The Supreme Court Friday said open spaces left for garden areas in approved building layout plans cannot be allowed for construction, and upheld a Bombay High Court verdict disallowing constriction on two plots at Juhu in Mumbai that were earmarked as open area by a government body in 1967.
A bench of Mohan M Shantanagoudar and R Subhash Reddy said, “As rightly held by the High Court, we are also of the view that the two plots, which are shown as open spaces/garden, in the approved layout, cannot be allowed to be used for the purpose of construction.”
Dismissing the appeals filed by Anjuman E Shiate Ali and others against the high court verdict of July 19, 2017, the bench said: “It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces.”
As per the approved layout plan for JVPD scheme, two different plots of 2,500 and 1,687.18 sq yards were shown as open spaces/garden in the approved layout of 1967 situated on 9th Wireless Road, JVPD Scheme, Juhu.
The apex court was faced with the question whether the plots, earmarked as open space in 1967, can be allowed to be utilised for constructions in view of the subsequent development plan prepared by MHADA (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority) in 1999. It held that the subsequent plan will not come into effect.
Erstwhile Maharashtra Housing Board (MHB), now known as MHADA, had framed a scheme covering total land area of 5,80,000 square yards under Bombay Housing Board Act, 1948 and the said Scheme was called as JVPD Scheme.
Under the scheme, Dawoodi Bohra Community were allotted certain plots for constructions of residential units and in the lay out plan, the two plot were shown as open spaces/garden.
By using subsequent MHADA approval of 1999, the efforts were made to construct residential units.
Dealing with two PILs, the high court had referred to the provisions of Development Control Rules (DCRs), and the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, and had held that these two plots were shown as reserved for garden purpose in the approved layout in 1967, and cannot be used for constructions.