Open land under redevelopment rules includes demolished land; later clarification invalid, with environmental and disposal breaches noted.

The amended Development Control Regulation 58 was construed as a self-contained scheme for redevelopment of cotton textile mill lands, and "open lands" was held to include land that became vacant after demolition of existing structures. The 28 March 2003 clarification was treated as a substantive alteration of the computation of sharable area, not a mere clarification, and was therefore invalid for want of the prescribed statutory procedure. The Court also recorded that the redevelopment activities lacked the requisite environmental clearance and that NTC land disposals conflicted with Supreme Court orders and the sanctioned BIFR scheme, while the broader constitutional challenge was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended Development Control Regulation 58 permitted the expression "open lands" to include lands that became vacant upon demolition of existing structures; whether the clarification dated 28 March 2003 amounted to an impermissible amendment; whether the amended regulation and the clarification were consistent with Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and Articles 21 and 48A of the Constitution of India; and whether the ongoing constructions and mill land sales were in breach of the environmental clearance regime and the Supreme Court orders.

Analysis: The amended regulation was read as a complete scheme for development and redevelopment of cotton textile mill lands. The phrase "open lands" in Regulation 58(1)(b) was held to bear its natural meaning and to include land that became open after demolition of structures, especially because the earlier text had separately referred to "lands after demolition of existing structures" and that phrase had been deleted in the amended form. The clarification dated 28 March 2003 was treated as a substantive departure from the amended regulation and not a mere clarification, because it altered the basis on which the sharable area was to be computed. On the planning and constitutional challenge, the Court held that the regulation had to be tested in the context of sustainable development, public open spaces, public housing and environmental protection, and that the public interest dimensions of town planning could not be ignored. On the environmental issue, the Court found that the development activities had proceeded without the requisite environmental clearance under the applicable notification. The Court also held that the NTC land sales were contrary to the Supreme Court orders and the sanctioned BIFR scheme.

Conclusion: The amended Regulation 58(1)(b) was construed against the respondents, the clarification dated 28 March 2003 was held invalid, the environmental clearance lapse was held against the developers, and the NTC sales were held impermissible.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the Court settled the interpretation of amended Regulation 58 in the petitioners' favour on the central open-land issue, invalidated the 28 March 2003 clarification, and recorded violations in relation to environmental compliance and NTC disposals, while leaving the broader constitutional challenge open.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a planning regulation is framed to regulate redevelopment of land in a manner that serves environmental and urban-planning objectives, the text must be construed as a self-contained scheme according to its natural meaning and in harmony with sustainable development; a purported clarification that substantively alters the basis of computation operates as an amendment and cannot stand without compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure.

---