Mumbai The Bombay high court recently pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its reluctance to get back premises reserved in 1981 for the expansion of BYL Nair Hospital, which have been in the possession of a developer for the past 14 years. It directed the developer to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the civic body within a month.
The HC, while hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Imran Suleman Qureshi, observed that it got the impression that the municipal commissioner and additional municipal commissioner were more concerned about the private interests of the developer than the public interest of their own civic hospital despite the hospital dean time and again pointing out the dire need for land for its extension.
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand Karnik, which concluded the hearing of the PIL on September 29, noted that it was restoring the plot to the BMC and hoped that the proposal for a multi-storied building was only for rehabilitating the tenants currently occupying the land reserved for the Nair Hospital extension and partly for emergency labour quarters. “We hope and trust that the BMC does not propose to rehabilitate the developer, a private developer who benefited so long from the unwarranted action on the part of the BMC,” the bench remarked sarcastically.
The PIL was filed by Qureshi in 2013, and various orders were passed from time to time by the HC, restraining the occupant of the plot from creating third-party rights. However, when the PIL was listed for final hearing, Qureshi and his lawyer did not turn up, prompting the HC to convert it into a suo motu PIL. Advocate Aseem Naphade was appointed to assist the court.
During the hearing, the HC was informed that the plot of land measuring 1559 square metres was reserved for the extension of Nair Hospital in 1981 but as it was not utilised then, the BMC gave the plot on a leave-and-license basis to a warehouse till 2007. After 2007, the plot changed hands and was given to a developer who demolished the existing structure and constructed a new one in its place for commercial exploitation.
The leave-and-license agreement with the BMC clearly stated that since the plot was meant for building an extension to Nair Hospital, the tenant would have to vacate it as and when the BMC sought it. However, despite many letters from the hospital dean to the BMC on the need for extending the hospital facility, the BMC ignored them all and kept granting permissions to the developer as and when he sought them.
During arguments, the developer sought compensation for the losses he would face by handing back the plot to the BMC. On this, the court noted in its order, “The construction has been put up by the Developer after obtaining permission from the MCGM (BMC)… Now that we propose to allow the PIL petition and direct the Developer to hand over the premises back to MCGM, the question came up for consideration as to whether the Developer should be compensated.
“We find that the construction was put up on the understanding that whenever the MCGM would require the premises back, the same would be handed over to the MCGM. Moreover, the Developer is in possession of the premises for last more than 14 years and has upon construction of the new building, utilised the structure for private purpose and gains. The Developer was always well aware of the consequences and, therefore, the question of compensation does not arise.”
The bench then directed the developer to hand over the plot to BMC within a month and disposed of the PIL.