2026 INSC 551 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13092 –13093 OF 2025

K. RAHEJA CORP. PRIVATE LIMITED …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

& ORS. ETC. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13094 –13095 OF 2025

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 13096 –13097 OF 2025

J U D G M E N T

ALOK ARADHE, J.

(I) INTRODUCTION

1. These Civil Appeals have been filed by the M/s. K. Raheja Corp.

Private Limited (‘the Developer’), the Employees of Shopping

Mall, Hotel, the Developer and the Retailers Association of

India, challenging the common judgment and order dated

20.11.2014 and 21.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 131 of 2003

2

and PIL No. 48 of 2004. The central question before this Court

is not merely one of the legality of the original allotment which

was undoubtedly irregular but whether, in light of the profound

and irreversible economic and social consequences that have

since crystallised over two decades, the public interest is better

served by demolition or by a rigorously supervised

regularisation coupled with full financial restitution to the

public authority.

(II) FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. In the late 1960s, the Government of Maharashtra took a policy

decision to develop Navi Mumbai as a planned twin city to the

metropolis of Mumbai, with the primary objective of

decongesting the city and providing a modern, self-sustaining

urban centre. The City and Industrial Development Corporation

Limited ('CIDCO'), a Government Company incorporated under

Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, was appointed as the

New Town Development Authority for the designated area in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 113(3A)(1) of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ('MRTP

Act'). For this purpose, lands across 96 villages in the Thane

and Raigad Districts were acquired en bloc and placed at the

3

disposal of CIDCO for the systematic, planned development of

the new city.

3. Sector 30A at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, was specifically earmarked

for the promotion and development of Information Technology

industries and designated as the International Infotech Park ('IT

Park'). The total area so earmarked measured 57,180 sq.

metres, out of which CIDCO allotted 31,232 sq. metres to the

various IT companies. However, by the early 2000s, the global

IT sector witnessed a significant and prolonged downturn.

Taking cognizance of this changed economic reality, the Board

of Directors of CIDCO, by a Resolution dated 30.04.2003,

approved the conversion of 22,337 sq. metres within Sector 30A

for residential, commercial, and office use.

4. On 20.08.2003, the Developer submitted an application to

CIDCO for allotment of land in the aforesaid sector. The Board

of Directors of CIDCO, in its meeting held on 17.09.2003,

approved the allotment of plots measuring 29,000 sq. metres

bearing plot nos. 39/1 and 39/6 to 39/15 including a plot of

3,611 sq. metres ('the subject plot') in Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi

Mumbai in favour of the Developer, which had originally been

reserved for the IT use. The allotment was made with a Floor

4

Space Index ('FSI') of 3.0, at the rate of Rs. 10,250/- per sq.

metre, in anticipation of formal Government approval, and was

conditioned upon the Developer developing a garden at its own

cost on the adjoining Plot No. 40.

5. Pursuant to the said Resolution, a formal Letter of Allotment

dated 08.10.2003 was issued in respect of the subject plot, and

a Lease Agreement was executed between the CIDCO and the

Developer on 16.12.2003. The allotment was challenged by way

of two Public Interest Litigations, being PIL No. 131 of 2003 and

PIL No. 48 of 2004 filed before the High Court, seeking

cancellation of the allotment. A Division Bench issued a status

quo order on 17.12.2003, which was vacated on 23.04.2004

with the clarification that the allotment would be subject to the

final outcome of the PILs.

(III) THE SANKARAN COMMITTEE INQUIRY

6. The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, by a note

dated 01.01.2005, directed Dr. D.K. Sankaran, Additional Chief

Secretary, to conduct a discreet inquiry into the affairs of

CIDCO during the tenure of Mr. V.M. Lal as Vice Chairman and

Managing Director from 26.05.2003 to 28.12.2004. The

5

Sankaran Committee, after examining CIDCO's land pricing

and disposal policy alongside the relevant factual record,

submitted its report dated 31.03.2005.

7. The Sankaran Committee classified the allotments it reviewed

into three categories: (i) cases involving serious irregularities;

(ii) doubtful cases of allotment; and (iii) cases that appeared

reasonable. With respect to the subject plot, the Committee

recorded the following findings:

(a) The subject plot ought to have been disposed of

through competitive tender in accordance with

CIDCO's prevailing land disposal policy.

