THE BOMBAY HIGH Court ruling on the quantum of land available to textile mills in Mumbai for commercial development is a clear victory for environmental action groups that had spearheaded the legal challenge. The court has taken the view that a correct interpretation of regulations on the commercial development of the textile mill land would require that the mills surrender a portion of the land already built up should the structure be demolished as part of a larger development plan. The mills had contended that the obligation to surrender land for public purposes (creating recreational facilities and low-cost housing) should be restricted to only the vacant portions which they want to exploit commercially.

At the core of the dispute is the nature of land ownership by textile mills. Is the right on the land, located in the heart of Mumbai, restricted to the economic benefits of operating a textile business, as the environmentalists seem to argue and is also reflected in the development control regulations of the Maharashtra Government? Or, is it, as the mill owners contend, an unfettered one, that can be exploited as they deem fit? The State could have made this clear by declaring unambiguously the public policy on the question. But, unfortunately, it chose to be ambivalent. It is in the nature of the political discourse that the state should be seen as opposed to granting any unrestricted property rights (on mill land, in the instant case) but not be averse to the grant of such privileges on the sly with quid pro quo built in for those exercising that judgement. Thus, though the structure of the textile business itself has changed radically, rendering the composite Mumbai mills unviable, a facade of their rehabilitation and modernisation as the essential purpose was kept up because that was seen as being politically correct. It was embellished with such stipulations as reserving space for public use or making land available for low-cost housing. But it would seem there was little conviction behind a policy that essentially favoured public purpose as opposed to private profit. In the instant case, the litigation revolved around the meaning of the word `vacant land' available for redistribution in the amended regulation. If the earlier provision did not provide enough incentive to mill owners to restructure businesses, save jobs and still leave some surplus for other stakeholders, the Government merely had to reconfigure the distribution ratio. Instead, it chose to amend the regulation, and ended up opening up new cans of legal worms.

The High Court has given its interpretation on the quantum of land that should be made available for public purpose, but refrained from pronouncing as void the contracts for the sale of the mill land. It has confined itself to saying that they are not in conformity with the BIFR scheme and the Supreme Court orders on that. It is now up to the Government and industry. They can even now salvage the situation, the former by tweaking the legislation to remove any room for doubt and the latter by reconfiguring the development schemes in the light of official policy.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line