2022 Supreme(SC) 874

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Dr. Abraham Patani of Mumbai & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5929 of 2022 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13754 of 2022]
Decided On : 02-09-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – Under no circumstances should rights of individual citizens be trodden upon arbitrarily and any curtailment of them must be scrutinized with utmost care – At the same time, in several situations, needs of many must outweigh that of few.
(2) When legislature knowingly allows two statutes to operate in same space, it is a reasonable presumption that legislative design would have been for both to remain operative without any overriding effect, save and except when a contrary intent is explicitly provided.
(3) Procedural rules must not be allowed to defeat basic purpose of a statute or hamper pursuit of justice unless violation of procedure would itself amount to grave injustice.

Headnote:

(A) Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 37 – Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Sections 91, 291 and 296 – Acquisition of land – Interaction between MRTP Act and MMC Act – Merely because both statutes are concerned with land acquisition, may not necessarily result in conflict between them – Powers under MMC Act remain intact even in cases where they cover a subject that is also provided for in MRTP Act – Construction of link road in present case does not, in any way, frustrate DP or defeat overall objective of statute – Motivation for building connector is to alleviate traffic congestion in the area caused due to need for commuters to take a protracted detour around boundaries of Appellants’ property – It is only in instances where a requirement of DP is being abrogated that a conflict arises – Merely because a right to object to a modification of a DP exists under Section 37 of MRTP Act does not automatically give it an ascendant position in hierarchy that Appellants seek to create between MRTP Act and MMC Act – It is up to Legislature to determine amount of discretion that is accorded to relevant authorities under each statute. (Paras 24, 37, 47 and 100)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rule of Harmonious Construction – Provisions of one statute should not be construed or interpreted in a manner that they render redundant provisions in another statute – Court’s endeavour shall always be to harmoniously construct such provisions so that legislative intent underlying both statutes can be fulfilled – When legislature knowingly allows two statutes to operate in same space, it is a reasonable presumption that legislative design would have been for both to remain operative without any overriding effect, save and except when a contrary intent is explicitly provided – Court shall steer two statutes away from direct collision with each other, even if their areas of operation are broadly similar. (Paras 26 and 29)

(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 5A – Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 – Section 91 – Acquisition of land – Hearing of objection – Appellants appear to have been given sufficient opportunity to be heard and for their objections to be considered – However, Appellants remained preoccupied with attempting to halt acquisition proceedings on the ground that matter was subjudice before High Court and no further steps under LAA could be taken – After scrutinizing legal situation, SLAO dismissed their objections and continued to perform various steps under LAA – There was no stay granted during this time and Appellants’ contempt petition had been dismissed – Appellants seemingly did not submit any documentation in support of their claim of title and neither did they seek quantification of compensation they may have been entitled to under LAA – They cannot now claim that there was no opportunity given to them to voice their concerns with regard to acquisition process – Notion of public interest will necessarily reflect specificities of situation at hand – In present case, public interest which has been emphasized upon by Respondents is urgent need for creation of a connecting road through Appellants’ property – Procedure contemplated under Section 91 of MMC Act to commence proceedings under LAA for procuring land was substantially complied with – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 56, 57, 78, 95, 101 and 103)

(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition of land – Public Interest versus Private Interest – In a democratic society governed by rule of law, rights of an individual carry immense importance and are foundational blocks on which our legal, social, and political milieu thrives – Under no circumstances should rights of individual citizens be trodden upon arbitrarily and any curtailment of them must be scrutinized with utmost care – At the same time, in several situations, needs of many must outweigh that of few – When public interest is so clearly articulated and is an urgent and pressing exigency, private interests must give way to extent required. (Paras 90, 91 and 96)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from the judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by Bombay High Court dismissing the Appellants’ Writ Petition in which they had sought to quash a series of resolutions passed by Respondent No. 2, as well as notifications and a final award of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued by Respondent Nos. 10 & 11, which cumulatively resulted in acquisition of parts of the Appellants’ property for construction of a new road. Genesis and course of the present dispute spans several decades and includes one prior round of litigation before this Court. The crux of the matter arises from the opposition by Appellants to construction of a road through their property by Respondent No. 2, Municipal Corporation of Mumbai. The property in question was acquired by the Appellants in 1959, and a building known as “INGA Building” was constructed on it in 1965.

Primary issue that emerges from the arguments raised by parties is with regard to the interaction between the MRTP Act and MMC Act.

Findings of Court:

The argument by the Appellants that the MRTP Act maintains supremacy over the MMC Act is not the correct position of law and the two statutes exist side-by-side with some degree of overlap. The powers under the MMC Act remain intact even in cases where they cover a subject that is also provided for in the MRTP Act.

Result : Appeal dismissed.