(b) Based on the assessment of CIDCO's Chief

Economist, the market value of a residential-cum-

commercial plot in September 2002 was Rs.

20,791/- per sq. metre, whereas the subject plot was

allotted to the Developer at the substantially lower

rate of Rs. 10,250/- per sq. metre without any

competitive process resulting in a financial loss of

approximately Rs. 50 crores to CIDCO.

(c) The Committee recommended cancellation of the

allotment and its disposal by public tender, along

6

with strong action against the officers responsible for

the irregular allotment.

7.1 The Committee found that CIDCO had made 61 allotments in

violation of its regulations, causing an aggregate estimated loss

of Rs. 347 crores. It recommended either cancellation of all such

allotments or, where cancellation was impracticable, recovery

of the difference between the allotment price and the prevailing

market rate.

IV. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS AND THE BANTHIA

COMMITTEE

8. The Board of Directors of CIDCO, in its Resolution dated

06.06.2005, resolved upon the implementation of the Sankaran

Committee's findings. Given that building permission had

already been granted and construction was already underway

on the subject plot, the Board resolved to issue a show cause

notice to the Developer and to take steps to recover the financial

loss. In compliance with a direction issued on 14.08.2008, the

Developer furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 50 crores on

02.09.2008.

9. The Developer completed the development of the subject plot

comprising a Shopping Mall and a Hotel with a built-up area of

7

approximately 10,50,000 sq. feet at an investment of Rs.450

crores (Rupees Four Hundred Fifty Crores only). An Occupancy

Certificate was issued by the Navi Mumbai Municipal

Corporation on 16.09.2008, and the Mall and Hotel have been

in continuous commercial operation since 2009.

10. By its impugned common judgment and order dated

20.11.2014 and 21.11.2014, the High Court held the allotment

of the subject plot to be completely illegal and arbitrary, in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and directed

the Developer to restore the subject plot to its original condition

and hand over vacant possession to CIDCO within six months.

However, recognizing the complexity of the situation, the High

Court also kept open the question of regularisation, granting

the Developer liberty to make an appropriate application in that

regard. The PIL petitioners did not challenge the liberty so

granted, and the regularisation policy of CIDCO itself was never

called into question.

11. An order dated 01.12.2014 was passed directing the Developer

to discontinue the unauthorised use of plot no.39/16 and to

hand over the vacant possession of the plot. The Deverloper

approached the High Court by filing a writ petition namely W.P.

8

No. 368 of 2015 in which the High Court by an order dated

16.01.2015 has directed the parties to maintain status quo. The

said writ petition is still pending.

12. Being aggrieved by the impugned common judgment and order

dated 20.11.2014 and 21.11.2014, the Developer, the

Employees of the shopping mall and hotel, and the Retailers

Association of India comprising 131 retailers approached this

Court by filing Special Leave Petitions. This Court, by an order

dated 22.01.2015 directed the parties to maintain status quo.

13. During the pendency of these appeals, the Developer filed an

application for regularisation in April 2015. The Government of

Maharashtra, by an order dated 27.07.2015, constituted a one-

man committee comprising Mr. J.K. Banthia, former Chief

Secretary, Government of Maharashtra ('Banthia Committee'),

to examine the feasibility and terms of regularisation of the

allotment of the subject plot. The Banthia Committee, in its

report dated 20.07.2017, took a pragmatic and governance -

oriented approach. It observed that once the allotment had been

judicially held to be illegal, the original concessional valuation

mechanism became irrelevant and that regulari sation, if

ordered, must be prospective in nature and based on the

9

market value as on the date of the High Court's judgment, i.e.,

November 2014. The Committee identified three alternatives for

regularisation:

(a) The Developer pays two-thirds of the fair market

value and CIDCO absorbs one-third.

(b) The Developer pays three-fourths of the fair market

value and CIDCO absorbs one-fourth.

(c) The Developer pays the full fair market value.

The Banthia Committee ultimately recommended that, given

the scale of irreversible investment and the magnitude of public

and economic interest involved, the Government consider a

heavily penalised regularisation under which the Developer

would be required to pay the full fair market value as of

approximately 2014.

