HC refuses to order BMC to acquire reserved land owned by production house

The Bombay HC dismissed Mahal Pictures' petition to compel BMC to acquire land near Mahakali Caves, emphasizing the civic body's priorities and existing reservations.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently dismissed a petition filed by Mahal Pictures Private Limited, owners of the famous Kamalistan Studio, seeking orders to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to acquire 9,540-sq-mtr of land owned by the production house that was established by late filmmaker Kamal Amrohi of movies like Mahal, Pakeezah and Razia Sultan fame. The land in question has been reserved by the BMC for “social amenity” as it falls in the vicinity of Mahakali Caves, declared as a protected monument under the Ancient Monument Preservation Act, 1909.

HT Image

The dismissal of the petition came after the BMC in clear terms informed the court that it has its own priorities which lean in favour of basic requirements like infrastructure, hospitals, schools, playgrounds, etc. The civic body, however, did not rule out acquisition of the land in future and said, if that happens, the landowners may get DCR or TDR.

As the large tract of land cannot be put to any commercial use after being declared as ‘reserved’, the production house had petitioned before the court that since it was the civic body that had issued the declaration, they should acquire the land and offer them land acquisition compensation or DRC (Development Rights Certificate) or TDR (Transferrable Development Right). On August 2, 2019, the civic body had rejected the production house’s plea for the same, claiming that it was not the appropriate authority to grant such DRC or TDR, as the said land is in the vicinity of Mahakali caves, also known as Kodivite Caves, which is a protected monument.

Mahal Pictures, however, contended that the BMC did not indicate as to who is the appropriate authority and claimed that the civic body was liable to compensate the landowners in term of DRC or TDR, as it is the authority which has imposed the reservation on their land and, thus, deprived them from utilising the same.

The argument, however, failed to impress upon the high court, which rejected the petition. The judges said they were conscious of the predicament of the landowners who are restricted from putting the land to any use in a commercial sense but said the grant of DCR or TDR is in lieu of acquisition, and the civic body cannot be compelled to acquire the land.