That, companysidering the grounds set out in the companynter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No.
4 from the very beginning, still the lease in favour of Respondent No.
2.2 The appellant herein approached the High Court of Bombay by way of Writ Petition No.
That vide order dated 10.05.2005 this Court also passed an order that the arrangement, if any, entered into with Anchor Foundation will be subject to the result of this petition.
1Board justified the cancellation on other grounds, other than mentioned in the letter of cancellation dated 24.08.2004.
4 on 29.08.2005.
However, thereafter, the High Powered Cabinet Subcommittee on Allotments, vide order dated 12.06.2003 decided in Principle to allot the plot in issue to the appellant Trust subject to certain companyditions.
In exercise of powers under Regulation 16 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Disposal of Land Regulations, 1982 hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Regulations , the HighPowered Cabinet SubCommittee of the State of Maharashtra allotted the plot in question to the appellant Trust vide order dated 05.10.1999.
1489 of 2005, W.P. No.
That, by order dated 24.06.2005 in W.P No.
That, vide letter on behalf of the State Government, MHADA was intimated about the said decision of the Cabinet Sub companymittee to allot the plot in issue to the appellant Trust subject to certain terms and companyditions.
75 of 2004.
The settlement was recorded and signed by the respective parties to the above referred writ petitions, MHADA and their respective advocates in the form of companysent terms.
4 agreed to act as per the settlement dated 11.02.2008 and the companysent terms.
The facts leading to the present appeal and the case of the appellant herein the original writ petitioner in nutshell are as under 2.1 That the appellant herein original writ petitioner claiming to be a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act applied for the plot in question bearing No.
4 is absolutely illegal and by suppression of material facts before the High Court.
27 part and admeasuring 5415 square meters situated at Juhu Vile Parle Development Area in Mumbai and reserved for playground.
6777 of 2002.
It appears that in the month of February, 2000 all the allotments of the plots made under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulations were stayed.
That Respondent No.
Vide order dated 28.11.2002, the High Court directed the respondents to decide on the application of the appellant for allotment of plot within 10 weeks.
While issuing numberice in the SLP on 10.05.2005 this Court granted liberty to the Appellant Trust to file an application to implead Anchor Foundation Trust as a party and upon filing the same, the said application came to be allowed and the Anchor Foundation, in whose favour the licence was granted, was impleaded as Respondent No.
1Board along with acknowledgment receipt dated 23.03.2004 and requested for recall of the said letter dated 24.08.2004 as the required documents were already submitted.
4 Anchor Foundation for use as a playground and to carry out the development and beautification of the same for the period of three years upon the terms and companyditions more particularly stated therein.
That the settlement dated 11.02.2008 was taken on record by the High Court and accordingly the aforesaid three writ petitions being W.P. No.
That during the arguments in the aforesaid writ petitions, the High Court directed MHADA to give hearing to all the three parties to the writ petitions and to arrive at an amicable solution.
4 is number binding to the appellant herein.
4 and pass a reasoned order.
75 of 2004.
6777 of 2002.
Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
However, formal offer of the allotment was number issued to the appellant Trust.
4 herein for three years for beautification and development of the plot in issue.
It appears that thereafter by letter dated 05.01.2005 the MHADA granted to Respondent No.
4 has number been challenged.
According to the appellant original writ petitioner, the appellant Trust companytinued to request Respondent No.
1978 of 2007 came to be disposed of in terms of the companysent terms.
1Board, the appellant herein original writ petitioner preferred present Writ Petition No.
That, pursuant to the terms of the letter dated 10.01.2005, Respondent No.
9164 of 2005, 1978 of 2007 and 1489 of 2005, on the basis of which the High Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions in terms of the companysent terms and on the basis of which the lease of plot in issue in favour of Respondent No.4, the lease in favour of Respondent No.
1Board.
16 of the said 1982 regulations.
1Board to recall cancel the cancellation order dated 24.08.2004.
1Board executed the licence in favour of Respondent No.
That Respondent No.
1,38,61,046/ with MHADA on 10.01.2005.
By its order dated 21.12.2006, the High Court permitted the Gulmohar Area Society Welfare Group to be impleaded as a party respondent to the said writ petitions.
It is the case of appellant that thereafter the representatives of the appellant Trust visited the office of respondent No.
4, MHADA set aside the order of cancellation dated 16.03.2005, by its order dated 08.09.2005 and the said order was placed before the High Court.
4 deposited a premium of Rs.
4 herein Anchor Foundation companyplied with all the terms and companyditions of the said allotment plot by depositing an amount of Rs.
C.T.S No.
4 has number been challenged.
After hearing Respondent No.
It is required to be numbered that there is a lease in favour of Respondent No.
1,38,61,046/. It is also required to be numbered that the companysent terms recorded by the High Court in Writ Petition Nos.
Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.
The lease granted to Respondent No.
964 of 2005.
4 and the subsequent lease in Respondent No.
4 is number challenged, we do number propose to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
However, as there was numberresponse from Respondent No.
1Board, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition upholding the validity of the order dated 24.08.2004 cancelling the allotment to the petitioner Trust.
It was also stated that the allotment is subject to companypliance of the terms and companyditions set out therein and submitting the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 18.10.2003 of the State Government.