14. The Government of Maharashtra thereafter sought the opinion

of the Advocate General of Maharashtra, who, by his opinion

dated 15.03.2019, recommended that the regulari sation be

decided on terms consistent with the manner in which other

similarly situated allottees had been regularised under the

10

CIDCO policy dated 06.06.2005, with due credit for the bank

guarantee of Rs. 50 crores already furnished by the Developer.

15. By communication dated 04.06.2019, the Government of

Maharashtra directed the Board of Directors of CIDCO to take

an independent decision on regularisation, subject to the

outcome of these appeals. This Court, by an interim order dated

27.10.2025, similarly directed CIDCO to consider the

Developer's regularisation application on its own merits and to

file its decision by way of an affidavit within eight weeks.

16. In compliance with the aforesaid direction, CIDCO filed an

affidavit on 09.03.2026 along with a copy of the Resolution

dated 04.02.2026 passed by its Board of Directors, approving

the regularisation of the subject plot subject to the following

conditions:

(i) Payment of Rs. 50 crores towards differential

premium as quantified in the Sankaran Committee

Report.

(ii) Payment of Rs. 1 crore representing the discount

factored in lieu of the development of the Japanese

Garden.

11

(iii) Payment of interest on the aforesaid sum from

16.12.2003 till the date of actual payment at the

prevailing CIDCO rate of interest, along with

applicable GST.

On the basis of the aforesaid formula, the total amount payable

by the Developer was computed at Rs. 257.87 crores (Rupees

Two Hundred Fifty-Seven Crores Eighty-Seven Lakhs only).

17. The Developer filed an Interlocutory Application, namely I.A. No.

104795 of 2026 stating that it is ready and willing to make

payment of the amount determined by the CIDCO in its

Resolution dated 04.02.2026 and the Civil Appeals be disposed

of in terms of the aforesaid Resolution approving the

regularisation of allotment of the subject plot. The PIL

petitioners have filed affidavits on 16.03.2026 and 07.04.2026

opposing the regularisation of the subject plot.

(V) SUBMISSIONS

18. Learned Senior Counsel for the Developer submitted that the

Regulation 4 of the New Bombay Disposal of the Lands

Regulations, 1975 expressly permits CIDCO to dispose of plots

either by public auction, by tender, or by considering individual

applications as the Corporation may, from time to time,

12

determine. It was contended that previous attempts to auction

the subject plot had failed and the allotment on an individual

application was, therefore, permissible under the extant

regulations and could not be characterised as per se illegal. It

was further urged that neither the regularisation policy of the

CIDCO nor the liberty granted by the High Court to the

Developer to apply for regularisation has ever been challenged

by the PIL petitioners. The Developer expressed its willingness

to pay Rs. 257.87 crores in terms of CIDCO's Resolution dated

04.02.2026 and prayed that the appeals be disposed of

accordingly.

19. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, on the other

hand, contended that the Developer had encroached upon Plot

No. 39/16, which was never the subject of any allotment, and

is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of regularisation. It was

urged that the Sankaran Committee had positively

recommended the cancellation of the allotment. It was also

pointed out that the Developer had failed to develop the

Japanese Garden on Plot No. 40 as required by the conditions

of the allotment. In the alternative, learned senior counsel

submitted that the PIL petitioners would be satisfied if the

13

Developer were directed to pay the amount equivalent to the fair

market value prevailing in the year 2014, in accordance with

the recommendations of the Banthia Committee.

(VI) ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A. The High Court's Order: Scope of Challenge

20. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and

perused the entire record. Before embarking upon an analysis

of the substantive issues, it is necessary to note the precise

scope and effect of the impugned common judgment and order.

Even though the High Court found the allotment to be

completely illegal and arbitrary, it conspicuously refrained from

quashing it. The High Court simultaneously granted the

Developer liberty to apply for regularisation and expressly kept

open the question of whether CIDCO is entitled to regularise the

allotment and whether the Developer is entitled to such

regularisation. Crucially, neither the order granting this liberty

nor the regularisation policy of the CIDCO has been challenged

by the PIL petitioners before this Court. The foundation for the

regularisation, therefore, rests on undisturbed legal ground.

