BMC triumphs, SC clears land for zoo expansion

MUMBAI: In a victory for the civic body, the Supreme Court on Friday removed the last hurdle the BMC faced in controlling the land for the expansion of Byculla zoo by dismissing a special leave petition filed by Mafatlal Industries.



Mafatlal had sought non-cash compensation in terms of transferable development rights (TDR) for land — earmarked for the zoo expansion — in its possession as lessee. The HC had dismissed Mafatlal’s claim in August.

Work on the seven-acre land will begin soon after approval from the Central Zoo Authority, deputy municipal commissioner Sudheer Naik told TOI on Friday. “Our proposal for expansion of the zoo is before the authority. A meeting is scheduled for next week. Once approved, we will invite bids for the work,” he added.

While questioning Mafatlal’s claim in the HC, the lawyer for BMC had said the compensation being claimed, if granted, would be “equivalent to about Rs 1,600 crore’’.

In the SC, civic counsel Shekhar Naphade raised questions about the maintainability of a compensation claim in a writ petition. Questions of facts and law are involved to decide on the exact area, the title claim and amount, which, he said, cannot be decided without trial. For Mafatlal Industries, former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi pleaded that half of the company’s land was being taken away and it was entitled to compensation. An SC bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee dismissed the Mafatlal SLP.

The BMC stand was the company had been compensated by the state government in 2004 when it freed for development half of the entire land reserved for the zoo extension. The company case was that the civic body’s “own conduct” had demonstrated that “Mafatlal Industries under a 2004 notification was entitled to hand over possession of the land and entitled to non-cash compensation”. The “notification had treated MIL as owner”, its petition had said.

But in a reasoned ruling, which the SC did not allow to be challenged, the HC held that no compensation was due. “This is a case where the requirement of land for a pre-designated public purpose is fulfilled by balancing the rights and equities of the petitioners as lessees of government land or public properties,” the HC said.