SHRI GIRISH VYAS & ANR. . v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

"India has been especially disadvantaged in basic education, and this is one of our major challenges today. When the British left their Indian empire, only 12 per cent of the India population was literate. That was terrible G enough, but our progress since independence has also been quite slow. This contrasts with our rapid political development into the first developing country in the world fo have a functioning democracy." H The story for Pune city is not quite different. Since the impugned

GIRISH VYAS & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 935 & ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.] development permission given by the Municipal Corporation A was on the basis of no objection of the Chief Minister dated 21.8.1996, we may refer to the Educational Statistics of Pune city, at that time. As per the Census of India 1991, the population of Pune city was 24,85,014, out of which 17, 14,273 were the literate persons which comes to just above 2/3 of the population. The percentage of literacy has gone up thereafter, but still we are far away from achieving full literacy and from the goal of providing quality education and facilities at the primary level.

156Copy pinpoint156. There is a serious problem of children dropping out from the primary schools. There are wide ranging factors which affect the education of the children at a tender age, such as absence of trained teachers having the proper understanding of child psychology, ill-health, and mal-nutrition. The infrastructural facilities are often very inadequate. large number of children are cramped into small classrooms and there is absence of any playground attached with the school. This requires adequate spaces for the primary schools. Even in the · so called higher middle class areas in large cities like Pune, there are hardly any open spaces within the housing societies and, therefore, adequate space tor the playgrounds of the primary schools is of utmost importance. Having noted this scenario and the necessity of spaces for primary schools in urban areas, it is rather unfortunate that the then Chief Minister who claims to be an educationist took interest in releasing a F plot duly reserved and acquired for a primary school only for the benefit of his son-in-law, It also gives a dismal picture of his deputy, the Minister of State acting to please his superior, and so also of the Municipal Commissioner ignoring his statutory responsibilities. G

. Operative order with respect to the disputed buildings

157Copy pinpoint157. We have held the direction given by the State Government for the deletion of reservation on Final Plot No.110, and the commencement and occupation certificates issued by H

936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A the Pune Municipal Corporation in favour of the developer were in complete subversion of the statutory requirements of the MRTP Act. The development permission was wholly illegal and unjustified. As far as the building meant for the tenants is concerned, the developer as well as PMC have indicated that B they have no objection to the building being retained. As far as the ten storied building meant for the private sale is concerned, the developer had offered to hand over half the number of floors to PMC, provided it permits the remaining floors to be retained by the developer. PMC has rejected that offer since the plot c was reserved for a primary school. The building must therefore be either demolished or put to a permissible use. The illegal development carried·out by the developer has resulted into a legitimate primary school not coming up on the disputed plot of land. Thousands of children would have attended the school on this plot during last 15 years. The loss suffered by the children and the ·cause of education is difficult to assess in terms of money, and in a way could be considered to be far more than the cost of construction of this building. Removal of this building is however not going to be very easy. It will cause serious nuisance to the occupants of the adjoining buildings due to noise and air pollution. The citizens may as well initiate actions against the PMC for appropriate reliefs. It is also possible that the developer may not be able to remove the disputed building within a specified time, in which case the PMC will have to incur the expenditure on removal. It will, therefore, be open to the developer to redeem himself by offering the entire building to PMC for being used as a primary school or for the earmarked purpose, free of cost. If he is so inclined, he may inform PMC that he is giving up his claim on this building also in favour of PMC. G

158Copy pinpoint158. The High Court has not specified the time for taking the necessary steps in this behalf. Hence, for the sake of clarity, we direct the developer to inform the PMC within two weeks from today whether he is giving up the claim on the ten storied building named 'Sundew Apartments' apart from the tenants'

GIRISH VYAS & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 937 & ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.] building in favour of PMC, failing which PMC will issue a notice to the developer within two weeks thereafter, calling upon him to furnish particulars to PMC within two weeks from the receipt of the notice, as to in what manner and time frame he proposes to demolish this ten storied building. In the event the developer declines or fails to do so, or does not respond within the 8 specified period, or if PMC forms an impression after receiving his reply that the developer is incapable of removing the building in reasonably short time, the PMC will go ahead and demolish the same. In either case the decision of the City Engineer of PMC with respect to the manner of removal of the building and disposal of the debris shall be final.

