Bombay High Court on Wednesday set aside a 2020 decree which granted ownership of a 6,000-acre parcel of land in suburban Kanjurmarg to a private firm, saying that a huge “fraud was played on the court” while obtaining the earlier order.
The order could be significant for the Mumbai Metro project.
The Maharashtra government, Centre, Mumbai civic body Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and several other government and private entities have claimed ownership of the same land or parts of it. The state wants to build a car shed for Mumbai Metro on it.
Justice Anil Menon noted on Wednesday that the decree was obtained by Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts by suppression of material facts such as there were other claimants.
In March this year, the Maharashtra government learnt that the high court had in October 2020 granted the decree of ownership of this land to Adarsh Water Parks and Resorts. The state then moved the HC, challenging the decree.
The Centre, Maharashtra government and the BMC are locked in a dispute regarding the ownership of this land.
The state has proposed to construct a car shed for the metro project on about 100 acres of the same land parcel after nixing the earlier plan to construct the car shed in the Aarey Colony area following protests by environmental activists.
Justice Menon noted that the court in October 2020 was persuaded to pass the order in favour of the private firm through suppression of facts.
“Undeniably, a fraud of huge proportion has been played by suppressing the claim of other parties on the land. The decree order is a product of fraud played on the court by the parties. I have no doubt in my mind that the fraud was on the court itself,” he said.
The judge, however, made it clear that he was not making any remarks about who is the legitimate owner of the disputed land.
The concerned parties will have to take the ownership dispute to an appropriate court, the HC said.
The court further said that if the bench (which passed the earlier decree order) had been informed that there were other claimants, it would have inquired into it.
“Due to the difficulties faced during virtual court hearings (during the Covid pandemic), the court then was compelled to accept what the lawyers said. The larger responsibility hence falls on the lawyers. The court was then not apprised of all facts,” Justice Menon said.