HC sets aside decree allowing private firm to develop 6,000 acres at Kanjurmarg

The Bombay high court on Wednesday set aside a consent decree it had passed in October 2020 in favour of Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt Ltd, saying the party had fraudulently obtained the decree for developing over 6,000 acres at Kanjurmarg

The Bombay high court on Wednesday set aside a consent decree it had passed in October 2020 in favour of Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts Pvt Ltd, saying the party had fraudulently obtained the decree for developing over 6,000 acres at Kanjurmarg. The plot includes the 102 acres earmarked for the Metro car shed.

Bombay high court HT Archives

The HC passed the order after hearing objections of the state, the Centre, and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) that they owned parts of the land and the decree had not taken their claims into consideration.

The court, however, clarified that it had not ascertained the quantum of the land owned by the three parties and allowed them to approach the appropriate authority.

A single-judge bench of justice A K Menon, who heard the state’s interim application in the suit filed by Adarsh Water Parks, was informed that though it (the state) owned around 1,800 acres, it was not made a party to the suit and it came to know of the decree only in 2021.

The state had claimed in its affidavit that the private firm and some persons, who were party to the suit, had hidden the information of its ownership of 1,800 acres from the court and obtained the decree for developing the 6,000 acres which comprised the entire Kanjur village. The state counsel had said that in light of the decree being obtained fraudulently, it should be set aside.

The BMC had in its affidavit claimed that it owned parts of the land including 118 hectares for a dumping ground and also showed the reservation in the development control and promotion regulations 2034 for schools, playground, community centre, among others which the civic authority was to develop.

The bench concluded the hearing on June 14 and pronounced the verdict on Wednesday. “The consent decree is the product/result of fraud,” it said.

The HC further said, “This is getting murkier and murkier...The court [in October 2020] was deprived of the benefit of any further enquiry except statements made by advocates appearing for parties. Given obvious difficulties of virtual hearing during the pandemic, the court accepted that the matter was settled between them. There was a larger responsibility cast on advocates to disclose all facts.”

Justice Menon said he disagreed with the private firm’s claim that there was no fraud involved and its opposition to the interim application by the state. “The manner in which facts were suppressed smacks of suppression of true facts and no attempt was made to make the government a party to the case.”