159Copy pinpoint159. As far as the ownership of the plot is concerned, the same will abide by the decision of the High Court in First Appeal Stamp No. 18615 of 1994 which will be decided in accordance with law. The old tenants will continue to occupy the building meant for the tenants.

160Copy pinpoint160. The PMC and the State Government have fairly changed/reviewed their legal position in this Court, and defended their original stand about the illegality of the construction. We therefore, absolve both of them from paying costs to the original petitioners. The order with respect to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- against the then Chief Minister and the Minister of State to each of the original petitioners however remains. Over and above we add Rs. 15,000/- for each of them ,to pay to the two petitioners separately towards the cost of these appeals in this Court. Thus, the then Chief Minister and the Minister of State shall each pay Rs. 25,000/- to the two petitioners separately.

161Copy pinpoint161. The spaces for public amenities such as roads, playgrounds, markets, water supply and sewerage facilities, hospitals and particularly educational institutions are essential for a decent urban life. The planning process therefore assumes significance in this behalf. The parcels of land reserved for H

938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A public amenities under the urban plans cannot be permitted to be tinkered with. The greed for making more money is leading to all sorts of construction for housing in prime city areas usurping the lands meant for public amenities wherever possible and in utter disregard for the quality of life. Large number of s areas in big cities have already become concrete jungles bereft of adequate public amenities. It is therefore, that we have laid down the guidelines in this behalf which flow from the scheme of the MRTP Act itself so that this menace of grabbing public spaces for private ends stops completely. We are also clear C that any unauthorised construction particularly on the lands meant for public amenities must be removed forthwith. We expect the guidelines laid down in this behalf to be followed scrupulously.

The conclusions in nutshell and the consequent order D

162Copy pinpoint162. In the circumstances we conclude and pass the following order - •

(i) We hold that the direction given by the Government of Maharashtra for the deletion of reservation on Final Plot E No. 110, at Prabhat Road, Pune, and the consequent Commencement and Occupation certificates issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) in favour of the developer were in complete subversion of the statutory requirements of the MRTP Act. The development permission was wholly illegal and unjustified.

(ii) The direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 6/15.3.1999 in Writ Petition Nos. 4433 and 4434/1998 for demolition of the concerned building was fully legal and justified.

(iii) The contention of the landowner that his right of development for residential purposes on the concerned plot under the erstwhile Town Planning scheme subsisted in spite of coming into force of Development Plan reserving H

GIRISH VYAS & ANR. v. STATE. OF MAHARASHTRA 939 & ORS. [H.L. GOKHALE, J.) the plot for a primary school, is liable to be rejected. A

(iv) The acquisition of the concerned plot of land was complete with the declaration under Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act and the same ·is valid and legal. B (v) The order passed by the High Court directing the Municipal Corporation to move for the revival of the First Appeal Stamp No. 18615 of 1994 was therefore necessary. The High Court is expected to decide the revived First Appeal at the earliest and preferably within four months hereafter in the light of the law and the directions given in this judgment.

(vi) The developer shall inform the PMC whether he is giving up the claim over the construction of the ten storied building (named 'Sundew Apartments') apart from the tenants' building in favour of PMC, failing which either the ·developer or the PMC shall take steps for demolition of the disputed building (Sundew Apartments) as per the time framed laid down in this judgment. E (vii) The former occupants of F.P No. 110 will continue to reside in the building constructed for the tenants on the terms stated in the judgment.

(viii) The corporation will not be required to pay any amount F to the developer for the tenants' building constructed by him, nor for the ten storied building in the event he gives up his claim over it in favour of PMC.

(ix) The strictures passed by the High Court against the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Shri Manohar Joshi G and the then Minister of State Shri Ravindra Mane are maintained. The prayer to expunge these remarks is rejected. The remarks against the Municipal Commissioner are however deleted. H

940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A (x) The order directing criminal investigation and thereafter further action as warranted in law, is however deleted in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (6) sec 667 B (xi) The then Chief Minister and the then Minister of State shall each pay cost of Rs. 15,000/- to each of the two petitioners in the High Court towards these ten appeals, over and above the cost of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the High Court in the writ petitions payable by each of them c to the two writ petitioners.

(xii) The State Government and the Planning authorities . under the MRTP Act shall hereafter scrupulously follow the directions and the suggested. safeguards with respect to D the spaces meant for public amenities. All the appeals stand disposad of as above.

R.P. Appeals disposed of.