21. It is further relevant to note that the Regulation 4 of the New

Bombay Disposal of Lands Regulations, 1975 permits disposal

14

of the CIDCO plots not only by auction or tender, but also by

considering the individual applications, as the CIDCO may from

time to time determine. In circumstances where earlier tender

attempts had failed, the allotment on an individual application

was not per se illegal. The infirmity lay in the pricing

mechanism and the absence of transparent competitive

process, not in the mode of the allotment itself.

(B) Why Demolition Cannot Be the Answer: The Doctrine

of Proportionality and Irreversibility

22. The primary question before this Court is whether the direction

of the High Court to restore the subject plot to its original

condition which would necessarily entail the demolition of a

fully operational shopping mall and a hotel can be sustained.

In our considered opinion, it cannot, and we record our detailed

reasons therefor.

23. A Court must weigh not only the wrong that has been

committed but also the reality as it now stands. The doctrine of

proportionality, deeply embedded in constitutional

jurisprudence, demands that the severity of a remedial measure

must bear a rational and proportionate relationship to the

nature and magnitude of the wrong sought to be remedied. A

15

remedy that causes public harm disproportionate to the public

benefit it achieves is not a remedy that law ought to

countenance.

24. The passage of time and the accretion of economic and social

reality have rendered demolition not merely impractical but

demonstrably contrary to the public interest that the PIL

petitioners themselves invoke which is evident from the

following:-

(a) An investment of Rs. 450 crores was made by the

Developer in the construction of the mall and hotel,

a sum that cannot, under any legal order, be

recovered or restored.

(b) The occupancy certificate was issued by the Navi

Mumbai Municipal Corporation on 16.09.2008 and

the complex has been in continuous commercial

operation for over seventeen years, since 2009.

(c) Approximately 150 retailers operate within the

shopping mall, and around 8,000 individuals draw

their livelihood directly from the employment

generated by the complex.

16

(d) Irreversible third-party rights of retailers, hotel

operators, employees, and consumers have

crystallised over the course of seventeen years of

commercial operation.

25. The Banthia Committee, constituted by the State Government

itself, captured the essential dilemma with clarity and candour:

the need to enforce the rule of law and penalise unlawful

conduct must be balanced against the imperative of avoiding

disproportionate and destructive economic consequences. The

Committee rightly emphasised that the test, in a case such as

this, is not whether the original conduct was blameworthy but

whether the public interest is best served by a remedy that

erases the past or one that exacts a full price for the wrong while

preserving the economic and social good that has accrued in

the interregnum.

26. The answer to that question is, in our view, unambiguous.

Demolition of a fully operational commercial complex after

seventeen years, Rs. 450 crores of investment, 8,000

livelihoods, and Rs. 100 crores of annual tax revenue would not

vindicate the public interest. The financial prejudice caused to

CIDCO by the irregularity of the original allotment is entirely

17

capable of being remedied through a rigorous financial recovery

mechanism. The social and economic harm caused by

demolition, by contrast, would be catastrophic and irreparable.

Public law must be sensitive to the distinction between

remedies that restore public welfare and remedies that merely

punish, when punishment comes at the cost of the very public

the law seeks to protect.

27. An adjudication, as we have observed, cannot occur in a

vacuum divorced from subsequent reality. This case requires

that CIDCO be fully and fairly compensated for the financial

loss it suffered, that the Developer be penalised in proportion to

its wrongdoing, and that the livelihoods and economic activity

of thousands of innocent third parties be protected. A

regularisation conditioned upon payment of full market value

as of 2014 achieves all three objectives. Demolition achieves

none.

28. We are, accordingly, unable to concur with the direction of the

High Court to restore the subject plot to its original condition

and hand over vacant possession to the CIDCO.

18

(C) The Question of Regulari sation and the Quantum

Payable

29. Having concluded that the regularisation is the appropriate

remedy, we now address the terms upon which such

regularisation shall be granted, and specifically the question of

the quantum of the amount payable by the Developer.

