Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Background
A plot of land in Pune, originally bought by the spiritual founders of the Hari Krishna Mandir, was later sub-divided under a town planning scheme, and an internal private road within it ended up being wrongly recorded in official Town Planning records as owned by the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), even though the PMC itself, in multiple letters, admitted it had never acquired or taken possession of that road. The Trust asked the State Government to correct this error under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The State refused, and the Bombay High Court upheld the refusal, reasoning that the land had already "vested" in the State under Section 88 of the Act.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Section 88 only vests land in a planning authority when land is actually acquired for the scheme, and here it was undisputed, including by the PMC's own admissions, that this private road was never acquired or paid for. The High Court had wrongly read Section 88 in isolation from the Act's other provisions on compulsory acquisition (Sections 125-129) and owner protections (Sections 65-66). Since correcting a factual/ownership error in the records is not the same as making a "substantial alteration" to a public road, the State had a clear duty to correct the record. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to delete the PMC's name as owner and restore the road's ownership per the 1972 Arbitrator's award, on the condition that the Trust guarantee continued access to neighbouring plot owners.
Lesson Learnt
Government records showing land as "government property" are not conclusive if the government's own documents and admissions show it was never actually acquired: citizens (or institutions) can compel correction of such errors, and courts will look past a technical reading of one provision in isolation when the full statutory scheme and the facts point the other way.