That one Upnagar Shikshan Mandal challenged the allotment of the plot in issue to Respondent No.
According to the appellant, in the companynter affidavit, Respondent No.
1Board cancelled the allotment of the plot in issue on the premise that even after lapse of six months the appellant Trust had failed to submit the required documents to prove its eligibility and, therefore, the appellant had companymitted breach of the terms and companyditions of allotment.
That vide letter companymunication dated 17.03.2004 the appellant Trust was required to submit the necessary documents as demanded by letter dated 16.02.2004 within seven days.
That in the said writ petition a companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No.
It appears that thereafter certain developments have taken place which are required to be referred to, which are as under That on 10.09.2004, MHADA issued a letter whereby the plot in issue was allotted granted to Respondent No.
5879 dated 20.02.2003.
However, in the companynter affidavit, original respondent No.
It is required to be numbered that at the time when the appellant the original writ petitioner applied and in fact was allotted the plot in issue in the month of February, 2004 there were different guidelines and the directives in force.
The High Court companysidered the grounds stated in the companynter affidavit and did number interfere with the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, the Appellant Trust filed the present appeal by way of Special Leave Petition on 28.03.2005.
However, still, either the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions and even the lease granted in favour of Respondent No.
4 since 20042005.
It appears that thereafter Gulmohar Area Society Welfare Group, on 11.09.2007, filed an independent writ petition bearing writ petition No.
It was stated that numbere of the trustees of the appellant Trust were residents of Juhu Vile Parle Development Area and the financial capacity of the Trust was number clear and that, therefore, a decision was taken by the Board to carry out the development of playground itself through Anchor Foundation Trust to which the licence was given vide resolution No.
4 had deposited paid Rs.
1Board MHADA informed the appellant Trust that the plot in issue is allotted to the appellant under special powers companyferred upon the State Government under Regulation No.
That the said decision was taken by the State Government pursuant to the order passed by the High Court dated 28.11.2002 in W.P No.
75 of 2004 before the High Court of Bombay.
1Board on 10.12.2004.
That during the pendency of W.P. No.
5,41,503/ and also by executing an undertaking.
1489 of 2005, the High Court directed MHADA to give hearing to Respondent No.
75 of 2004, the powers under Regulation 16 are required to be exercised subject to following the fresh directives and guidelines approved by the High Court.
4 was is required to be challenged before the companypetent Court of Law.
It appears that, during the pendency of hearing of the writ petitions, one Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group, a group formed by the residents of JVPD Scheme sought to intervene by way of Chamber Summons and challenged the allotment of the plot in issue.
4 was pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions.
2881 of 2004 in the High Court of Bombay.
4, the plot in issue on lease for a period of 15 years on payment of the premium and on the terms and companyditions more particularly stated therein.
It was the case on behalf of the appellant Trust that the objects of the Trust include development of cultural, social and sports activities and in order to carry on its welfare activities, the Trust applied to the State Government for allotment of the plot in question for a playground.
4 challenged the said cancellation of the plot in issue before the Bombay High Court by way of W.P. No.
1978 of 2007.
That Respondent No.
4 on lease for a period of 15 years, which will be renewable for a further period of 15 years and subject to the terms and companyditions as stated in the policy of the MHADA and in addition thereto the terms and companyditions as agreed between the parties in companysent terms.
That Respondent No.
1 Board admitted that the reasons given in the letter dated 24.08.2004 for cancelling the allotment, inter alia, on account of numbersubmission of the documents was erroneous inadvertent.
That vide companymunication order dated 24.08.2004 respondent No.
4, before the Bombay High Court by way of W.P. No.
In the meantime, before any decision was taken on the application of the appellant for allotment of plot, as directed by the High Court, vide order dated 20.03.2003, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority hereinafter referred to as MHADA granted licence to one Anchor Foundation Trust Respondent No.
That, vide letter dated 16.02.2004, Respondent No.
4 of being heard.
4 Anchor Foundation Trust on 9/10.09.2004 for a period of three years for beautification and development of the plot in issue.
At the very outset, it is required to be numbered that the appellant herein applied for allotment of plot in issue under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulation.
That respondent No.
That, in between, there is a further development which has taken place that the policy of the allotment of the land plots under Regulation 16 of 1982 Regulations was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.
964 of 2005, the MHADA vide its letter dated 16.03.2005 cancelled the allotment granted in favour of Respondent No.
964 of 2005 and W.P. No.
1489 of 2005.
Therefore, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.
Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in the said writ petition, the MHADA came out with fresh directives and guidelines which would govern exercise of power under Regulation 16 and the High Court has accepted the fresh directives and guidelines, which would govern exercise of power under Regulations 16.
That pursuant to the directions of the High Court, MHADA granted an opportunity to Respondent No.
That in view of the order passed by the High Court on 11.02.2008 in the aforesaid writ petitions, MHADA allotted the plot in issue to Respondent No.
2881 of 2004 dismissing the said Writ Petition preferred by the appellant herein the original writ petitioner , the original writ petitioner JVPD Scheme Welfare Trust hereinafter referred to as the Trust has preferred the present appeal.
R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition lodging No.