30. The Developer has urged that it should be treated at parity with

other allottees whose cases were covered by the Sankaran

Committee Report and who were regularised under the CIDCO

policy dated 06.06.2005. We are unable to accept this

contention. The Developer is a large commercial enterprise of

considerable financial capacity that developed a major

commercial complex of 10,50,000 sq. feet. The other allottees

with whom parity is sought principally Multi Co -operative

Housing Societies and individual allottees occupy an entirely

different position in terms of scale, commercial purpose, and

financial capacity. The principle of equality under Article 14 of

the Constitution does not require that unequals be treated as

equals. The parity of treatment is warranted only among those

who are similarly situated in all material respects. The

Developer plainly is not.

19

31. Turning to the methodology for computing the amount payable,

two committee reports are before us: the Sankaran Committee

Report and the Banthia Committee Report. The CIDCO

Resolution dated 04.02.2026 adopts the Sankaran Committee's

methodology, computing the recoverable amount as interest on

Rs. 50 crores differential loss quantified in 2005, accrued from

16.12.2003 to the date of payment. This produces a total

liability of Rs. 262.87 Crores. The Developer has expressed its

willingness to pay the aforesaid amount as quantified in the

resolution dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Board of Directors

of CIDCO.

32. The Banthia Committee examined the matter from the

perspective of practical governance and overarching public

interest. From the opinion rendered by the Advocate General, it

is evident that the principle of parity was invoked to recommend

acceptance of the Sankaran Committee Report. However, as

already observed hereinabove, the principle of parity has no

application in the peculiar factual matrix of the present case. A

careful scrutiny of the Resolution dated 04.02.2026 passed by

the CIDCO reveals that no cogent reasons have been assigned

for discarding the methodology for recovery of loss adopted by

20

the Banthia Committee. The CIDCO has also failed to justify as

to why the recommendations of the Sankaran Committee were

accepted in preference to those of the Banthia Committee.

33. We, therefore, are not persuaded that the Sankaran Committee

methodology is the appropriate basis for computing the

regularisation amount in the present circumstances. The

Sankaran Committee conducted its inquiry in 2005 and

quantified the loss based on then-prevailing market conditions.

It did not, and could not, account for the dramatic appreciation

in land values that occurred over the subsequent decade. More

fundamentally, the Sankaran Committee's mandate was to

assess and recommend cancellation or recovery , it was not

designed to determine the regularisation price of an already

developed and fully operational commercial complex nearly two

decades later. To apply its 2005 valuation as the baseline for a

subsequent regularisation is to allow the Developer to benefit

from a valuation frozen at a point when land values were far

lower, thereby substantially understating the true cost of

regularisation. The CIDCO Resolution does not assign any

cogent reason for rejecting the Banthia Committee's

methodology, and we are unable to discern one.

21

34. The Banthia Committee, on the other hand, approached the

question while taking into account both the legal and economic

dimensions. Its central insight was as follows: once the

allotment has been judicially declared illegal, the original

concessional price paid by the Developer becomes entirely

irrelevant as a baseline. Regularisation is not a continuation of

the original transaction; it is a fresh grant of legal legitimacy,

prospective in nature, for which the Developer must pay what

the land was actually worth at the time of the court's judgment.

The Committee correctly identified November 2014, the date of

the High Court's judgment as the appropriate reference date for

market valuation. This approach is sound both in principle and

in policy:

(a) It prevents the Developer from benefiting from a

valuation frozen at the point of its irregular allotment

over two decades ago.

(b) It ensures that CIDCO receives the full economic

value of what it is effectively re-granting through

regularisation.

(c) It imposes a genuinely punitive financial

consequence on the Developer, proportionate to the

22

scale of its commercial enterprise and the degree of

its irregular conduct.

(d) It is consistent with the principle, well-established in

public law, that an entity seeking to regularise an

illegal act must bear the full cost of legality, not a

discounted historical price.

35. However, upon perusal of the Banthia Committee Report, we

find that the market value of the subject plot as on the year

2014 has not been specifically disclosed. We, accordingly,

queried learned senior counsel appearing for the Developer

regarding the ready reckoner rates applicable to Sector 30A,

Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Pursuant thereto, the ready reckoner

rates applicable at the relevant time were placed before us,

which disclose that the prevailing rate was Rs.54,400/- per

square metre. This figure represents the objective, State-

published benchmark of market value and constitutes the

appropriate basis for computing the regularisation amount.

