Mumbai: When, on Monday, the state cabinet allotted a 2,000 sq m plot of land at Bandra reclamation to India cricketer
Ajinkya Rahane to develop a cricket academy, TOI has learnt, the decision was taken after objections were raised by the state finance department, which said that court precedents made it clear that govt plots should be advertised before being allotted.
The Mhada plot, which was originally reserved for a convention centre, had been allotted to cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar in 1988 to develop an indoor cricket academy. However, he could not develop it, and the state terminated the agreement in 2022. On Monday, the cabinet decided to allot the plot to Rahane on a 30-year lease following a deposit of Rs 4.8 crore and lease rent. He has also been allowed to develop 15% of the FSI of the plot on 10% of the land.
In its response to the proposal placed before cabinet, the finance department said high court orders in 2011 and 2014 had said that govt-owned land should not be distributed without issuing a public advertisement. The order had also said allotting govt land to pre-fixed members or institutions or a person occupying a post just because they had made an application, cannot be considered appropriate.
The court orders had also said the method adopted for disposal of public properties must be transparent and provide a fair opportunity to all interested and eligible persons. In its response to the proposal, the finance department also said the allotment could act as a precedent for other corporations or institutions making the same demand. It also stated that the housing department, which gave the proposal, had not mentioned details of possible revenue loss to the state.
In response, the housing department clarified the allotment was made under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Disposal of Land) Regulations 1982 for allotment of its land for public purposes at a subsidised rate. This section allowed for allotment of Mhada land to educational institutions, hospitals, gymnasiums, playgrounds, institutions for the handicapped, and any govt-approved public purposes. The department also said court orders related to distribution of Mhada lands under other sections and wondered whether it could apply to the present case.