About Me

My photo
Lawyer Practising at Supreme Court of India. Court Experience: Criminal, Civil & PIL (related to Property, Tax, Custom & Duties, MVAC, insurance, I.P.R., Copyrights & Trademarks, Partnerships, Labour Disputes, etc.) Socio-Legal: Child Rights, Mid Day Meal Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, Women Rights, Against Female Foeticide, P.R.Is, Bonded Labour, Child labour, Child marriage, Domestic violence, Legal Literacy, HIV/AIDS, etc. Worked for Legal Aid/Advise/Awareness/Training/Empowerment/Interventions/Training & Sensitisation.

Contact Me

+91 9971049936, +91 9312079439
Email: adv.kamal.kr.pandey@gmail.com

Saturday, March 29, 2008

It’s all forest land, rules Bombay HC

Turns down builders’ plea, major constructions in eastern and western suburbs termed encroachments
MUMBAI: A Bombay high court judgment on Monday gave Mumbai and its adjoining areas nearly 900 acres of additional forest land. The judgment, however, has put a question mark on the fate of several housing colonies and landmarks in the eastern and western suburbs and Thane including Nirmal Lifestyle, R-Mall, BARC, Johnson & Johnson, Godrej Colony, HP refinery, and even the Mulund BMC office, which have been held by the HC to be “encroachments” on private forest land .
Dismissing a clutch of 19 petitions filed mainly by real estate developers, Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice SC Dharmadhikari on Monday upheld the notices issued by the state government in 1956-57 by virtue of which huge tracts of land were declared to be ‘private forests’ and subsequently vested with the government. The order vests nearly 1.2 lakh acres of additional forest land across the state with the government.
The petitioners, who included developers like Oberoi Constructions, Runwal Constructions, Atithi Builders, Nirmal Lifestyle, Nirmal Developers, Godrej and Nanabhai Jeejeebhoy, had challenged the government’s move to change the status of their lands from non-forest to ‘private forests’ stating that the notices issued in 1956-57 had lapsed. However, dismissing their contention as an “argument of desperation” the HC held, “Merely because they [the petitioners] have invested crores of rupees in these lands by constructing buildings and townships, does not mean the state government cannot proceed by treating these lands as private forests.”
The 154-page judgment added, “If the state desires not to allow any encroachments on reserved forests then we cannot prevent the state from doing so.”
Though the petitioners did not seek a stay on the HC order they are likely to challenge it in the SC at the earliest. The state government ruled out any immediate demolitions. “We will hold a cabinet meeting after reading the HC order,” forest minister Babanrao Pachpute told DNA.
DNAINDIA.COM; Anshika Misra
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 03:36 IST

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment