15 June,2022 03:13 PM IST | Mumbai | mid-day online correspondent
Representative image. Pic/Istock
The Bombay High Court on June 15, cancels 2020 order which granted ownership of a 6,000-acre parcel of land in Kanjurmarg to a private firm, stating that a huge "fraud was played on the court" while obtaining the earlier order, which could be significant for the Mumbai Metro project.
The Maharashtra government, Centre, 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 state 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.
Also Read: Reconsider Aarey, Kanjurmarg metro car shed will spell doom: Centre to Maha govt
ALSO READ
Ajit Pawar-led NCP to contest MLC election from Mumbai Teachers constituency
Shiv Sena's Shivaji Shendge to contest polls from Mumbai Teachers' constituency
Mid-Day Top News: Maharashtra assembly polls likely only after Diwali and more
Special | Maharashtra assembly elections: Who’s the real NCP in Mumbra-Kalwa?
Maharashtra assembly elections: Want unity, not CM post, says Uddhav Thackeray
The Centre, Maharashtra government and the BMC are disputing 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.
"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 Bombay High Court said.
"Due to the difficulties faced during virtual court hearings (during the coronavirus 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.
(with inputs from PTI)
