MUMBAI: In a worrying trend in Mumbai, the Bombay high court has observed, builders prop up former land owners to reclaim vacant lands which actually vest in the state and waste courts' precious time which could be better utilized for genuine litigants. "All this because even one square feet of land is extremely valuable in a city like Mumbai and commands a huge price in the market'' said a HC bench recently. The HC dismissed one such plea and protected a 2007 acquisition by the state of a prime 50,000 sq m plot in Versova.

The land grab battles are financed by builders and are usually filed to try and exploit, with direct or indirect help of state officials, the repeal of an antiquated 1976 law that had set a ceiling on private ownership of land, observed the HC. In most cases, the former owners have accepted that the land no longer vests with them. Under the old law, in Mumbai, privately owned land over 500 sq metre was treated as surplus vacant land.

The high-stake land battle had former finance minister P Chidambaram as senior counsel appearing for the petitioners against the state which was represented by senior counsel Pravin Samdani and the civic body for whom Anil Sakhare appeared and opposed the petition. The land itself is connected to the family of former RBI governor Jehangir Patel. The Urban Land Ceiling law was repealed in the state from November 29, 2007. The land in Andheri lay vested with the state in July 2007 following procedures under law. The land owners and those who held the surplus vacant land never challenged physical possession of these lands with the state then.

But in 2009, they raised a challenge which the HC decided against them earlier this month.

Chidambaram's plea was that the law allows land not already in the state's possession to be restored to its private owners. But Samdani and Sakhare brought out decades of records to show that the land lay vested with the state prior to the repeal and hence the acquisition process was complete and cannot be interfered with now.

"Builders and developers, and particularly those amongst them who have no right in law, raise a challenge on the strength of irrevocable power of attorneys from the erstwhile owners,'' said the HC. "They put forward pleas which the owners never raised. Such litigants are encouraged sometimes by inaction of State officials in maintaining and preserving proper records and sometimes the state machinery deliberately assists them by keeping back crucial documents. Whatever may be the cause, this court's precious time is wasted in not only scrutinising the the original records, but in considering prolonged arguments,'' said the court in a 150-page order. The Supreme Court on May 12 refused to interfere with the HC order.