Revenue minister Narayan Rane’s decision to hand over a 10-acre plot of land in Sahar to a private party even as two cases pertaining to its ownership are pending in court, invited strong criticism from the Bombay High Court on Thursday.
“With what authority was the land transferred (back to private party)?” asked chief justice Swatanter Kumar and justice AP Deshpande while hearing a public interest litigation challenging Rane’s December 2007 decision to hand over the land to Esteem Properties, a south-Mumbai based private enterprise.
The judges said it was “irresponsible” on Rane’s part to take such a decision while two cases pertaining to the land were pending in the high court. “The minister (Rane) should have been more careful. This is not expected of the government.”
Observing that “there seems to be more to the case than what appears”, the judges have asked for original documents pertaining to the land, including the orders passed by Rane to be produced in court on July 16.
According to the public interest litigation filed by Aurangabad-based Chetan Kamble and Malad resident Vilas Devrukhkar, in 1998, Rane, the then chief minister, passed an
order transferring the Sahar plot from a private party to the government. A suit regarding the ownership of the plot is pending in high court since 1971.
In 2006, Esteem Properties challenged Rane’s 1998 order in the high court, which granted a status quo order. But Esteem Properties approached Rane, who reversed his earlier decision to hand the plot to Esteem Properties.
Petitioner’s lawyer Uday Warunjikar told the court that Rane’s order in 2007 said he was passing the order according to directions given by the high court.
“The court is being used to legalise an illegal act,” Warunjikar said. The high court had asked the parties to maintain a status quo and no direction was given to the government to decide the matter, he said.
Questioning the government’s urgency to act in this case, the judges remarked that every week, 20 cases come up before the court where the government takes a stand that no decision has been taken as the matter is pending in court.
The petitioners alleged that Rane’s 2007 decision to reverse his 1998 order was arbitrarily taken to benefit Esteem Properties.
