Return public land to where it belongs’

Bobde was dealing with the reliefs sought in the Pune land scam case. “There is no question of treating the tenants’ case sympathetically,” said Bobde even as he cited the Pratibha demolition case. “In Pratibha, they were bonafide purchasers. Here, the tenants are no longer tenants, but owners of the flats. They have spent nothing on the flats and don’t deserve any equity in this case,” he said.

Justice Srikrishna then, quoting Vyas’ counsel V R Manohar queried, if it would not be a national waste, considering that so much concrete and cement had been consumed. To this, Bobde said an illegal building is not a national asset, but the character of a society and its respect for law is its asset. “It doesn’t matter if a Rs two crore building comes down,” he added.

Asked if the buildings could be given to the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for public use, Bobde said then a question of compensation to Vyas might arise. Bobde also stressed that all officers, including the city engineer of the PMC, the Pune commissioner and the CM should be prosecuted for abuse of power. He cited the Supreme Court judgement on Satish Sharma’s case where the minister had been found guilty of misusing office in granting petrol pumps to relatives.

He also urged that the owner Murudkar be returned the compensation he gave the PMC, and the land acquired in Lohagaon and Mundhwa for the transfer of reservations be returned to their owners. He urged that the PMC that had, after Vyas’ arrival on the scene, withdrawn an appeal against a Pune Civil Court order striking down its acquisition of the land, should pursue the appeal.

However, the counsel for petitioner Nitin Jagtap, a PMC corporator, sought that the land be returned to the corporation. “If the land were to be returned to the owner, the PMC would have to re-acquire it, at market rates of perhaps 2000 or 2001,” said counsel D S Bhonde. When reminded by Justice Srikrishna that the PMC had got Rs 25 lakh from the owner, he replied that “but then the PMC will be getting land worth Rs six crore”.

Both the petitioners today disclaimed that there was a deliberate delay on their part to file a petition. Counsels for the respondents, like Girish Vyas and the state had claimed that the public interest petitioners had on purpose come to the courts eight months after the buildings had come up. Today, Bobde told the court that if the Pune municipal general body was not allowed knowledge about the illegal construction, it would be difficult for a common citizen to know about the illegality of a building. Bhonde told the court, how even his client, Nitin Jagtap, despite being a corporator was told by the PMC that the correspondences between Vyas, the state and the PMC was a “private matter” and could not be presented to him.

“We came to court only after reading the matter in the newspapers,” said Bobde and added even after coming to court the PMC and the state refused to give them the files saying they would present it to the court itself.

Bhonde on his part urged that the court especially “rap” the then Pune commissioner, Ramanand Jha, saying that ministers could not execute such actions were it not for such “obliging bureaucrats”.

“He could have, when the Minister of State, Ravindra Mane told him to explore compromises’ on the issue, placed the papers before the corporation. At that time, there were no orders not to do so,” he said and asked if these were indeed the signs of an honest official.

While the hearings on the matter was to have concluded today, the bench will be hearing counsel for the tenants V Tulzapurkar once again on Wednesday answering Bobde’s contentions that a development plan gains precedence on a town planning scheme or vice versa.