to this land by Collector of Bombay in favour of respondent No.3-Mafatlal Industries Limited, effective from 1913 and 1918 respectively for a period of 99 years each.

                                     
     reservation         of    land       reserved         for        such        open

     spaces    should
                      ig      not    be    allowed          unless          it      was

     absolutely unavoidable or inescapable.                                  In any
                    
     effort     for       balancing             of       interest               while

considering de-reservation of an open space, the Court should always tilt in favour of maintaining the reservation. Thirdly, he contended that since the land was reserved for extension of the Zoo, the Government should have considered whether the land in question was required for the Zoo or not. He has also contended that the justifications given by the respondents for de-reservation of a part of the land were not relevant. According to him, the present figure of workers' dues payable under the VRS were only Rs.27 crores. All 2634 workers of respondent No.3 in Mumbai had opted for the VRS and, therefore, were entitled to the VRS. He also contends that TDR rates were approximately Rs.25,000/- per sq.metre at that time and had respondent No.3 surrendered the entire 14 acres against receipt of TDR for the plot, it would have received about Rs.193 crores. Therefore, the interest of the workers could have been taken care of with this money.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, on the other hand, submitted that respondent No.3 had issued a purchase notice on 19-12-2000 upon respondent No.1 in respect of the land. Respondent No.1 did not acquire the Mazgaon land pursuant to the purchase notice either within six months or at any time thereafter. Respondent No.1 by letter dated 18-6-2001 expressly rejected the purchase notice. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3, the consequence of such would have been that the whole reservation would have gone. He further submitted that the fact that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were not able to acquire the land surrounding the Zoo, which was also reserved for the extension of the Zoo, also proves the fact that the State was in no position to acquire the land. Many other plots of land around the Zoo are reserved but without any realistic possibility that the land can actually be acquired and put to public use for extension of the Zoo. Respondent No.3 has submitted the ground situation in and around the Zoo which is as under:

He submits that in balancing the interest, the Zoo got 75% of land, almost with no cost and if the reservation had been continued, the Zoo would not get anything and the damage to respondent No.3, its workmen and financial institutions and creditors would have been tremendous. He submits that since respondent No.3 was not permitted to either increase the capacity, expand or modernise the machineries existing for the last 40 years, respondent No. 3 was in no position to exploit the potential of the Mazgaon land and as such respondent No. 3 steadily deteriorated and was eventually declared a sick industry by the BIFR on 19-9-2000.