36. We are, accordingly, of the opinion that the Banthia

Committee's recommendation requiring the Developer to pay

the fair market value of the subject plot as of approximately

2014 represents the correct, just, and proportionate basis for

23

regularisation. The Developer must make payment at the ready

reckoner rate of Rs. 54,400/- per sq. metre applicable to Sector

30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, as the consideration for

regularisation of the subject plot.

37. The Developer was allotted the subject plot measuring 30,582

sq. metres. As per the ready reckoner rate of Rs.54,400/- per

sq. metre applicable to Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, the

market value of the subject plot for the year 2014 works out to

Rs.1,66,36,60,800/- (Rupees One Hundred Sixty-Six Crores

Thirty-Six Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred only). On

the aforesaid amount, the Developer is liable to pay interest at

the rate of 8% (eight per cent) from 01.12.2014 till 30.04.2026.

The amount of interest is quantified at Rs.1,51,94,76,864/-

(Rupees One Hundred Fifty-One Crores Ninety-Four Lakhs and

Seventy-Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Four only). Thus,

in terms of the ready reckoner rate for the year, 2014, the

Developer is liable to pay an aggregate amount of

Rs.3,18,31,37,664/- (Rupees Three Hundred Eighteen Crores

Thirty-One Lakhs and Thirty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred

Sixty-Four only) inclusive of the principal amount interest

thereon. It is pertinent to note that the Developer has already

24

expressed willingness to pay the amount in terms of the

Resolution dated 04.02.2026 passed by the Board of Directors

of CIDCO, which is based on the recommendations of the

Sankaran Committee. The amount indicated in the aforesaid

Resolution is Rs.262.87/- crores (Rupees Two Hundred Sixty-

Two Crores and Eighty-Seven Lakhs only), which the Developer

is ready and willing to pay. The Developer had paid the amount

towards market value of the subject plot at the rate of Rs.10,250

per sq. metre. In view of our conclusion that the Developer is

liable to pay the market value of the subject plot for the year,

2014 as recommended by the Banthia Committee, that is at the

rate of Rs.54,400 per sq. metre. Thus, the Developer is further

liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.55,44,37,664/- (Rupees

Fifty-Five Crores Forty-Four Lakhs Thirty-Seven Thousand Six

Hundred Sixty-Four only), which is in public interest.

VII. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS

38. In view of the foregoing analysis, we issue the following

directions:

(i) The Developer shall pay a sum of

Rs.3,18,31,37,664/- (Rupees Three Hundred

25

Eighteen Crores and Thirty-One Lakhs Thirty-Seven

Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Four only) for the

entire area of the subject plot, being the fair market

value as established by the ready reckoner rates

applicable to Sector 30A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, as of

November 2014.

(ii) The amount already paid by the Developer towards

the purchase price of the subject plot at the rate of

Rs.10,250/- per sq. metre shall be duly adjusted and

deducted from the total amount payable.

(iii) The Developer shall additionally pay a sum of Rs. 1

crore in lieu of the obligation to develop a garden on

Plot No. 40, which remained unfulfilled.

(iv) Subject to the payment of the aforesaid amount

within a period of four months from the date of this

judgment, the allotment of the subject plot in favour

of the Developer shall stand regularised.

(v) Needless to state that the dispute with regard to plot

No. 39/16 which is the subject matter of W.P. No.

368 of 2015 shall be decided by the High Court on

its own merits.

26

(VIII) CONCLUSION

39. For the reasons set out above, the impugned common judgment

and order dated 20.11.2014 and 21.11.2014 passed by the

High Court in PIL No. 131 of 2003 and PIL No. 48 of 2004 in so

far as it pertains to restoration of the subject plot to its original

condition and delivery of vacant possession to CIDCO, is hereby

quashed and set aside. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned

common judgment and order is modified.

40. The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no

order as to costs.

……………………………………………….J.

[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

……………………………………………….J.

[ALOK ARADHE]

NEW DELHI

MAY 26, 2026